Experts cast doubt on Big Bang bolstering discovery

Jun 14, 2014 by Jean-Louis Santini
A NASA image shows hundreds of thousands of stars crowded into the swirling core of the Milky Way galaxy

Astrophysicists are casting doubt on what just recently was deemed a breakthrough in confirming how the universe was born: the observation of gravitational waves that apparently rippled through space right after the Big Bang.

If proven to be correctly identified, these waves—predicted in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity—would confirm the rapid and violent growth spurt of the universe in the first fraction of a second marking its existence, 13.8 billion years ago.

The apparent first direct evidence of such so-called cosmic inflation—a theory that the universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times in barely the blink of an eye—was announced in March by experts at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

The detection was made with the help of a telescope called BICEP2, stationed at the South Pole.

"Detecting this signal is one of the most important goals in cosmology today," John Kovac, leader of the BICEP2 collaboration at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said at the time.

The telescope targeted a specific area known as the "Southern Hole" outside the galaxy where there is little dust or extra galactic material to interfere with what humans could see.

By observing the , or a faint glow left over from the Big Bang, the scientists said small fluctuations gave them new clues about the conditions in the .

The gravitational waves rippled through the universe 380,000 years after the Big Bang, and these images were captured by the telescope, they claimed.

If confirmed by other experts, some said the work could be a contender for the Nobel Prize.

'Serious flaws'

But not everyone is convinced of the findings, with skepticism surfacing recently on blogs and scientific US journals such as Science and New Scientist.

Paul Steinhardt, director of Princeton University's Center for Theoretical Science, addressed the issue in the prestigious British journal Nature in early June.

"Serious flaws in the analysis have been revealed that transform the sure detection into no detection," Steinhardt wrote, citing an independent analysis of the BICEP2 findings.

That analysis was carried out by David Spergel, a theoretical astrophysicist who is also at Princeton.

Spergel queried whether what the BICEP2 telescope picked up really came from the first moments of the universe's existence.

"What I think, it is not certain whether polarized emissions come from galactic dust or from the early universe," he told AFP.

"We know that galactic dust emits polarized radiations, we see that in many areas of the sky, and what we pointed out in our paper is that pattern they have seen is just as consistent with the galactic dust radiations as with gravitational waves."

When using just one frequency, as these scientists did, it is impossible to distinguish between gravitational waves and galactic emissions, Spergel added.

The question will likely be settled in the coming months when another, competing group, working with the European Space Agency's Planck telescope, publishes its results.

That observes a large part of the sky—versus the BICEP2's two percent—and carries out measurements in six frequencies, according to Spergel.

"They should revise their claim," he said of the BICEP2 team. "I think in retrospect, they should have been more careful about making a big announcement."

He went on to say that, contrary to normal procedure, there was no external check of the data before it was made public.

Philipp Mertsch of the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at Stanford University said data from Planck and another team should be able to "shed more light on whether it is primordial or dust in the Milky Way."

"Let me stress, however, that what is leaving me (and many of my colleagues) unsatisfied with the state of affairs: If it is polarized dust emission, where is it coming from?" he said in an email.

Kovac, an associate professor of astronomy and physics at Harvard, declined to respond to requests for comment.

Another member of the team, Jamie Bock of the California Institute of Technology, also declined to be interviewed.

At the time of their announcement in March, the scientists said they spent three years analyzing their data to rule out any errors.

Explore further: First direct evidence of cosmic inflation (Update)

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

First direct evidence of cosmic inflation (Update)

Mar 17, 2014

(Phys.org) —Almost 14 billion years ago, the universe we inhabit burst into existence in an extraordinary event that initiated the Big Bang. In the first fleeting fraction of a second, the universe expanded ...

Has dust clouded the discovery of gravitational waves?

Jun 04, 2014

It's almost three months since a team of scientists announced it had detected polarised light from the afterglow of the Big Bang. But questions are still being asked about whether cosmic dust may have clou ...

Rumours fly that gravitational waves have been detected

Mar 17, 2014

Last week the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) stated rather nonchalantly that they will be hosting a press conference on Monday, March 17th, to announce a "major discovery." Without a potential ...

Are the BICEP2 results invalid? Probably not

May 20, 2014

Recently rumors have been flying that the BICEP2 results regarding the cosmic inflationary period may be invalid. It all started with a post by Dan Falkowski on his blog Resonaances, where he claimed that the BICEP2 had misinterpreted some data, which render ...

Recommended for you

Comet Jacques makes a 'questionable' appearance

9 hours ago

What an awesome photo! Italian amateur astronomer Rolando Ligustri nailed it earlier today using a remote telescope in New Mexico and wide-field 4-inch (106 mm) refractor. Currently the brightest comet in ...

Image: Our flocculent neighbour, the spiral galaxy M33

10 hours ago

The spiral galaxy M33, also known as the Triangulum Galaxy, is one of our closest cosmic neighbours, just three million light-years away. Home to some forty billion stars, it is the third largest in the ...

Image: Chandra's view of the Tycho Supernova remnant

Jul 25, 2014

More than four centuries after Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe first observed the supernova that bears his name, the supernova remnant it created is now a bright source of X-rays. The supersonic expansion of ...

User comments : 45

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GuruShabu
1.2 / 5 (20) Jun 14, 2014
If am am correct, I was one of the first to raise this far cry nonsense when the first article came over.
Now, we divide again between the Heretics and the Conservationists
Let's see that endless column of comments getting more and more personal to the point of missing completely the subject treated in the article.
By the way, the BBT does not hold!
verkle
1.2 / 5 (18) Jun 14, 2014
We become blind when trying to observe everything through the eyes of "evolution" and "Big Bang." Let's talk more straight science.

Such bias is evident by these kinds of statements:
"By observing the cosmic microwave background, or a faint glow left over from the Big Bang, the...."

No, you don't have to add "left over from the Big Bang" because that is not real science. It is imagination that has not been proven. Instead just write "it is faint glow we see coming evenly from all directions in the universe, and its origion is unknown." That is being much more honest.

George_Rajna
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2014
The Accelerating Universe: https://www.acade...Universe
Rustybolts
2.3 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
The Accelerating Universe: https://www.acade...Universe


Lets find some red shifting light 5 billion light years away while sitting in a spinning disc (Milky way) not knowing what were really looking at. Not buying and never will.
Jantoo
1 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2014
The dark matter lensing behaves in the same way, like the B-mode lensing of alleged gravitational waves and it's concentrated around galaxies. This lensing was therefore subtracted from data. But the dark matter forms a filaments between galaxies too - and this lensing wasn't considered a background and IMO it forms the main portion of the result.
some said the work could be a contender for the Nobel Prize
Nobel dedicated his money for findings of the "greatest benefit to mankind", not for physical theorists or mathematicians. He was a practical man.
rah
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2014
The BICEP2 announcement was not "in error", it was knowingly and laughably fraudulent from the beginning. It is a warning of just how prevalent fabricated academic papers are being released. This fake discovery in particular should be audited and prosecuted.
Jantoo
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2014
I do share this perception too. If nothing else, the whole experiment was strongly inflation pro-biased. It's evident, the BICEP2 guys just wanted to find and show the gravitational waves before Planck and the prof. Linde and Guth were first, who were congratulated by authors of study. Yes, and they essentially "managed it". In Japan all the guys involved would be fired already with no mercy like the poor Obokato (which I personally don't agree with). And Obokato "just" switched pair of pictures for to have better illustration. She didn't alter the actual data, neither the way of its analysis. My stance about all of it is, the BICEP2 guys just underestimated the infuence of otherwise frustrated stringy and ekpyrotic cosmologists (Steinhard, Turok and others). And mainstream journalists are just seeking for every sensation, so that the dismissal of inflation waves hype did become another hype.
Jantoo
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2014
The BICEP2 experiment was nearly two orders cheaper, than the PLANCK mission. It's impressive, it managed to achieve the nearly same sensitivity in terrestrial conditions, after then. But we shouldn't forget, these results were collected from patch of sky by nearly two orders smaller than the Planck mission and as such they're less reliable by nearly two orders of magnitude too. The cheaper experiment simply comes with its own price and it must be handled so: like the demo of technology, a good indicia of future data possible, but not like the actual fully fledged observation. The finding of B-mode would require the thorough separation of galactic magnetic loops and intragalactic filaments of dark matter and possibly another background. It's evident, such a separation cannot be done in small sample of data from small patch of sky. It's computationally intensive and you'll need lotta data for to have such an analysis reliable.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2014
"Experts cast doubt"? It seems to be the emerging consensus that these experts on dust do not cast doubt. Their own papers are doubtful. Re high energy (such as inflation) physics expert Strassler, that has gone public on his blog Of Particular Significance after discussing the subject with peers.

The inflation doubter Steinhardt was, after publishing about Spergel et al publications, has been interviewed on the World Science Fair with both inflationary experts (Guth, Linde) and experimentalists including rivals to Kovac and Kovac himself. (Video on the WSF site.) Steinhardt's criticism didn't go very long, and both the theoreticians and experimentalists supported the current claim.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2014
[ctd] Notably Kovac didn't have to revise anything contra Spergel's claim, since the BICEP2 claims were thoroughly made. (After 1 year of analysis, one should certainly hope so!) All of the panel scientists hoped, as before, to see dust (or replication) data. The WSF rumor was that Planck will release in 3 weeks. (Of which 2 now has gone.)

Guth was channeling Weinberg, pointing out that Steinhardt's definition of science was philosophic, not empiricist useful. Linde was channeling Einstein, pointing out that the current inflation was too beautiful not to be trye. And Kovac was channeling Adams, pointing out that the results quacks like a duck.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.8 / 5 (18) Jun 14, 2014
@Gurushabu: "the BBT does not hold".

That is completely wrong. The Hot Big Bang is an independent process, and verified with other features in the CMB, primordial nucleosynthesis, cosmological redshift. [Wikipedia on BB.]

The current results is about the mechanism that kickstarted the HBB, such as the Cold Inflation.

[Then two crackpot trolls, with antiscience agendas to boot. Then:]

@Rustybolts: Personal incredulity is not relevant. [Wikipedia on BB.]

@Jantoo: Sure, they claim lensing and/or dust it is the main portion of _their_ result. Their's is a doubtful result, see my previous comment.

Nobel science prizes, inflation will give one if fact, is awarded for science.

[Then a troll. Then:]

@Jantoo: Borderline trolling. You have no evidence for defaming hard working scientists. (4 years of hard work!)
Jantoo
1.7 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2014
You have no evidence for defaming hard working scientists
Of course, every critique has its limits, or it would deter the scientists for doing the tedious and risky research instead. The BICEP2 project is such a research. But it shouldn't be ignored, that the interpretation of this research was designed to support the already doubted and controversial theory of inflation. We aren't paying these people for confirmation of their pet theories, but for their falsification: this is the true nature of scientific method. This case reveals the dark side of otherwise healthy competition in science too: it leads the scientists to journalism and premature announcements. Again: we aren't paying the scientists for competition (albeit it can accelerate the research in some cases), but for collaboration. Their incentives (fame, prizes and grants) shouldn't motivate them into screen scrapping and another fringe methods typical for industrial espionage between private companies.
Jantoo
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
the emerging consensus that these experts on dust do not cast doubt. Their own papers are doubtful
From this reason I don't trust the dusty explanation very much, as I do prefer the dark mater filaments interpretation of blue-tilted background. It shouldn't be ignored (after all, it's logical), the main opponents of BICEP2 finding are the physicists pushing the alternative cosmologies (which I'm impressed very much neither), i.e. string and ekpyrotic cosmology. Best of all, we could consider the dark matter filaments as a gravitational waves in the sense of chaotic inflation if we would adopt the model of inflationary multiverse, which proceeds all around as. So where the actual truth is? Well, we already observing the Universe at scales, where the easy to follow deterministic physics mediated with pure transverse light propagation doesn't work anymore and the longitudinal waves participate on it too in similar way, like for observations of water surface with its own ripples.
Jantoo
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
The mainstream model is based on intrinsic perspective of light scattering in vacuum, i.e. the notion of space-time expansion. Whereas the alternative stream represented with Neil Turok, Paul Steinhard and others describe the same process from outside perspective and they do consider the Universe as a system of many mutualy colliding Big Bangs. When unsure, the gold mean average of contradicting ideas of experts usually applies: our Universe is neither product of expansion, neither collisions but it's not even completely steady state - but something inbetween. All guys involved here have their piece of truth, but no one is fully correct. I usually compare it to the result of scattering of waves at the inhomogeneous water surface. This inhomogeneity itself travels from place to place like large fluctuation or quantum wave (Laura Mersini). Our universe is simply random stuff.
indio007
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2014
There are comments posters eating crow right now.
kelman66
5 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2014
Splendid example of the peer-review process in action.
I love Science!
24volts
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2014
Can someone explain something to me in laymans terms here. If the big bang happened 380,000 years before these waves happen to go across that space where the scientist measured it, then where did they come from? 380,000 years at light speed is a pretty good distance. I thought the big bang basically happened everywhere at the same time. If gravity waves (if there actually is such a thing) travel at the same speed as light then something doesn't add up very well here to me. Was the universe ringing like a bell or something in those seconds when everything was supposedly expanding?
Sikla
Jun 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sikla
Jun 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2014
If the big bang happened 380,000 years before

380k years is the age of recombination. Before that the universe was opaque (photons kept bouncing off free electrons and protons. the mean free path of photons was very short).
I.e. we have no light from the time before this happened. After recombinations the universe became transparent (the mean free path became essentially infinite).
The cosmic microwave background is light that started on its way at that time.

However, gravity waves have distorted space even before then (since a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang). The distortion should be imprinted on this 'first light'. This distortion is what BICEP2 attempted to´detect.
Sikla
Jun 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2014
380k years is the age of recombination. Before that the universe was opaque (photons kept bouncing off free electrons and protons. the mean free path of photons was very short).


You have proof? Some empirical evidence? Maybe AA, you are just reciting the mainstream mantra. Just parrot what you learned by rote and ticked the boxes?

What happened to the 'Age of Reason' ?
bluehigh
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
Apologies for the ad hominem, AA. It's just frustrating that you seem so firmly committed to the text book mainstream views, even when there's opposing evidence. Should we not have open minds?
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2014
You have proof? Some empirical evidence?

The homogeneity of the CMB is a pretty good indication that inflation happened. If inflation happened then you can just do the math on the masses involved an the temperatures involved at a certain time/size ofthe universe...and from there see where full ionization happened and when stuff cooled enough so that stuff recombined. That's just simple math and you can try out recombination temperatures in most any lab (a plasma chamber that can reach 4000K will do).

The alternative is
1) The universe was magically created at a certain size
2) A superluminal agency that accounts for the homogeneity of the CMB (and also the spectrum of it)
3) Physics was radically different in the early universe (which is unlikely because then the spectrum would be different, too).

None of these is particularly plausible.

What happened to the 'Age of Reason'

It's doing quite well.
George_Rajna
1 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2014
Accelerated Relativity: https://www.acade...lativity
Jantoo
1 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2014
The homogeneity of the CMB is a pretty good indication that inflation happened.
What about the axis of evil and red shift anisotropy? In steady-state Universe model the inflation occurres too - the scattering of surface ripples just appears so, when you look at it at sufficient distance. The wavelength of surface ripples suddenly collapses at the certain distance from observer, as if the water surface exploded there. This effect is only virtual here though - the large scale structures of Universe aren't observable here, simply because the light is scattered too much at these large distances.
Jantoo
1 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2014
Physics was radically different in the early universe (which is unlikely because then the spectrum would be different, too)
This is just the problem of Big Bang cosmology. No known physical process allows the formation of matter in huge explosion, which suddenly slowed down for being replaced with another huge inflation after moment (few nanoseconds or so). This inflation suddenly stopped again (why? did the Universe hit something?), but the universe expansion didn't stop in this moment and it accelerates again. Why/how some stuff in Universe should behave so? This is clearly an epicycle-like nonsense, fitted to observations. The fabling about some similarity in physics is completely off-topic here, as no physical process known so far is able to emulate such a dynamics. Whereas the steady-state model explains all of these steps with trivial quiet scattering of ripples at the water surface. The Occam razor should apply here, if not common sense.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2014
Steady state doesn't work for me because no matter how far you look you should see the same distribution of old/young, hydrogen/metallic, large/small stars. That just clashes with observation.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2014
"Twenty Four volts" hit it pretty good. Suppose the Einstein worshippers are ..w-r--o-n-g!? about the 'speed of gravity'. After all, is it not so that this field is supposed to permeate all space? Shake one part and all will vibrate in lock step? So gravity shakes space and stretches and compresses it here and there, like a warp drive. Suppose they, gravity waves, are used by other sentient species in the local and other areas for interstellar communication amuch like the fabled Star Trek 'subspace radio'. By the deal struck in 1954 with our world leaders at the time like Dwight Eisenhower, suppose the alien entities demanded their existence be kept secret from the people. This in return for certain bits of technology that they were willing to share with we 'indigenous peoples' of earth. After all, do you reallllly believe that awllllll the progress, speedddyyy indeed, of the last fifty years was from little ole' 'US'???
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2014
of the last fifty years was from little ole' 'US'???

Well, no...because some other minds (like Einstein, Shannon (information theory), Turing/Zuse(computers) von Braun (rocket science), Berners-Lee(the web), Hahn/Meitner (nuclear energy), etc. ) had a tiiiny bit of input...that leaves the US to make...erm...what invention exactly in the past 50 years?
Jantoo
2 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2014
Note that the strange Big Bang scenario of interrupted space-time expansion plays well with black hole density profile, once you consider it as a dense star with physical surface at event horizon and some singularity inside. If you'll penetrate such a black hole from outside in, you'll experience the periods of sudden expansion of space-time and subsequent periods of interrupted expansion. This has lead some physicists into idea, our Universe could be a time reversed black hole. Actually the FLRW metric of LCDM model is just Schwarzchild metric of common black hole turned inside out - their geometries are otherwise the very same. But the black hole is stationary object: you can achieve this dynamics without any global change of black hole, its density profile is enough. The FLRW metric therefore describes the stationary universe in fact.
Jantoo
2 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2014
steady state doesn't work for me because no matter how far you look you should see the same distribution of old/young, hydrogen/metallic, large/small stars. That just clashes with observation
We are observing mature galaxies and stars at the distant areas of Universe routinely. And we are observing very "young" (i.e. hydrogen rich) galaxies at the close vicinity of Milky Way too. Also, the steady state Universe model is not so trivial as it looks at the first sight: when you take a look at the distant lights through the fog, you'll see only reddish objects - the fog serves as a filter. Analogously, the slowly burning stars of lower temperature, i.e. rich of hydrogen would be more visible at distance, when we would observe them through thick layer of vacuum fluctuations. We already know about GZK limit in this connection.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2014
You have proof? Some empirical evidence? Maybe AA, you are just reciting the mainstream mantra. Just parrot what you learned by rote and ticked the boxes?


He always does that, he doesn't have a strong background in science, so when he sees something he'd like to make comments on he heads to WikiPedia for a short blurb about which he constantly posits absolute drivel that most of us learned in high school. He's part of the "retirement enclave" who has nothing better to do with his time.

What happened to the 'Age of Reason' ?


What happened to science on a site such as this?
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2014
short blurb about which he constantly posits absolute drivel that most of us learned in high school


Hey Bennie-Skippy, where you at Cher? That sounds like what you do every all the time. You say the quasi-circle-universe constantly all the time and throw in the different equations every other time and never tell us how we are supposed to know you even know what them things are. Are you going to do the different equation today for us or are you again going to find some smarty alex thing to say for the reason you can't?

What happened to science on a site such as this?


Well Skippy since there is nobody here to do the different equation for the science fans, this all you get. Now if you want to start off the science talk, the floor is all your own mon ami. Let's see what you got for us today Cher.

Be sure to put on the silly looking pointy cap before you start with the science talk so we will know it is you telling us the science stuffs. Okayeei with you podna?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2014
Hi antialias. :) Still too busy to post much, but your continued 'BBang-beliefs' prompted me to post this as a reminder to you/everyone.

We already had this discussion, in our relevant exchange beginning with my post on March 26 in the following thread...

http://phys.org/n...big.html

Various 'peer criticism' responses to BICEP2 and other CMB 'papers' clearly supports my long-stated view that 'space' is a 'mixmaster' of 'localized/extended recycling' processes which, across the eons and across vast space regions, is perfectly capable of producing BOTH the locally observed CMB AND 'elemental abundance forms/ratios'.

Variously scaled galaxy/blackhole POLAR JET processes/ejections of 'deconstructed matter' from accretion discs over eons locally and into intergalaxy/intercluster space is COMMONPLACE. Hence the 'mix' of 'old' & 'pristine' gas/features observed.

Eternal recyling at all scales makes 'one BBang' unnecessary. Remember Occam's Razor! Cheers. :)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2014
clearly supports my long-stated view that 'space' is a 'mixmaster'

Clearly to whom? That seems only clear to one person: yourself.

Remember Occam's Razor!

Yep. Positing infinite time/energy/space is exactly the opposite of Occams Razor.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2014
Hi Antialias. :)
That seems only clear to one person: yourself.
It is clear to anyone reading (without BBang-biases) the full gamut of mainstream peer responses to those obviously flawed 'papers'. They point out many OTHER intervening space sources and processes of/for CMB/effects. You obviously didn't want to read those mainstream alternatives because you don't want to see mainstreamers agreeing with what I have been pointing out all along re 'mixmaster' of processes across space.

Positing infinite time/energy/space is exactly the opposite of Occams Razor.
You forget. In our previous discussion I pointed out that Occam's Razor has infinite and eternally recycling energy-space extent producing the observed CMB in ALL regions over eons, with each region having LOCAL processes/sources contributing its local share IN ADDITION, and so give the locally observed CMB.

It's your contrived swag of ad-hoc BBang-assumptions/interpretations-based-beliefs that is anti-Occams. :)
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2014
Steady state doesn't work for me because no matter how far you look you should see the same distribution of old/young, hydrogen/metallic, large/small stars. That just clashes with observation.


Really?

http://www.hngn.c...away.htm

But when you say "The homogeneity of the CMB is a pretty good indication that inflation happened. If inflation happened then you can just do the math..." It makes sense that you make the comment above and ignore recent observations....it's the only way for the standard model to hold up.

Plugging your ears and closing your eyes will also work.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2014
You forget. In our previous discussion I pointed out that Occam's Razor has infinite and eternally recycling energy-space extent producing the observed CMB in ALL regions over eons,

- An infinite creating universe would soon run into Olbers paradox. ( Not observed )
- We should also see a lot more younger stars close by. ( Not observed )
- We should NOT see the cosmic network (whihc we do observe)

Nah. Doesn't work for me.
otero
Jun 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2014
The steady state universe explains the the red shift with scattering of light with density fluctuations of vacuum. The same fluctuations do prohibit the observation of light sources at the infinite distance. In this point the steady state universe model doesn't differ from expanding universe model - the distant light sources are heavily red shifted and blurred with background, so they evade the attention.

We should NOT see the cosmic network


We don't see it.

We should also see a lot more younger stars close by
Recently many unexpected galaxies composed of hydrogen only were observed around Milky Way. Actually the lack of satellite galaxies is a notorious problem of Big Bang model instead.


You got the another new name for Socratic-Skippy? You going to run out of ways to group up the letters if you be more slow. Is that why you are down to the really weird groups of letters that don't mean anything? Run out of the normal names?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
- An infinite creating universe would soon run into Olbers paradox. ( Not observed )
- We should also see a lot more younger stars close by. ( Not observed )
- We should NOT see the cosmic network (whihc we do observe)
The answers/mechanisms/explanations of those are included in my upcoming ToE publication.

The irony is, those already easily explained by earlier quantum/cosmological scientific discoveries/literature, if only you/mainstreamers weren't so enamoured with all those BBang assumpions/interpretations/myths which caused you to ignore for so long what could happen to lightwaves in space/processes relevant in these areas of observed phenomena.

Nah. Doesn't work for me.
Ironically, recent relevant scientific discoveries/observations in quantum/photonics etc further confirm my early/ToE explanations. Unfortunately your/other's BBang-biased 'intepreting/assuming' produces a 'blind spot' which still makes you miss the bleeding obvious!

Cheers. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2014
The answers/mechanisms/explanations of those are included in my upcoming ToE publication.

Yay...your upcoming ToE..that has been upcoming...what...5 years now? Lemme guess. you're still writing on the heading for chapter 1?

Forgive me for being somewhat underwhelmed with your mythical unicorn of a theory.

etc further confirm my early/ToE explanations.

Weird. People have been asking you for explanations for years. and you never produced any so far. You must be reading in a different (equally mythical?) forum than anyone else.
Sure you are not confusing your dreams with being awake?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
The answers/mechanisms/explanations of those are included in my upcoming ToE publication.

Yay...your upcoming ToE..that has been upcoming...what...5 years now? Lemme guess. you're still writing on the heading for chapter 1?

Forgive me for being somewhat underwhelmed with your mythical unicorn of a theory.

etc further confirm my early/ToE explanations.

Weird. People have been asking you for explanations for years. and you never produced any so far. You must be reading in a different (equally mythical?) forum than anyone else.
Sure you are not confusing your dreams with being awake?


Wow, that was quick response. :)

How long did Darwin take to publish thorough work?

Also, I have dropped occasional explanations for same over the years on the net already.

I'm not governed by 'publish or perish' imperatives. :)

Cheers! :)
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
The answers/mechanisms/explanations of those are included in my upcoming ToE publication.

Yay...your upcoming ToE..that has been upcoming...what...5 years now? Lemme guess. you're still writing on the heading for chapter 1?

Forgive me for being somewhat underwhelmed with your mythical unicorn of a theory.

etc further confirm my early/ToE explanations.

Weird. People have been asking you for explanations for years. and you never produced any so far. You must be reading in a different (equally mythical?) forum than anyone else.
Sure you are not confusing your dreams with being awake?


Wow, that was quick response. :)

How long did Darwin take to publish thorough work?

Also, I have dropped occasional explanations for same over the years on the net already.

I'm not governed by 'publish or perish' imperatives. :)

Cheers! :)


Ya but what if you get hit by a bus tomorrow? Then we'll never know.

Do tell.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2014
Hi rockwolf1000. :) Just reading-only through here again when I saw your post, so I logged in again specially to respond to your expressed understandable concern:

Ya but what if you get hit by a bus tomorrow? Then we'll never know.

Do tell.


Thanks for your kind regards for my and science's welfare, mate; but no need to fret, my family will have full access to my draft manuscript (both hard copy and electronic), so will be readily able to publish my ToE posthumously, complete with all notes and experimental/theoretical details-in-support.

Patience.

Thanks. Good luck and good thinking, rock, everyone! :)

damianoGE
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2014
gravitational waves should have 2 types of origin:
1) the material moves away from the observer with constant H ° 68.3 km / sec per Mpc,
SPACE carrier reaches the speed - on - the viewer >> "c" the galaxies "leaning" over this "conveyor belt" has to go out to our observation .. as shown in this NASA video

http://map.gsfc.n..._320.mov

and also:

https://www.youtu...3t8U6w28

For this reason, every observer is surrounded by a spherical horizon - a shell - suitable thickness, which is the source of the spread of radiation that we call "now" CMBR: inthis ipotesy it is not the residue of the fossil radiation scattering that was generated by the scattering of visible light at ~ 380,000 years fromOrigin ...

INSTEAD what we observe is the residue of the spread of radiation [including gravitational waves, E / M, BAO and others, Well this radiation remain visible and always in "evolution of fluctuation" to us observatories on Earth (but applies to any point where the observer is placed -> ok for Cosmological Principle).
the physical phenomenon that creates this "TRAIN Waves STATIONARY retrograde" and THANK Quantum TUNNEL 's EFFECT, which allows the light emitted from galaxies in transit shell border of speed "c" to return back partly as weak residual radiation as That back, cossing the shell line, as shown in this video

http://it.wikiped...o_tunnel

2) The second source of gravitational waves - and more uniform distribution, is created by HOLES BLACKS placed at the center of every galaxy in the cluster as ABELL and Quasar ...

When a black hole "works" absorbing and collapsing baryonic matter produces a gravitational disturbance surrounding it, that "disturbs the stillness" of 'Vacuum Energy
this disorder decouples each pair of particles by their anti-particle at rest - all the time - appearing and disappearing in normal rest .. that does not create anything:

the particle survivor of decoupling is perceived by our radiotelesopi BICEP, Planck etc. as polarized dust and deceive the scientists that detect polarized dust, -> but this phenomenon is much more important in the history of the universe that is infinite and eternal expansion always and forever with little variation expansive, and without the invention of 'inflation very, very foolish of "Mr. Alan Guth" sewn on the weak model of the Big Bang which would fall like a house of cards because of the uniformity of the observed CMBR hypotheses generated in an initial point :-)

if you want to deepen or challenge these concepts, you can freely access

www.bio-astronomia.blogspot.it
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2014
I'm not governed by 'publish or perish' imperatives. :)

Thankfully you're just governed by the 'perish' imperative.

I doubt anyone will much care for this ToE which isn't a ToE in any case, since - by your own admissions - it makes no predictions, doesn't fit with observations and contains no tests. That makes it about as much the opposite of a ToE as it's possible to get: It's nonsense about fantasy.

And why would anyone care to read what you leave electronically posthumously (much less publish it)? There isn't anyone interested while you're alive. What makes you think that will change when you're dead?
Your electronic legacy will just go to landfill. Like all crazy ramblings on the net.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
Thankfully you're just governed by the 'perish' imperative.
How 'personal' and 'emotional', 'scientist'! No wonder you miss the obvious. Scientific intellectual detachment; get some. :)

...isn't a ToE in any case, since - by your own admissions - it makes no predictions, doesn't fit with observations and contains no tests. That makes it about as much the opposite of a ToE as it's possible to get: It's nonsense about fantasy.
You make up fantasy stories, 'scientist'. I haven't "admitted" any such things. And you haven't yet seen my complete ToE, so you're 'strawmanning'. :)

And why would anyone care to read what you leave electronically posthumously...?

Your electronic legacy will just go to landfill. Like all crazy ramblings on the net.
Yet my objective mind immediately saw the obvious flaws in those BICEP2 papers/claims, while your/others' bias-blinkered mind 'believed' such obvious 'publish or perish' crap. Yeah, "crazy ramblings"! :)

Bye! :)