Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  Don't like the Big Bang theory of cosmology? You need this theory. Indeed you do.

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version


next newest topic | next oldest topic
Don't like the Big Bang theory of cosmology? You need this theory. Indeed you do. by rinselberg
Started on: 11-06-2021 02:51 PM
Replies: 5 (101 views)
Last post by: williegoat on 11-22-2021 07:56 PM
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11127
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 134
Rate this member

Report this Post11-06-2021 02:51 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Hey, who doesn't spend part of every passing day pondering what appears in the non-specialist media about the most pressing issues, like the fundamental nature of the universe and the scientific foundations of reality? Never mind, I probably don't want that answered. But until yesterday, I thought that the Big Bang theory, which postulates a universe that is finite or bounded in space and in time was all alone in first place--like 13 games ahead of whatever's in second place with only 14 more games in the regular season (so to speak.) I didn't even know what to call whatever's in second place in the Central Cosmology Division pennant race. But now I do. As of yesterday.

It's the Tired Light theory, or in its more recent incarnations, the New Tired Light theory.

This is "your" theory, if you would prefer to believe that the universe is both infinite and eternal--not bounded by any measure of time or space. A universe that has always been and always will be. A universe that is not expanding in every direction with the alacrity of a "bat out of hell." A Steady State universe, to invoke a phrase that I thought had all but disappeared from the conversations of scientists.

I might not even be posting this, except that I've seen previous messages from people here that were animated in their skepticism about the Big Bang theory--one member in particular that I'm thinking of, hasn't posted very often, lately--so I might catch that person's eye with this.

This is a reader's comment from one Roy Lofquist, dated only yesterday, which I reproduce in its entirety:
 
quote
There are two assumptions that underpin moden cosmology that are in question due to recent observations: the expansion of the universe and that gravity is the dominant force.

That the Universe is expanding is based on the premise that the Hubble Red Shift is due to a Doppler effect recessional velocity. When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zwicky, was that light lost energy as it traveled, termed "tired light". At that time, ca. 1930, interstellar and intergalactic space were assumed to be perfect vacuums, and thus there was no mechanism to redden the light.

Now, 90 years later, we have actual observational evidence that Zwicky was right. In the radio astronomy of Pulsars we find that the shorter wavelengths of the leading edge of the pulse arrive before longer wavelengths. The velocity of light, c, is NOT constant but varies by wavelength. The implication is that the interstellar medium is not a vacuum but rather affects light waves in a way best described as having an Index of Refraction greater then 1, unity. We find the same phenomenon in the observation of Fast Radio Bursts from other galaxies, thus indicating that the intergalactic media is not an electromagnetic vacuum. The distance to these pulsars can be computed from the time dispersion by a formula that is algebraically identical to the one used to compute the distance to distant objects by red shift. This implies that the Hubble red shift is the result of the light traversing a distance through a medium denser than Eintein's "in vaccuo" rather than a recessional velocity.

The second questionable assumption is that gravity is the dominant force in the universe, this despite the fact that electromagnetism is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Electromagnetism was thought to be a strictly local phenomenon, effective only near stars and planetary bodies. Since that time we have discovered the Solar Wind (Russian Luna 7, 1959); interstellar magnetic fields (Voyager 1, 2012, and Voyager 2); galactic magnetic fields; and magnetic fields BETWEEN galaxies. Magnetic fields manifest only in conjunction with electrical currents. That we have detected magnetic fields between galaxies means that vast electrical currents permeate the universe and the potential differences (voltages) are--can we say it?--astronomical.

Roy Lofquist's commentary was in response to this:

"Escaping cosmology’s failing paradigm"
 
quote
Why we may be radically wrong about the universe’s size and expansion

Bjørn Ekeberg and Louis Marmet for IAI (Institute of Art and Ideas) News; November 4, 2021.
https://iai.tv/articles/esc...auid-1964?_auid=2020


It's an article that posits that confirmation bias may have created a Big Bang orthodoxy among cosmologists that suffers from the fallacy of circular reasoning.

There's plenty of "stuff" like this online, which I just discovered by using "Tired Light" as a search engine target.

Here's one that's "Straight Outta Compton." Compton scattering, that is.
 
quote
Because it is consistent with many astronomical phenomena and successfully predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and cosmic abundance, the theory of universe expansion has been widely recognized by the scientific community. Hubble's law is the foundation of universe expansion theory, but 100 years of observations have shown that Hubble parameters are not constants, and with the improvement of Hubble parameter measurement accuracy, the problem of inconsistent Hubble parameters obtained by different star types and different methods has become more and more difficult to solve. So the cosmological redshift may not only be related to distance but also to other factors, and the universe may not be really expanding. The Compton effect of free electrons and low energy photons has been observed in the laboratory. Photons interact with a large number of free electrons on their way to us from a distant source (free electron Compton scattering FEC). FEC causes photons (plane electromagnetic waves) to redshift, and the photon beam to expand along the propagation direction, these produce the illusion of cosmic expansion . . .


"The illusion of cosmic expansion . . ." Right there, at the end of that paragraph.

"Free electron Compton scattering produces the illusion of the universe expansion"
GuanFeng Cheng for Research Square (online);
https://assets.researchsqua...ped.pdf?c=1614185109

"This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal."

Looks to be of very recent provenance, so not enough time has passed for this research to grow "tired."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-06-2021).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11127
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 134
Rate this member

Report this Post11-07-2021 02:36 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
More and more problems related to Big Bang have been [sic] appeared in recent years. All the problems are due to the Doppler interpretation of redshift.

[But the] “tired light” theory, proposed in 1929 by Zwicky and most recently developed by Shao in 2013, gives a new explanation for redshift. The theory has shown that the redshift is induced from the energy loss of photons by the interaction with material particles on their journey through cosmological space. The basic principles related to the energy transfer are mainly the mass-energy equivalence and the Lorentz theory. Problems, such as super velocity, the horizon problem, the cosmological microwave background radiation, and Olbers’ paradox, vanish in the cosmological model of “tired light” theory.

The ["tired light" cosmological model] describes a boundless and timeless Cosmos.

Maybe this is why Olbers' paradox is such a non-issue for so many Americans.

"Tired Light Denies the Big Bang"
Ming-Hui Shao, Na Wang and Zhi-Fu Gao; published by IntechOpen; December 7, 2018.
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/64538

Authored by three guys (or people) with conspicuously unusual names and published on Pearl Harbor Day. Nothing suspicious about that.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-07-2021).]

IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 15554
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 97
Rate this member

Report this Post11-07-2021 03:10 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Ming-Hui Shao, Na Wang and Zhi-Fu Gao

I'm pretty sure I saw that on a Chinese menu...
...in the hands of a werewolf.

IP: Logged
maryjane
Member
Posts: 68008
From: Cleveland Texas
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: (4)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 442
Rate this member

Report this Post11-07-2021 03:59 PM Click Here to See the Profile for maryjaneSend a Private Message to maryjaneEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
and his hair was perfect.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11127
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 134
Rate this member

Report this Post11-22-2021 07:48 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post


Robert Lawrence Kuhn asks Alan Guth what is perhaps the most fundamental question of science: "Why is there anything?"

Alan Guth is credited with the theory of Cosmic Inflation, which is a vital part of the Big Bang hypothesis for the origin of our universe.

It's a 9-minute conversation, but you may or may not be interested in how it starts. (I like to cover all the bases.)

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-22-2021).]

IP: Logged
williegoat
Member
Posts: 15554
From: Glendale, AZ
Registered: Mar 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 97
Rate this member

Report this Post11-22-2021 07:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for williegoatClick Here to visit williegoat's HomePageSend a Private Message to williegoatEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
"HOW THE WORLD WAS SAVED" - Stanislaw Lem
https://english.lem.pl/work...-the-world-was-saved

I just discovered that someone created a video loosely based on the story that I linked above. It might not make much sense though, if you haven't read the story and as usual, the story is much better.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 11-22-2021).]

IP: Logged

next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock