Sunday, September 20, 2009

AWT and Big Bang theory.

In AWT the relevance of Big Bang theory is closely related to the concept of "Observable universe" and the "edge of observable space-time", which depends (as everything in AWT) on duality between insintric and exsintric perspective. According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, the entire universe could be (at least) 1023 to 1026 times as large as the observable universe, which roughly correspond the speed of gravitational waves propagation through observable Universe.

From insintric perspective we can apply principle "Similia simillibus observatur" (only things of similar nature can interact mutually in observation) - so we can consider, Universe is composed of many different combinations of Aether states, whereas we are composed from limited number of such states, being only part of Universe. If the probability of occurrence of our particular combination of states decreases with distance, then the probability, we could interact with the rest of Universe decreases with distance as well. Therefore we can observe "edge of space", but we cannot reach it, because we would evaporate first in unfriendly ("hot") vacuum around it.

This is basically anthropocentric "black hole model" of Universe formation, which introduces evolutionary absolute reference frame: if we evolved in certain part of Universe, it's because, the conditions were relatively favorable for us here and if we would travel outside of from this pretty place, we can only face problems there. It's evident, every surface of matter, like hot star or black hole forms such natural boundary of observable Universe for us and it's even possible, matter in remote galaxies evolved into exotic forms of matter, which would annihilate (i.e. explode) less or more completely in direct contact with us.

Exsintric perspective of Universe is less real but more optimistic and it has no apparent boundary: the probability of our particular combination of states decreases, but the number of new combinations increases even faster with distance, so we can always find a some friendly combinations of states there. Until space-time is formed by "friendly combinations" of states, it means, we are observing free space, so we can travel through it without apparent limit and danger - but there's no certainty, we aren't just moving in circles during this, because concept of distance and free space is tautological here. From AWT follows, real appearance of Universe is a formed by nested foam mixture of insintric and exsintric perspective: there are many places, where we can finish in our travel prematurely (planets, stars and black holes) - but in general Universe appears as an empty free space due the Olbers paradox.

Olbers paradox is a consequence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which is behaving like subtle density fluctuations of space (i.e. gravitational waves) violating Lorentz and Poincaré symmetry, which results in gradual dispersion of light into hidden dimensions of space-time in analogy to spreading of splash ripples at the water surface. This analogy follows directly from concept of dense Aether of AWT, but it's not completely new, as it was proposed independently by James Clifford Cranwell between years 2001 and 2007. Mr. Cranvell's concept was bright, but it illustrates clearly, without active (self)promotion no idea has chance to become famous in fast expanding Internet space, if it has no immediate usage for sufficiently large group of people - no matter how brilliant it is. Unfortunately Mr. Cranvell didn't recognize the power of dense Aether concept as such and he turned his attention to derived concept of omni-directional expansion of space-time, which is apparently more abstract and it can be interpreted in dual way by AWT.



For observer of transversal waves at water surface the speed of ripples increases fast with distance (they change into gravitational waves), which can be interpreted from the perspective of this observer as an omni-directional expansion of space-time with distance. The same situation is relevant for observation of distant parts of our Universe via light waves.

At sufficient distance from observer wavelength of transversal waves ceases to zero, which can be interpreted by this observer as an initial singularity of Big Bang theory, or like surface (event horizon) of black hole (cosmic void), which observer occurs. From AWT follows, these models may be of certain relevance from perspective of numerical models - but they're all invariant to observer localtion. We can compare this situation to observation of landscape under haze - visibility scope will be limited by dispersion of light, but it will move accordingly to actual location of observer.

Because this effect is apparently nonlinear, we can explain dark energy phenomena in the same way. From outside we can see, these ripples get more dense gradually, until they disperse completely. The same effect appears at cosmological scale like slowing the speed of light in dense environment, surrounding every source of radiation, so it can be used for explanation of cold portion of dark matter and its connection to Hubble constant as well. Whereas from perspective of insintric observer, Universe appears like we would travel through density gradient, forming event horizon of black hole (some string theorists are talking about "throat of dark brane" in this connection).

From more general view of AWT this evolution is just an illusion, which follows from insintric observational perspective inside of fractal Aether foam, because we are connecting the observation of microscopic scale with the future of Universe expansion, the past with observation of vast cosmic space. Evolution of large objects is the more slow, the larger these objects are and Universe as a whole doesn't really evolve at general scale. The only question is, whether such general perspective is achievable for human creatures by experiments, i.e. by different way then just by pure human imagination.

Nevertheless, from AWT follows, Big Bang theory would suffer by fundamental problems in near future, which are of both of practical, both philosophical (ontological) nature. Observational problem with Big Bang is, we can observe well developed and separated galaxies in the Hubble ultra-deep field, when the Universe was just 2 - 3 billions of years old. And Milky Way galaxy is more then ten billions of years old, so that these ancient galaxies have not enough time to separate and develop. This conclusion was supported by recent observation of well developed galaxies (with very low speed of star formation) in ultradeep field of refurbished Hubble telescope in contrary to standard cosmological model based on Big Bang theory, in which star formation couldn't occur during dark era of universe formation.

Ontological problem of Big Bang theory is, it brings more questions, then answers - not saying about the problem of initial singularity. It can explain red shift, but it cannot explain dark energy. And it requires inflation, which appears like ad-hoced concept from contemporary perspective, although it can be interpreted as a phase transition of Aether easily and it can be reconciled with ekpyrotic cosmology in such way. But from general perspective it seems, all these models are just plural result of dispersive nature of Aether environment. The analogy of Universe evolution with stellar and galactic evolution is just apparent, because from very general and remote perspective Universe behaves like atemporal stuff (perceived mass/energy density of Aether increases ad infinitum).

83 comments:

Zephir said...

If we apply "Similia simillibus observatur" principle ad absurdum, whole Universe should appear like fractal bunch of neuron waves, i.e. the appearance of quantum particles should correspond solitons in brain in similar way, like whole Universe - which could serve as a rational basis of simulated reality tautology of Moravec, N. Bostrom and others..

"Similia simillibus observatur" principle is supported by Copernican principle, in which the Universe observed forms a typical sample of Universe in large scale.

Zephir said...

AWT model presented is consistent with recent Hawking's "top-down" cosmology, in which the past uniquely determines the present, simply because it's observed dependent. Because the universe has many possible histories and just as many possible beginnings, the present state of the universe selects the past.

"This means that the histories of the Universe depend on what is being measured" Hawking wrote in a recent paper, "contrary to the usual idea that the Universe has an objective, observer-independent history."

In my opinion, though, the most relevant description of Universe should connect both insintric, both exsintric perspective, which for example means, black hole model of Universe is relevant as well.

Zephir said...

Astronomers detected recently, the background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, was several times brighter than anyone was expecting. Distant galaxies early in the history of the universe must produce extra radio emission.

This is a significant observation, which could confirm dense aether model of vacuum. From AWT follows, the waves of wavelength smaller, then the wavelength of cosmic microwave background should disperse gradually, whereas the waves of longer wavelength should concentrate with distance.

The same phenomena occurs for ripples at water surface (note that even the wavelength of capillary waves, for which the dispersion is most suppressed is quite similar here)

http://www.josesandoval.com/images/waterRipples.jpg

In accordance with the above model we should experience red shift for visible light and blue shift for radio-waves.

Zephir said...

Farthest galaxies observed

"One might think that the clusters we find would look young as well. However in this cluster we found a number of surprisingly ancient-looking galaxies. This cluster resembles modern-day clusters, which are nearly 10 billion years older."

What's the logical conclusion?

Zephir said...

Recently another evidence of ancient galaxies older then our Universe was found.

Of course, the presence of such galaxies not only violates Big Bang hypothesis, but every periodic model of Universe formation too. Instead of it, our Universe would consist of randomly boiling mixture of galaxies, which are condensing from vacuum and disappear again like giant fluctuations of random gas. Some remnants of dwarf galaxies, which formed our Milky Way originally could be still older, then every model of inflation and Big Bang allows. Just the probability laws of statistics have caused, we are surrounded mostly by galaxies of the approximately of the same age.

Zephir said...

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

Zephir said...

The Infinite Universe vs the Myth of the Big Bang

http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology4.html

Zephir said...

A simple objection against Big Bang hypothesis is, it's simply overdetermined. We know, we cannot observe older parts of Universe, then the speed of light allows, right? So how can we know, Big Bang occurred just fourteen billion years ago? Isn't it too big coincidence, that Universe is just as old, as the speed of light allows? If it would be older or it would expand faster, we couldn't observe the Big Bang anyway.

Zephir said...


Hubble sees ancient galaxies rejuvenating themselves


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/19/hubble-sees-ancient-galaxies-rejuvenating-themselves/

Early Galaxies Formed Stars Fast Because They Had More Gas
(2010)
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/early-universe-star-birth/#ixzz0xBBLfa3s
It's not just about metalicity of stars, but about size of galactic clusters. In Standard cosmology model Universe has inflated into very homogeneous state, as homogeneity of
CMB field illustrates. Inside of such homogeneous Universe the formation of large galactic clusters is quite improbable.
Record-breaking ancient galaxy clusters (2003)
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic0313/

Why galaxy cluster is too grown-up for early Universe
(2004)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18124301.900-why-galaxy-cluster-is-too-grownup-for-early-universe.html

Galaxy Clusters Formed Early (2005)
http://www.naoj.org/Pressrelease/2005/02/16/index.html
Actually we shouldn't see any galaxies there - the matter should form homogeneous clouds at Hubble/Spitzer deep fields... The areas of large empty space between ancient galaxies
are as surprising, as the existence of these galaxies within existing LambdaCDM model.
Glimpse at Early Universe Reveals Surprisingly Mature Galaxies (2004)
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524
Spitzer and Hubble Team Up to Find "Big Baby" Galaxies in the Newborn Universe
(2005)
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2005/28/full

Zephir said...

Glimpse at Early Universe Reveals Surprisingly Mature Galaxies (2004)
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524
Astronomers Discover Ancient Galaxies Coming Together after Billions of Years
(2010)
http://www.science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2010-news/Charlton2-2010

Ancient galaxy cluster is shockingly modern

http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/ancient-galaxy-cluster-is-shockingly-modern/
(2010)

Actually we observed many distant galaxies, which are about 10 - 11 billion years old, but they contain a number of stars with high metalicity, I mean stars of 2nd or higher
generations. The average time for one stellar generation is about five billion years - which means, these galaxies are more then 15 billion years old.
Ancient galaxy cluster contains 'modern' galaxies
(2010)

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/05/12/ancient.galaxy.cluster.contains.modern.galaxies

Zephir said...

Big Bang theory based on CMB observation suffers with circular reasoning, because its validity is based on the observation CMB, too - i.e. in similar way, like epicycles theory of medieval era.

Zephir said...

The Big Bang cosmology is questioned more and more often and new alternative models of it are proposed (1, 2)

Zephir said...

Apparent average galaxy size increases with redshift z, corresponding to a shrinking in time, consistent with lack of red shift phenomena for CMB and even attenuation of radio sources with distance.

Zephir said...

Evidence Against the Expanding Universe Hypothesis

Modern cosmologists and astronomy historians are misguided in attributing the expanding universe hypothesis to the twentieth century astronomer Edwin Hubble. For, in his writings Hubble consistently doubted the Doppler shift interpretation, always referring to the galaxy redshifts as "apparent velocities." Hubble, in fact, favored the tired-light interpretation, the proposal that photons lose energy as they travel through interstellar space, finding that it offered a more reasonable interpretation of the observational data. However, he realized that to adopt this interpretation would require admitting that it was due to "some hitherto unrecognized principle in physics".

Zephir said...

The evolution of Big Bang i.e. Lambda-CDM model is quite close analogy to Ptolemy's model of epicycles. By it's very nature it violates the Copernican principle, which is a subversion of very fundamental Occam's razor principle. It was adjusted many times with adding of another ad-hoced considerations (inflation, dark matter, dark matter), which served for fitting of model to observational data without further reasoning (how initial singularity was formed, why it exploded, where took an energy for it, why inflation occurred later, why expansion is accelerating, etc...). It's extrapolated into many variants with formal models at large depth, but it still remains highly counterintuitive at common sense level. But the similarity is even deeper. Geocentric model describes solar system from intrinsic perspective in the same way, like proponents of Big Bang are describing the Universe. This perspective is basically relativistic and it ignores the quantum mechanic phenomena. Of course, we cannot have look at the Universe "from outside", but some more general perspective would be still extremely useful here.

Zephir said...

Is the universe really expanding? (PDF)

Zephir said...

Dr. LaViolette is credited with the discovery of the planetary-stellar mass-luminosity relation which demonstrates that the Sun, planets, stars, and supernova explosions are powered by spontaneous energy creation through photon blueshifting.  With this relation, he successfully predicted the mass-luminosity ratio of the first brown dwarf to be discovered. In addition, Paul LaViolette has developed a new theory of gravity that replaces the deeply flawed theory of general relativity.  Predicted from subquantum kinetics, it accounts for the electrogravitic coupling phenomenon discovered by Townsend Brown and may explain the advanced aerospace propulsion technology utilized in the B-2 bomber. He is also the co-developer of the Gray-LaViolette feeling tone theory which explains how the brain/mind forms creative thoughts.  This has led to a new understanding of how the brain functions and to a novel approach in education. To view a list of LaViolette's published predictions and their subsequent verification click here. He is the first to discover that certain ancient creation myths and esoteric lores metaphorically encode an advanced science of cosmogenesis.  His contributions to the field of Egyptology and mythology may be compared to the breaking of the Rosetta Stone hieroglyphic code was the first to disprove the expanding universe hypothesis by showing its inability to consistently fit cosmological test data.  He was also the first to show that the jovian planets conform to the lower main sequence stellar mass-luminosity relation. His a priori prediction that brown dwarfs should also conform to this relation ha now been twice verified. He was also the originator of the subquantum kinetics microphyics methodology. In addition, He was the first to suggest that cosmic rays can relativistically propagate long distances through our galaxy along rectilinear trajectories, later validated by obesrvations of Cygnus X-3 and Hercules X-1. He was the first to predict that cosmic ray volleys repeatedly showered the Earth duing the last ice age, subsequently demonstrating with Be-10 data. He was the first to demonstrate the occurrence of a global warming event at the end of the last ice age. Paul LaViolette's Pioneer Effect prediction remained unrecognized in the journal literature, but his attempts to bring this prediction to the attention of the scientific community through archive posting have been met with a closed door. Nevertheless, his paper has now been accepted for journal publication and is due to come out shortly. It is disconcerting that the archive administrators would allow other physicists to post their papers prior to journal publication and at the same time block LaViolette's repeated attempts to post his paper. One day, when his theories will be proven right it will be fun to remember he didn’t pass the Wikipedia Pokemon test :-) (Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette, (2nd nomination), (3rd nomination))

Zephir said...

Globular Clusters are older than the Universe?

Zephir said...

Science paper on alternatives for redshift The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars

Zephir said...

Did the Universe Have a Beginning

Zephir said...

The Big Bang theory considers omnidirectional expansion of space-time at all levels. The space-time between particles of atoms doesn't differ conceptually from cosmic space, so it should expand in similar way. The Big Bang theory cannot account into it by itself, as it doesn't provide the theory for electromagnetic and nuclear forces, which prohibit such an expansion. If it suddenly says, the space-time cannot expand omnidirectionally bellow CMBR wavelength scale, it just adjusts its general concept to local observational reality, i.e. it introduces new ad-hoced postulate into its formal logic. It just requires a bit of consequential thinking to realize it.
Try to imagine, we could observe the Universe in radiowaves only. In these long wavelength waves only very large surface details of objects would be observable. The appearance of Universe would change significantly after then. The more distant objects would appear larger, more luminous and blue shifted, than the more close ones. The independent observer would say, whole the Universe is falling to us.
You may believe it or not - but this is exactly one of the predictions of dense aether model, which still waits for its confirmation. For example, in the last year the US astronomers announced surprising results from a high-altitude balloon experiment called ARCADE-2, which had made careful measurements of the sky at radio wavelengths. The background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, was six times brighter than anyone was expecting.
With respect to quantum mechanics theory it appears quite natural, the elementary particles radiating energy of gamma rays of higher frequency, the the atom nuclei as a whole and the atom nuclei are emanating X-rays rather than visible photons, like the atoms do as a whole. In AWT it's simply manifestation of strong blue shift, which is dual to the Hubble red shift above the CMBR wavelength scale. The Universe appears collapsing wildly bellow this wavelength scale - but surprisingly nobody considers it as an evidence of future space crush at the Planck scale - why not? IMO such conclusion would use the very same logics, like the mainstream cosmologists are using in their interpretation of Hubble red shift. But this logics appears nonsensical at the first look bellow CMBR scale - so why to use it above this scale?

Zephir said...

Einstein expansion paradox: space expands globally although it nowhere expands locally.For example, both Andromeda, both Milky Way galaxies are nearly 14 billion years old (1, 2). If the Universe emerged from singularity, then these galaxies should be nearly as distant, as the oldest galaxies inside of Hubble deep field. Which they indeed aren't and they even moving toward each other, so they're expected to collide in next few billions of years. One must be very strong supporter in Lambda-CDM/Big Bang model for to believe such a situation would be possible in it.

Zephir said...

What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/

In Aether Wave Theory based on dense aether model the Hubble red shift and notion of Big Bang arises from dispersion of light with tiny density fluctuations of vacuum and the Universe is essentially eternal. http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/09/awt-and-big-bang-theory.html

Zephir said...

IMO it's worth recalling Wittgenstein's remark on the geocentric model subject. "Tell me," he asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth." Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"

We can now ask as well: "How the universe would appear if it had looked like being eternal and infinite and the red shift would be a consequence of the dispersion of light at vacuum fluctuations"?

Apparently, many people today aren't willing to even think about it at all, thus effectively behaving like the opponents of Galileo in his era. The contemporary belief in Big Bang and the formation of Universe from "nothing" is the similar naive belief, like the belief in creation and another stuffs.

Zephir said...

The formula for Universe age is a typical example of circular reasoning, based on tautologies. Initially, we assumed that the Universe emerged from singularity, because of existence of red shift of CMBR with distance - well, and later we used the same red shift as a "proof" of that singularity and for derivation of Universe age.

This is not a circular reasoning in its crystalline pure state?

Zephir said...

Where will Einstein fail? Lessons for gravity and cosmology

Zephir said...

The Universe, the Cold War, and Dialectical Materialism

Zephir said...

The Universe is not expanding

Zephir said...

Paul J. Steinhardt: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?

Zephir said...

Measurements have shown, that there is no significant difference betweens the metallicity of galaxies close to earth (i.e. old galaxies) and remote galaxies (i.e. young galaxies).

Zephir said...

This fact is commonly known for astronomers, because the metallicity of distant active galactic nuclei has been studied extensively (see Hamann & Ferland 1999 for a review). Nagao et al. (2006a) measured emission-line flux ratios of SDSS quasars, which are sensitive to metallicity. The authors found that there is no redshift evolution of the broad-line region metallicity in the redshift range of z= 2.0 - 4.5. Using near-infrared spectroscopic observations of six luminous quasars at z = 5.8 - 6.3. Jiang et al. (2007) found no strong evolution of the broad-line region metallicity up to z 6. Juarez et al. (2009) investigated the broad-line region metallicity of a sample of 30 quasars in the redshift range of z = 4.0 - 6.4 through the emission-line flux ratio and found that the metallicity is very high even in quasars at z > 6. Moreover, most studies have reported that the broad-line region metallicity is significantly higher than the solar value (Hamann & Ferland 1992; Dietrich et al. 2003; Nagao et al. 2006a; Jiang et al. 2007), even fifteen-times higher than the Sun metalicity in the most extreme cases (Baldwin et al. 2003b; Bentz et al. 2004). These extremely high metallicities are very hard to reconcile with most Big Bang evolutionary models (Hamann& Ferland 1993; Ballero et al. 2008)....

Zephir said...

"Dark Energy" - Does the Mysterious Anti-Gravitational Force Really Exist?

Zephir said...

IDCS J1426.5+3508: Cosmological Implications of a Massive, Strong Lensing Cluster at z = 1.75 This finding indeed violates the Big Bang cosmology. While the existence of the cluster itself can potentially be accommodated if one considers the entire volume covered at this redshift by all current high-redshift cluster surveys, the existence of this strongly lensed galaxy greatly exacerbates the long-standing giant arc problem. For standard CDM structure formation and observed background field galaxy counts this lens system should not exist. Specifically, there should be no giant arcs in the entire sky as bright in F814W as the observed arc for clusters at z 1.75, and only ~0.3 as bright in F160W as the observed arc. If we relax the redshift constraint to consider all clusters at z 1.5, the expected number of giant arcs rises to ~15 in F160W, but the number of giant arcs of this brightness in F814W remains zero.

Zephir said...

Dwarf galaxies are the equivalent of historical villages. It could enable to falsify Big Bang or Steady state cosmology. If these galaxies are old, they should be relatively richer of hydrogen in accordance to Big Bang cosmology. In steady state cosmology these dwarf galaxies should be of high metallicity instead, being a remnants of much older galaxies which already evaporated their matter into energy.

Zephir said...

Last week’s issue of New Scientist featured a cover story (registration required) in which Max Tegmark of MIT, one of the leading physicists studying cosmological theories, all but says Inflation needs to be scrapped. The main problem, as he and other scientists told New Scientist contributor Amanda Gefter, is that the Inflation Model has taken on too much baggage over the past few years. Or, to put it more prosaically, a theory that explains everything… explains nothing.

Zephir said...

Einstein's [expansion paradox](http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/einstein_expansion_paradox-85942) and [common missconceptions of cosmological horizon](http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/DavisLineweaver04.pdf)

Zephir said...

Big Bang Was Actually a Phase Change, New Theory Says "Think of the early universe as being like a liquid," Quach said in a statement. "Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises' into the three spatial and one time dimension that we see today. Theorized this way, as the universe cools, we would expect that cracks should form, similar to the way cracks are formed when water freezes into ice."
The math describing the theory checks out, but "the challenge has been that these building blocks of space are very small, and so impossible to see directly," Quach explained. From the human vantage point, space-time looks smooth and continuous. (article, preprint)
Actually these cracks are quite large and visible as dark matter streaks on the sky. Before some time I proposed as similar interpretation for reconciliation of inflation concept with ekpyrotic cosmology, but I abandoned it later.

Zephir said...

The Big Bang Controversy

Zephir said...

Albert Einstein to Georges Lamitre in 1923: "Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable."

Zephir said...

Do Intergalactic Magnetic Fields Imply An Open Universe?

Zephir said...

This paper uses Thomson scattering in relation to Type 1a supernova to support Hubble expansion of the universe. Another paper on how Type 1a Supernova does not support Big Bang.

Zephir said...

The Sun has measurable redshift, that doesn't support Big Bang redhift. It could be explained with Compton scattering instead.
Big Bang Theory has been comprehensively debunked in every aspect.

Zephir said...

More than 500 natural scientists have addressed an open letter to the scientific community expressing criticism on the open questions surrounding the big bang theory. These included world-known scientists such as Halton Arp, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, Jayant Narlikar and many others.
Paul J. Steinhardt: "The Inflation Debate" (PDF). Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?

Zephir said...

Ancient quasar imaged when the Universe lacked heavy metal The astronomers found an anomalously large amount of hydrogen absorption from neutral hydrogen atoms in the quasar's immediate environment.
The absence of heavy elements is important with respect to falsification of Big Bang cosmology, because this cosmology considers the matter was formed in finely divided state composed of lightweight elements only. But we have evidence of many distant galaxies with surprisingly mature stars of high
metallicity and vice-versa, the lightweight elements like the lithium are notoriously lacking in the early Universe.
Wallace Thornhill: "The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists."

Zephir said...

C.Johan Masreliez: The insghfull and AWT compliant explanations of Pioneer anomaly, Hubble red shift with tired light model and others.

Zephir said...

The structure, known simply as the Large Quasar Group (LQG), appears to break the rules of a widely accepted cosmological principle, which  says that the universe would look pretty much uniform when observed at the largest scales. Calculations suggest that structures larger than about 1.2 billion light-years should not exist.

Zephir said...

Wun-Yi Shu: "Cosmological Models with No Big Bang." (ArXiv)

Zephir said...

The CMB becomes colder than we expect when it travels through large voids in the universe.

Zephir said...

It's commonly known that Mr.Hubble didn't believe in expanding space - so he would be considered crackpot today. He also challenged some Big Bang assertions. Vincent Sauvé presents an excellent historical review of Hubble's writings and his stance against wholesale acceptance of the expanding universe hypothesis. Regarding the Hubble red shift, the Stigler's law of eponymy may apply here.
In Associated Press the Hubble says that .."after a six-year study, evidence does not support what we now call the Big Bang theory.. The universe probably is not exploding but is a quiet, peaceful place and possibly just about infinite in size." In "The Problem of the Expanding Universe" he expands its opinion further: "Thus the use of dimming corrections leads to a particular kind of universe, but one which most students are likely to reject as highly improbable. Furthermore, the strange features of this universe are merely the dimming corrections expressed in different terms. Omit the dimming factors, and the oddities vanish. We are left with the simple, even familiar concept of a sensibly infinite universe. All the difficulties are transferred to the interpretation of red shifts which cannot then be the familiar velocity shifts."
In this connection it's worth to note, that Hubble explained the red shift with scattering of light in similar way, like the AWT. In 1936 he wrote "redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale … the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results.. [If the redshifts are a Doppler shift] … the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as .a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time." (Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936)

Zephir said...

Errors in tired light cosmology, tired light models of the CMB, the CMB cannot be redshifted starlight

Zephir said...

Einstein, Hubble, Hoyle, Zwicky, Burbidge, Alfven, Arp etc. all opposed the Big Bang model. In 2004, an 'Open Letter to the Scientific Community' disputing the Big Bang theory was signed by 33 scientists and has been published on the internet and in the science journal New Scientist. The letter has subsequently been signed by hundreds of individuals around the world. Professional cosmologists are actively creating models (some of which contradict the Big Bang scenario) and collecting data that probe the specific nature of the earliest observable aspects of the Universe.

Zephir said...

Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang

Zephir said...

Quasar "structure" proved Einstein wrong: It's actually consistent with random noise, i.e. with random universe model of aether wave theory.

Zephir said...

According to Mathematician from Harvard University (who doesn't want to publish his name since he doesn't want his E-mail to be "spammed") Science is built upon the axiom "0 exists". But we don't and cannot define 0 or {}. In the same way, in AWT the question of universe origin has no good meaning, because the Universe can be naturally only in random state, not a zero or any other ad hoced particular state invented with people from Occam razor perspective.

Zephir said...

Are We Ready for a Galaxy Formation Paradigm Shift?

Zephir said...

Hannes Alfven: "Abbe Georges Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing."

Zephir said...

Wallace Thornhill: "The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists."

Zephir said...

In 1940, Dr. Edwin Hubble published a paper publicly denouncing the Expanding Universe myth - stating in no uncertain terms that his observations disproved the Expanding Universe.

Zephir said...

Astronomers show galaxies had 'mature' shapes 11.5 billion years ago. Original study is here. It's a trivial prediction of steady state Universe model. Cosmologists actually know about it many years (1, 2) from observation of high metallicity of distant galaxies, they're just tend to ignore all findings, which don't fit their mainstream model.

Zephir said...

List of modern [observations violating](http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp) the standard cosmological model ("Big Bang theory") [1](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/19/hubble-sees-ancient-galaxies-rejuvenating-themselves), [2](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/early-universe-star-birth/#ixzz0xBBLfa3s), [3 (2010](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/early-universe-star-birth/#ixzz0xBBLfa3s), [4](http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic0313/), [5 (2003)](http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic0313/), [6](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18124301.900-why-galaxy-cluster-is-too-grownup-for-early-universe.html), [7 (2004)](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18124301.900-why-galaxy-cluster-is-too-grownup-for-early-universe.html), [8](http://www.naoj.org/Pressrelease/2005/02/16/index.html), [9 (2005)](http://www.naoj.org/Pressrelease/2005/02/16/index.html), [10](http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524), [11 (2004)](http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524), [12](http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2005/28/image/a/), [13 (2005)](http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2005/28/full/), [14](http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524), [15 (2004)](http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524), [16](http://www.science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2010-news/Charlton2-2010), [17 (2010)](http://www.science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2010-news/Charlton2-2010), [18](http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/ancient-galaxy-cluster-is-shockingly-modern), [19](http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/ancient-galaxy-cluster-is-shockingly-modern), [20 (2010)](http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/05/12/ancient.galaxy.cluster.contains.modern.galaxies), [21 (2010)](http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/05/12/ancient.galaxy.cluster.contains.modern.galaxies), [22](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/19/hubble-sees-ancient-galaxies-rejuvenating-themselves), ..

Zephir said...

List of modern observations violating the standard cosmological model (1, 2, 3 (2010), 4, 5 (2003), 6, 7 (2004), 8, 9 (2005), 10, 11 (2004), 12, 13 (2005), 14, 15 (2004), 16, 17 (2010), 18, 19, 20 (2010), 21 (2010), 22, ..)

Zephir said...

New Tired Light Correctly Predicts the Redshift of the Corbor Galaxy Cluster

Zephir said...

Black Holes May Feed On Quantum Foam Potentially Resolving a Cosmological Paradox. The "eating of quantum foam" is somewhat desperate attempt how to save the Big Bang model. In AWT the steady state Universe model is more relevant: the large galaxies evaporate into dark matter clouds and condense from them somewhere else like the giant density fluctuations of gas.

Zephir said...

Paul J. Steinhard: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed? The Inflation Debate: It may be that 2013 inflation isn't the cure-all that 1985 inflation seemed to be. That's a very enlightening article by one of the original founders of inflationary theory who is now a leading critic. Steinhard says that few cosmologists even pay attention to the case against inflation, touting a wealth of agreement between observations and predictions, but those predictions were made based on a naive view of inflation which has turned out to be dead wrong. The current model includes quantum mechanics, and as a consequence, it no longer makes sense to view those observations as being predictions of the theory because there were infinitely many opportunities to create a universe with different properties from the ones we observe.
"Now you should be disturbed. What does it mean to say that inflation makes certain predictions—that, for example, the universe is uniform or has scale-invariant fluctuations—if anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times? And if the theory does not make testable predictions, how can cosmologists claim that the theory agrees with observations, as they routinely do?"
Then he describes how some theorists are attempting to save the theory by invoking probability measures that make the new theory give the same predictions as the naive theory that was wrong.

Zephir said...

"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." Einstein on the BB.
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Sure is an awful lot of "faith" with those BBer's.
"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." Wallace Thornhill
Just another creation story be the believers!

Zephir said...

Was there a Big Bang in the beginning or God created the Universe? Is there a way to
classically calculate the cosmological constant?

Zephir said...

numeric value of G equals the value of a times the value of e divided by the value of c

Zephir said...

In a 'Rainbow' Universe, Time May Have No Beginning "It's a model that I do not believe has anything to do with reality," says Sabine Hossenfelder. Apparently, Lee Smolin is still smarter than her.

Zephir said...

The Big Bang theory didn't impress the man who identified the Higgs particle.

Zephir said...

Detailed look at a normal galaxy in the very early universe

Zephir said...

Early universe was less dusty than believed. It's not just that the dust mass is low. They found that the dust mass is 100 times smaller than would be expected based on commonly assumed theories.
In steady state Universe model the red shift is the result of light scattering at the density fluctuations of vacuum and the Universe is roughly homogeneous at all distance scales. In Big Bang cosmology the matter formed in finely divided state, so that the lack of dust at distant areas of universe represents a stress for this theory (similar like many other examples presented here at PO). But the mainstream physics handles these indicia poorly, because they're not conclusive by itself and the contemporary physics is based on deterministic models, not on fuzzy logics. One thousand of 60% indicia doesn't count in the same way, like one 90% evidence, which slows down the progress of research. But are the physicists really motivated on speed of research, when their jobs and salaries depend on it? I seriously doubt it, until their money are going.

Zephir said...

Red dwarfs are counter examples to cosmic evolution. The accepted model model of star formation predicts that dwarf stars burn their fuel slowly, so if born as first generation stars they should exist today without heavy elements in their composition. No red dwarf consisting of hydrogen and helium only has been found, to my knowledge.

Zephir said...

The temperature of the-universe before the jury Did the COBE, WMAP and Planck satellites really measure the temperature of the Universe? The FIRAS team actually reported unexpectedly higher signal intensities at the lower frequencies and unexpectedly lower signal intensities at the higher frequencies – precisely what is expected with signal diffraction over the shield.

Zephir said...

The hypothesis of the expanding universe rests on Hubble's belief in a velocity-distance proportionality of galaxies receding from the observer. This proportionality is absurd, as has been shown by Galileo in 1638

Zephir said...

Big Bang Secrets Swirling in a Fluid Universe

Zephir said...

The idea of the evolution of the universe from a single concentrated mass was described in detail in the 1844 book 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' (Robert Chambers) and in the 1848 book 'Eureka' by Edgar Allen Poe.

Zephir said...

Einstein's lost theory uncovered Physicist explored the idea of a steady-state Universe in 1931. This finding confirms that Hoyle was not a crank. If only Hoyle had known, he would certainly have used it to punch his opponents.
What the manuscript shows is that although by then he accepted the expansion of space, Einstein was unhappy with a Universe changing in time.

Zephir said...

IMO the appearance of Universe in 3D represents quite well the heavily magnified perspective, which we would see at the surface of water, if we would observe it strictly with its own ripples. At the distance all surface waves expand with wavelenth, because they do scatter into underwater ones, which are of much higher speed. So that the hypothetical water strider, which would observe the surface with its own waves would get an impression, it's environment shrinks with distance. Whole this model is essentially random and it doesn't require any further assumptions about water surface geometry or history. The interpretation of the red shift with expansion of space-time is just an illusion. It even doesn't fit the FLRW metric, which is used for it in L-CDM model. This metric is just inverted metric of STATIONARY black holes. When the space-time gets curved with distance, it doesn't mean, it just does so in dynamic way.
Once we admit, that the space-time can get curved in dynamic way (as it does it in gravitational waves), then we indeed have a conceptual problem with general relativity, in which the time-dimension of 4D space-time metric is the only time arrow, which is allowed to exists here and to drive the physical phenomena. The cruel truth is, the strictly relativistic universe could be full of gravitational lenses, but it would remain fully frozen. Not only gravitational waves, but even the gravitational lenses couldn't change their shape in it. Because the geometry of gravitational lenses changes dynamically with proximity of massive objects, such a requirement would mean, that the massive objects couldn't even move. In addition, if we would allow only special relativity in the Universe, then such an universe would become fully flat. The constant speed of light doesn't allow any refraction or lensing. When we adhere on mainstream theories, we should know, where their limits actually are.

Zephir said...

Medieval cosmology produces the same conundrums modern cosmologists face. Grosseteste wrote in 1225, that the Universe begins with a Big Bang-like explosion in which light expands in all directions giving matter its three-dimensional nature. Light then draws matter with it as it expands in a sphere. One of problems of Big Bang cosmology is fine-tuning, which consist of question, why the beginning of matter formation has started just at the boundary of observable Universe. There is no apparent reason of it, until we not consider the water surface analogy of AWT. Anyway, the connection of Big Bang to medieval theology is apparently deeper, than one may think.

Zephir said...

We should realize, for ekpyrotic cosmology the inflationary model is as competetion as for AWT. As discussed in arXiv:1105.3247, the BICEP result is no way a direct evidence for inflation, There are other sources of primordial gravitational waves, like the decaying cosmic string loops. In addition, some alternatives to cosmic inflation as a theory of the very early universe also produce primordial gravitational waves. In fact, the spectrum of the detected waves gives a mild preference for a "blue tilt" of the spectrum (larger amplitude on smaller wavelengths) which in fact would rule out inflationary cosmology instead.

Zephir said...

Did the big bang really happen?

Zephir said...

Exposing the flaws in Big Bang model is followed with censorship of ArXiv preprint repository

Zephir said...

Have galactic 'radio loops' been mistaken for B-mode polarization? IMO not quite. The galactic "radio loops" pictured are large, whereas the BICEP2 experiment analyzed rather small portion of sky. That is to say, the situation may be even worse - what the BICEP did observe are the dark matter filaments BETWEEN galaxies, which were indeed formed AFTER alleged inflation, not BEFORE it. The indicia are the relatively large background signal and the blue frequency tilt of it. It could be checked with careful correlation of B-mode signal with dark matter gravitational lensing observed. Note the connection of galactic loops to Penrose & Gurzadyan's Conformal cyclic cosmology. It means, both cyclic cosmology, both chaotic inflation are both confirmed both doubted in similar way: they predicted the similar phenomena, but with no connection to matter existing INSIDE of the visible Universe, which was allegedly formed AFTER it.