Somehow this thread began as a discussion about space exploration... Don, I'm sure that I haven't read as much as you or others about cosmology and the big bang theory, but I'm wondering about some of the comments that you made. I truly am not criticizing or mocking - I really do have questions. And I promise not to mention God. Here are my questions, numbered according to your post from yesterday: 1 and 2. I don't believe that an object moving through space is comparable to the expansion of space itself; hence the limitation of the speed of light wouldn't apply. What other laws of physics would have to have been different or not exist? 3. Does it matter whether or not the theory is predictive (unless they really do succeed in creating a singularity at CERN)? Discoveries of things such as dark matter, dark energy, etc. haven't invalidated the theory, but yes, these nasty surprises have certainly given the theorists more to ponder. Perhaps they will eventually have to discard the big bang, but from everything with which I'm familiar I don't see that happening. 4. I know that Wikipedia isn't 100 percent reliable, but under the article "Cosmic microwave background radiation" I read that a 1948 estimate by Gamow and others of the CMBR was 5K, later re-estimated at 28K. The higher estimate was based on someone's mis-estimate of the Hubble constant and was soon abandoned in favor of the original, lower estimate. I also understand that the suggestion that the CMBR is background stellar radiation cannot account for the black body nature of the CMBR. From what I read in Wikipedia, numerous lines of observations and experiment all support the hypothesis that the CMBR is a remnant of the big bang. 5. I wish I could remember where I read about it, but I think this "problem" was put to bed some time ago. Does anyone else have information about this, one way or the other? 6. Again, I'm probably not as knowledgeable, but I've never read anything about observations of red dwarfs, globular clusters, or other objects that indicate greater age than the accepted age of the universe, 13.75+/- billion years, or that galaxy clusters would take 100 billion years to form. What have I missed? 7. Is the Texas A&M paper online, and if so can you share the link? I'm really interested in reading this. 8. I'm not sure what you're saying here relative to Michelson, Morley and Einstein. I admit to not being able to wrap my mind around a lot of scientific thought, especially in relation to cosmology. Can anyone truly imagine what a singularity looks like (or tastes, smells, feels, sounds like) or how the universe as we see it came from such a thing? I have a difficult time imagining a neutron star, or why my son just left for school with a light jacket when the temperature outside is only about 15 degrees. Still, I've not read any credible science that supports a steady state universe or any other alternative to the big bang. A steady state universe, for example, is just as hard for me to fathom as a universe that began as an infinitesimally small point. Thanks, Don for your willingness to share your opinion, even when you know many of us believe something different. A general question for everyone: Besides steady state, what alternate theories exist? Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:28 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) The Big Bang Theory is the most generally accepted theory but it has many problems. Unfortunately consensus science seems to be more important than really questioning the current paradigm. Significant Problems with the Big Bang are as follows: 1. You have to suppose that the current laws of physics did not exist originally. 2. Inflation dramatically violates the speed of light (see one above). 3. Big Bang Theory is not a predictive theory like Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Astrophysicists continually have to patch it together when such things as acceleration of the universe, dark matter, dark energy and other nasty surprises occur. 4. The original prediction of microwave background radiation by Gamow was 50 deg. Kelvin - 17 times greater than measured. The 3 deg Kelvin microwave background radiation is explained well by Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar and Ratcliffe as background stellar radiation (not remnant big bang radiation). 5. The problem with the proper motion of quasars, some of which show proper motions similar to the Helix Nebula. There are various strained explanations of this phenomenon. 6. The age problem. Red Dwarfs, many globular clusters, large galaxy clusters all appear to be much older than 13 billion years. You have to invent ad hoc assumptions about early clumping etc. in the Big Bang to account for the large galaxy clusters, which under normal gravitation interactions must be at least 100 billion years old. 7. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field shows galaxies from about 13.3 billion years ago that appear very similar to nearby galaxies. The Texas A&M team that studied the Hubble Deep field concluded "After comparing them with the bluest nearby galaxies, the team concluded that, while their galaxies were fairly primitive in composition, they did not have zero metallicity, meaning that these galaxies contain stars not unlike those we see today, even though the Universe was only five percent of its current age of 13.7 billion years. This implies that they are not the first-ever galaxies formed after the Big Bang as other international teams of astronomers analyzing the same data have implied." The Hubble Ultra Deep Field also shows many large spirals and elliptical galaxies which take on the order of 10 billion years to form. Could such galaxies and stars have formed in 500 million years? Considering that large spiral galaxies take 300 million years to rotate also argues against an age of only 500 million years. 8. The idea that the whole universe was created from nothing also appears to be the kind of nonsense results Michelson and Morley got when their experiments along with Einstein overturned classical physics. As the history of science has shown, each new generation thinks they know it all. Clear Skies, Don -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of daniel turner Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:49 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) --- On Wed, 12/15/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote: It does seem the U of U Physics agrees with the
Big Bang Theory, at least thats my memory when we have had some of the Faculty speak. The grand Unified Theory has gained some ground but not enough, resolving those issue seems key to a better understanding of the Universe.
Eric: It's entirely possible that these faculty people actually know something about the subject matter. They have access to the observational data. They can't all be deluded or lying to advance an agenda. Perhaps the debate is over among the people who know the most about it. DT _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3319 - Release Date: 12/16/10