Is cosmic radiation the dawn of new physics or statistical slip-up?

Is cosmic radiation the dawn of new physics or statistical slip-up?
The universe still holds many secrets. Credit: Aaron Landry/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

Recent observations suggest that there is something not quite right with our view of our universe – that something is skewing our view of the oldest radiation arriving at our telescopes.

What's causing this skewing? Is it new fundamental physics, or something as bizarre as a collision with another universe?

While these are extremely exciting, a study published today in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics suggests the solution is much more mundane – it's the way the data was originally analysed that produced apparently significant anomalies.

Science fiction author Isaac Asimov famously said: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'that's funny'."

So what's so funny?

Scientists are always looking for anomalies, those bits of experimental data and observations that disagree with prevailing theories and ideas. Anomalies point the way to new research directions and open new doors to revealing the universe's secrets.

For today's cosmologists, the search has taken on a new urgency, not because things are so terrible, but because things are so good. Our current models of the universe work amazingly well. They accurately explain the distributions and motions of galaxies as the result of dark matter, dark energy and gravity.

They also accurately explain the patterns on the Cosmic Microwave Background, the radiation left over from the overheated birth of the universe. This pattern is the result of the complex physics of the early universe, from the growth of the first seeds of galaxies.

Through successive experiments – with the Cosmic Background Explore (COBE) satellite in the 1990s, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) in the 2000s and most recently the Planck telescope – we have revealed finer and finer detail. And within the finery, no anomalies have been uncovered.

Is cosmic radiation the dawn of new physics or statistical slip-up?
This map shows the cosmic microwave background from the Planck satellite in March 2013. The image along the galactic plane is problematic and was removed and then treated with an interpolation method by the Planck consortium to study the anomalies in the microwave sky. The circle shows a cold spot region. Credit: Planck consortium

This worries cosmologists, as we know that our mathematical models cannot be complete. We know that the two leading scientific theories, gravitation and quantum mechanics, do not work together. We would hope therefore that the patterns on the Cosmic Microwave Background would give us some clues.

Anomalies in the system

But while the fine detail agreed, the larger-scale aspects of the patterns appeared to deviate from expectations. Cosmologists have jumped upon these anomalies (given affectionate names such as the Axis of Evil and the cold spot) as evidence for a whole range of exotic physics, including uneven expansion, left-handed universes and cosmic collisions. Perhaps these are the clues we've all been waiting for?

Except it is not that simple. One of the complexities of observing the cosmos is that our sun is embedded deep within the Milky Way galaxy, surrounded by other stars, gas and dust. This means that large tracts of the sky are effectively unobservable, hidden by our own galactic foreground.

And this is particularly bad for observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background, as the dusty material in the Milky Way emits at similar wavelengths, contaminating the signal cosmologists are searching for.

A new look at the image data

Today's paper re-examined the approach typically used when faced with such contamination, masking out the regions of the sky where galactic emission appears to dominate.

The work, by European cosmologist Anaïs Rassat and collaborators, revealed something surprising, that the very act of masking appeared to artificially enhance some of the anomalous signals. This, of course, is quite a worry if you hoped these anomalous signs were pointing to something interesting!

Is cosmic radiation the dawn of new physics or statistical slip-up?
The Milky Way is bit of a barrier between us the extra-galactic universe. Credit: NASA, CC BY

But Rassat went further and examined additional sources of background signal that had previously been considered inconsequential. These included a detailed examination of the motion of the Milky Way through the local environment, and a subtle signal due to the path of Cosmic Microwave Background photons over billions of light years.

And the results were that these apparently inconsequential effects were not so inconsequential after all, and the significance of anomalies decreased even further.

Good news or bad news?

Now, you might think this is a great success, as our current theoretical expectations and observations are an even better match. And, in truth, it is. But if you are hunting for clues to new physics, the Cosmic Microwave Background is proving very uncooperative.

It's important to acknowledge that observations of the feeble cosmic radiation are not easy to obtain and analyse, and accounting for contamination and backgrounds within a weak signal is never going to be easy. This new paper helps bring clarity to this in our observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

We should expect anomalies to pop up when we scrabble about in the noise of experiments and observations at the cutting-edge, to be followed by rampant theoretical speculation. Some will melt away when examined with deeper scrutiny, while others will get stronger, providing new clues and new directions.

Science at the cutting-edge is rarely clear-cut, and answers are hardly ever black and white. It's always important to remember that.


Explore further

Baby universe picture brought closer to theory

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).
The Conversation

Citation: Is cosmic radiation the dawn of new physics or statistical slip-up? (2014, August 5) retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-08-cosmic-dawn-physics-statistical-slip-up.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 05, 2014
Statistical gymnastics, indeed!

Aug 05, 2014
Quote from article: "They also accurately explain the patterns on the Cosmic Microwave Background, the radiation left over from the overheated birth of the universe. This pattern is the result of the complex physics of the early universe, from the growth of the first seeds of galaxies."

Well ya, if you want to introduce the unproven magic of the "inflationary period and the accelerating expansion of the universe".


Aug 05, 2014
Statistical gymnastics, indeed!
@cantthinkORdrive
considering your historical postings about EU and your fallacious pseudoscience, is this supposed to be Irony or Hyperbole?

if you want to introduce the unproven magic of
@billpress11
personal conjecture:
can you justify this with legitimate science or a proven scientific theory?
(links/references)

Aug 05, 2014
I'm not saying a word stumpy....its all coming together.

Aug 05, 2014
Just curious, why do we have to look towards our own galaxy? Are not we kind of nearer to the edge of it? Why not look away from our galaxy, towards darker parts of the sky? Obviously I don't know much about cosmology, other than the 100+ hours of TV shows I have watched on the subject. Any response?

Aug 05, 2014
@Krundoloss We do look in every direction. The movement of our solar system is insignificant as far as the galaxy is concerned. It's still in the way. Unless we wait for the galaxy to rotate 180 degrees. I'm to busy for that!

Aug 05, 2014
"@billpress11
personal conjecture:
can you justify this with legitimate science or a proven scientific theory?
(links/references)"

Captain Stumpy, well as a matter of fact NO, and neither can they offer any facts to support the inflationary period. No they don't have a shred of evidence to back up their claim. It is all speculation to backup what is observed and the BB theory. That is not good science when one has to resort to using MAGIC.

At least I admit it, they pass it off to the public as a fact. Where are your links that factually support their claims. And I mean the ones that offer scientific proof that space can expand, and that anything can travel faster than the speed of light.

Aug 05, 2014
You don't have to be a crank to wonder at the verisimilitude of 'cosmic inflation.' It does seem magical; it's a trick to make the equations come out right, for which evidence is weak (mainly CMB analyses, which today's article places into perspective as scrabbling around in the noise).

Inflation might yet be discarded as an hypothesis. It's sure not at the slam-dunk consensus stage among cosmologists; most are tentative about it, and many are downright uncomfortable with it.

The accelerating expansion of the universe is on much firmer evidentiary ground, however, regardless of what cranks say about it. Only problem is, we have no idea *why* the universe is doing that. 'Dark energy' isn't an explanation, it's a place-holding label for something - a force? Quantum vacuum properties? Gravitation external to the observable universe? Something else? - that is completely unknown.

There *must* be physics beyond what we know. Big stuff. Accolades await those who figure it out!

Aug 05, 2014
There *must* be physics beyond what we know. Big stuff. Accolades await those who figure it out!


"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams

Aug 06, 2014
Inflation might yet be discarded as an hypothesis. It's sure not at the slam-dunk consensus stage among cosmologists; most are tentative about it, and many are downright uncomfortable with it

Nicely stated. I wish this were the case with most of our scientific theories as many aren't slam-dunks either.

If inflation is true, and the BB is true, then to me there is only one logical explanation for inflation. Imagine the entirety of the universe as a single plane of spacetime before the BB. When the BB occurs, it throws out a toroid of matter that starts to warp spacetime around the original singularity relatively evenly throughout the universe. Since the matter will continue to move outward, spacetime will be warped further, thus continually increasing the slope/acceleration.

The original singularity is like a "negative mass deformation" since all the matter exploded away from it, thus the universal spacetime fabric would have a single "high point" with everything moving away.

Aug 06, 2014
I'm not saying a word stumpy....its all coming together
@Delerious
and when it does...?
either can they offer any facts to support the inflationary period
@billp
how about this:
the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation
from https://en.wikipe...ysics%29
Steinhardt, Paul J. (2011). "The inflation debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?" (Scientific American, April; pp. 18-25). "...inflationary theory is powerfully predictive. For example, numerous observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the distribution of galaxies have confirmed that the spatial variations in energy in the early universe were nearly scale-invariant."
http://arxiv.org/...57v1.pdf
we made a lot of models, and the observations to date most closely match the inflation model and predictions based upon KNOWN physics
Can you do better?

Aug 06, 2014
At least I admit it, they pass it off to the public as a fact.
@billp
no, they pass it off as what is KNOWN ans what is theorised based upon known physics... see Urgelt's comment
Inflation might yet be discarded as an hypothesis. It's sure not at the slam-dunk consensus stage among cosmologists; most are tentative about it, and many are downright uncomfortable with it
it is only YOU who assume that it is presented as fact. perhaps because you don't understand how science works?
scientific proof that space can expand, and that anything can travel faster than the speed of light
I like this comment by Urgelt
There *must* be physics beyond what we know. Big stuff. Accolades await those who figure it out!

Aug 06, 2014
Cool that they could remove masking (because of Planck many wavelengths), and that it had such a large effect. What remains (besides the high-l anomalies that the analysis doesn't affect) is the quadrupole near anomaly (the l=2 pole, AFAIU) which is even stronger (but not quite strong enough) - further attesting to the correctness of the new analysis.

"We know that the two leading scientific theories, gravitation and quantum mechanics, do not work together."

Of course they do, we can put quantum mechanics on a relativistic background (semiclassical quantum field theory) and we can quantize gravity (gravitons). What happens is that general relativity breaks down at high energies/curvatures, because it is an effective and not the complete theory of gravity.

Aug 06, 2014
@billpress: Inflation is the simplest physics of the LCDM cosmology, and it has been tested sevearl times. It has one more test to pass, it tentatively did and all the other ideas failed (BICEP2), it just needs a repeat.

@Urqelt: A hatchet job, which you would know if you had read the Planck papers on LCDM.

- "'cosmic inflation.' It does seem magical; it's a trick to make the equations come out right,"

Erroneous. The analysis we are looking at here would not be possible without inflation and more crucially its quantum fluctuations that couple structure formation to cosmic microwave background data. The simplest physics model predicting inflation and its fluctuations is a particle field similar to, but much simpler, than the Higgs.

It is a natural process, not 'magical', since it obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics going down the inflation field potential energy.

[tbctd]

Aug 06, 2014
[ctd]

"which today's article places into perspective as scrabbling around in the noise)."

Erroneous. The analysis we are looking at here clarifies remaining systematic errors, which are known to be small. Hence "anomalies", not "problems". The one who looks scrabbling around in self perpetuated noise is you.

" 'Dark energy' isn't an explanation, it's a place-holding label for something".

Erroneous. Only mathematic equations can have unconstrained "place holders", models have physical units and so constrained parameters (whether tested or not).

Dark energy is at the very least an expression for energy conservation through gravitational potential energy in LCDM. And since vacuum energy is the simplest physics it is the main hypothesis. Already Weinberg 1987 tested the DE cosmological constant, and precisely as for inflation no other hypotheses (say, 'paramater uniqueness') have managed to get that far.

Inflation and dark energy are right now the only games in town.

[tbctd]

Aug 06, 2014
[ctd]

You can dislike that all you want, but it is mere unsubstantiated, unlikely to become fact opinion, you need science to move the situation.

Aug 06, 2014
Captain Stumpy

Oh brother, so the inflation theory is "Powerfully predictive", NO it is exactly the other way around. It was created out of the necessity to explain why the universe appears flat. They had to either abandon the BB theory or create magical inflationary period. That is the box the flat universe put the BB theorist into. They resorted to magic to escape from it.


Aug 06, 2014
Quote TL: "Erroneous. The analysis we are looking at here would not be possible without inflation and more crucially its quantum fluctuations that couple structure formation to cosmic microwave background data. The simplest physics model predicting inflation and its fluctuations is a particle field similar to, but much simpler, than the Higgs."

There certainly are other possibilities, one can explain it without resorting to a magical inflationary theory. One, the universe may be infinite and the cosmic background radiation is created by even more distant galaxies whose light has been shifted into the lower frequencies of the CBR. This would also explain the lumpiness of the observed CBR without introducing a magical inflationary period.

Just find another explanation the observed red-shift and we also would not need an "acceleration expansion of the universe" either. There is another explanation for the observed red-shift.


Aug 06, 2014
Resorting to an inflationary period is NO better than using tired light to explain the observed red-shift. They are BOTH in the same FLAWED ball-park. One breaks the ultimate known speed in the universe, the other doesn't conserve energy and momentum.

I am still waiting for proof that anything can happen or travel faster than the speed of light.

Aug 06, 2014
It was created out of the necessity to explain why
@billp
so you didn't read the links? that quote was from one of them. The study by Steinhardt, Paul J.... it is HIS quote, billy... don't like it? REFUTE HIM with a well reasoned study that can be peer reviewed
They resorted to magic to escape from it
no, they created a theory based upon logic and physics and tried to explain it. It goes thru stages, from idea to hypothesis to theory... not the layman terms, but the scientific terms

Perhaps you should brush up on science a little? http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Try it... you might like it! really! take the courses... take physics and astrophysics and more... LEARN WHY the theory is still the main theory

THEN come back and argue more. it helps to understand where they are coming from... maybe you will even find a better place to head towards. who knows?

one more reason to ignore PSEUDOSCIENCE like EU and move towards PROVEN science. Real science is FUN

Aug 06, 2014
CS, I know you quoted from the Wiki link, so what?

Pseudoscience?? Well the inflationary period is PSEUDOSCIENCE!

Plain and simple the inflationary period was created in the 1980's to explain away the "large scale structures" observed in the early universe. Ya, like it looks the SAME in every direction, it appears FLAT.

The question really boils down which came first, the observations or the theory? I say the observation which needed and explanation in order to save the BB theory from itself. It save it for a while, but future observations required still another FIX. The apparent brightness of distant supernova did not coincide the distances the BB theory required. So the accelerating expansion was then added.

None of that is needed if one looks at the universe as infinite with another explanation the observed red-shift. There is one out there that needs no magic, it fits observation. Is it correct? I don't know. But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.

Aug 06, 2014
Of course they do, we can put quantum mechanics on a relativistic background (semiclassical quantum field theory) and we can quantize gravity (gravitons). What happens is that general relativity breaks down at high energies/curvatures, because it is an effective and not the complete theory of gravity.

The very reason it's called GENERAL relativity...:-)

Aug 06, 2014
This statement "They accurately explain the distributions and motions of galaxies as the result of dark matter, dark energy and gravity."

,is pie in the sky BS.

Aug 06, 2014
Weren't they just calling this guy a crank?

Robitaille holds the world record for highest resolution MRI imaging.

Robitaille P.-M.
WMAP: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-o...8-01.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-o...9-03.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.
The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets
http://www.ptep-o...2-02.PDF

Aug 06, 2014
Weren't they just calling this guy a crank?


He is a crank, may may be perfectly competent in his own field but that doesn't change the fact he is wrong. How do I know he is wrong? The data shows that clearly. He claims the background is not cosmic, the data says it is. The Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect and the Sachs Wolfe effect were both predictions for the CMB where it passes though galaxy clusters and the light is effected. In the SZ effect photons are boosted to higher energies via the inverse Compton effect, as a result the flux increases at higher frequencies and decreases at some lower ones. The decrease cannot be explained by Robitailles model of a local or instrumental background. He's wrong.

Other errors in his work is comparing water suppression to removing the foreground signal, ignoring the fact that the former uses just frequency information while the later has this and angular information...

Aug 06, 2014
And he claims the WMAP multipoles were generated in subtracting the quadrapolar moment, he doesn't however demonstrate this with simulated data or the data available from the mission. He claims WMAP or COBE never got a null because he signal wasn't zero, ignoring detector offsets.

He also claims the fact that Planck's calibration loads are bolted to a 4K structure invalidate them, absolute crap. It's still a 4K load. He doesn't discuss the other instrument or the fact that both underwent photometric calibration.

This man is looking for reasons to throw out instruments rather than making an honest go of things.

Aug 06, 2014
CS, I know you quoted from the Wiki link, so what?
@billyp
actually, I was quoting Steinhardt, Paul J. and his STUDY, which is also referenced at Wiki
Pseudoscience?? Well the inflationary period is PSEUDOSCIENCE
personal conjecture: tell you what, pick one of the studies and SHOW ME the pseudoscience... that is why they're there. Don't just make the CLAIM, show me WHY it is so
I am GIVING YOU PROOF, now give some back
But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
ok, you wanted to know what proof there was for BB and expansion, etc, I sent you some studies.
now you tell me this is pseudoscience, but you don't point out to WHAT is pseudoscience... just that it is. Why not finger the point in the study?
show me where the study (either one) is flawed
just SHOW ME where the flaws are so we have SPECIFIC POINTS to argue... don't just whine about your lack of comprehension and say "well they adjusted it so it must not be true"

ALL SCIENCE does that! not just astrophysics

Aug 06, 2014
@billpress11
None of that is needed if one looks at the universe as infinite with another explanation the observed red-shift. There is one out there that needs no magic, it fits observation. Is it correct? I don't know. But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
But an infinite universe would still need to be dynamic, is it not?

Aug 07, 2014

Just find another explanation the observed red-shift and we also would not need an "acceleration expansion of the universe" either. There is another explanation for the observed red-shift.


Okay, here's another theory: Boddah is stretching out the energy from distant objects, and he stretches all of the light beams from closer objects out more quickly, so it just APPEARS that everything is accelerating away from us faster and faster, when ACTUALLY everything is 300 miles away from the earth and Boddah just painted it there 6000 years ago.

That's pretty much what you sound like for suggesting the universe isn't expanding at an accelerating rate.

You might be right about inflation being wrong, but redshift is something we can observe happening constantly, and there is no other explanation grounded in science other than accelerating spacial expansion.

Aug 07, 2014
@IMP9

First of all , you didn't do anything more than skim read, cherry pick and then mischaracterize due to ignorance.

Regardless,
There is AMPLE evidence when it comes down to WMAP and COBE. Changing chart scales, arbitrary coefficients, and my favoritem lowering the resolution of a difference image comparing Year 1 and Year 3 when Year 3 image is a composite of year 1 ,2 and 3.
The only reason for image (re)combination is to suppress the ACTUAL image differences.

Ever hear of scientific fraud?
Like the rest of US, society it has become the prevalent modus operandi. Once by choice but now by necessity.

Research science isn't self-funded therefore funding is a competition.

Do you think 3 honest scientist cans compete with 7 dishonest ones for a funding?

"Although much of the attention in the wake
of the WMAP release has focused on "sexy" issues like
the power spectrum and its cosmological implications,
the primary stated science goal of WMAP is to produce maps."

Aug 07, 2014
Ever hear of scientific fraud?
Like the rest of US, society it has become the prevalent modus operandi. Once by choice but now by necessity.
@indio007
hold on now...
so you are saying that a man who specialises in these Fields: Biophysics, Physiology
is trumping trained astrophysicists and therefore you are willing to write off an entire team as fraudulent because an MRI specialist says so?
REALLY?

C'mon man! That would be like saying that information from your local firefighter with a cursory look at your house is more accurate than your plumber who has worked on your specific house because firefighters are used to water!

I haven't finished reading all the links yet but so far, IMP seems to be correct in his posts above
This man is looking for reasons to throw out instruments rather than making an honest go of things


What, SPECIFICALLY, are you saying is NOT true about IMP's posts above?

Aug 07, 2014
@billpress11
None of that is needed if one looks at the universe as infinite with another explanation the observed red-shift. There is one out there that needs no magic, it fits observation. Is it correct? I don't know. But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
But an infinite universe would still need to be dynamic, is it not?

Yes, it would have to be a recycling universe. This could happen over such a long period of time that it may take quadrillions years to complete one cycle. It could be very difficult to find scientific proof in support of this idea.

Aug 07, 2014
Captain Stumpy, I have show you in EVERY one of my posting where the error is, it core basis has NEVER been proven scientifically. It does NOT accept that the speed of light is the ultimate speed in the universe. An error based on an error is an error. When you make one error in math everything you base on that error is also an error.

What is it that cannot comprehend? That the speed of light is fixed and ultimate? You avoid the very core of the issue. Of course, maybe you and the names you dropped are correct, maybe the there is a way around the speed of light. I have asked you for proof of that and all I have received is SILENCE on that issue. I want SCIENCE on that issue, thank you.

Aug 07, 2014
Quote Jibble: "You might be right about inflation being wrong, but redshift is something we can observe happening constantly, and there is no other explanation grounded in science other than accelerating spacial expansion."

Oh, but there are other explanations for the observed red-shift, the one I like best is at this link.
http://www.scribd...-Physics

Is it correct, I don't know but it does offer a rather simple test that could shed some light on it, pun intended. If it is correct it would explain why distant supernova are dimmer than the BB theory predicts, because they are further than the distances the BB theory allows for.

Aug 07, 2014
First of all , you didn't do anything more than skim read, cherry pick and then mischaracterize due to ignorance.


Then you haven't read what I said. The SZ effect completely debunks Robitaille's claims. He claims the background is instrumental or local, it cannot be otherwise we would not see it interact with clusters. It cannot be explained by his model because in some channels the CMB gets dimer because of it, inexplicable for a local model. The SZ effect wouldn't be produced without a cosmic CMB.

I love it that you accuse me of cherry picking when you ignore the fact that this completely contradicts the thesis of Robitaille's papers, while you stick to shallow things like charts and coefficients. Arbitrary coefficients are how you combat changing background, if you don't like the plots given make your own. The regular observations of the SZ effect prove the CMB is cosmic and the the instruments designed to detect it are doing their job.

Try actually countering my argument.

Aug 07, 2014
if you are hunting for clues to new physics, the Cosmic Microwave Background is proving very uncooperative
In AWT model it's logical, because for wavelengths of CMBR the effects of relativity and quantum mechanics are most exactly balanced, our Universe appears as large as possible and most random as possible. Even the Michelson-Morley experiment exhibits the least aether drag just for microwaves (the microwave photons cannot be scattered with microwave photons of CMBR). Even many red shift effects disappear in CMBR wavelengths. In analogy with wave spreading at the water surface the CMBR corresponds the waves, where the effects of surface tension and underwater density fluctuations are compensated mutually (note that this wavelength corresponds the CMBR wavelength rather closely).

Aug 07, 2014
Note that similar situation exists for Higgs boson, which is holographic analogy of the CMBR peak at the microscopic scale and just at these scales the Higgs boson behavior follows Standard Model behavior too closely for to manifest itself some "new physics".

The memo is, you shouldn't seek for new physics with using of artifacts, predicted with old physics.

Aug 07, 2014
@billpress11
None of that is needed if one looks at the universe as infinite with another explanation the observed red-shift. There is one out there that needs no magic, it fits observation. Is it correct? I don't know. But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
But an infinite universe would still need to be dynamic, is it not?
Yes, it would have to be a recycling universe. This could happen over such a long period of time that it may take quadrillions years to complete one cycle. It could be very difficult to find scientific proof in support of this idea.
So in an infinite universe we should see some galaxy superclusters coming at us as much as there would be some going away right? Why don't we see that?

Aug 07, 2014
@billpress11
None of that is needed if one looks at the universe as infinite with another explanation the observed red-shift. There is one out there that needs no magic, it fits observation. Is it correct? I don't know. But it certainly looks better than MAGIC.
But an infinite universe would still need to be dynamic, is it not?
Yes, it would have to be a recycling universe. This could happen over such a long period of time that it may take quadrillions years to complete one cycle. It could be very difficult to find scientific proof in support of this idea.
So in an infinite universe we should see some galaxy superclusters coming at us as much as there would be some going away right? Why don't we see that?

Agreed, but remember you would first have to subtract the observed red-shift from them. The reason, the observed red-shift would not be a recessional velocity but an illusion caused by another source.

Aug 07, 2014
It does NOT accept that the speed of light is the ultimate speed in the universe
@Billp
actually, it DOES take this into account... but we DON'T know about the limitations of expansion of SPACE ITSELF, only the objects WITHIN space
You avoid the very core of the issue
IF the speed of light is the CORE you are arguing about, then it is YOU who misunderstands the issue, not I.
You are arguing about apples while pointing to a fly: the speed of light in a vacuum IN SPACE is finite and set (the ultimate speed limit) but when manipulating space itself (re: expansion/inflation) how can you justify the speed limit when you are talking about the fundamental fabric itself? HOW do you clock a speed limit for something like that? Everything WE DO is within the fabric of space/time, so when space/time itself is expanding/inflating, you cannot prescribe the same known laws of physics
all I have received is SILENCE
so you READ those studies?

Aug 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 07, 2014
AWT model
OR
aether drag
aether is a DEBUNKED model

http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf


Aug 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 07, 2014
Quote Captain Stumpy: "Everything WE DO is within the fabric of space/time, so when space/time itself is expanding/inflating, you cannot prescribe the same known laws of physics"

It has never been proven that space can expand or inflate either.

You are trying to replace something that has never been proven with another unproven.
Zero still equals zero, your are right back to where you started from, nowhere. Your not even close to proving the inflationary period is not an ad-hoc piece of magic created to save the BB theory from itself.


Aug 07, 2014
Agreed, but remember you would first have to subtract the observed red-shift from them. The reason, the observed red-shift would not be a recessional velocity but an illusion caused by another source.
No need to look at red-shifts colliding galaxy clusters are superstructures, their distances have no purpose in what I have to say about it. The problem that it presents to a static universe is that there are too few of these events. In the universe that you are promoting, entropy would make these omnipresent.

Here are two examples of colliding superclusters: http://en.wikiped..._Cluster http://en.wikiped...5.4-1222

Let me present a variation to what you have been proposing. It is called the quasi-steady state model. It is a model that the great cosmologist Fred Hoyle developed and defended until the end of his life. It might, if you find some affinity with it, reconcile you with much of main stream science. http://articles.a...ype=.pdf

Aug 08, 2014
Very late to this discussion.

For starters, I'm a bit concerned about using masking and making assumptions about foreground in the absence of better data about the foreground. I note that the cold spot still exists in the masked full-sky image above, and other anomalies as well, including the circled one. Yet the authors claim that there are no anomalies. This is disturbing.

In addition, the quadrupole anomaly is clear, and this can only be created by sound waves propagating in the initial high energy plasma cloud of the Big Bang. In turn, these sound waves result from inflation. They cannot result from the motion of the galaxy; that can only create a dipole anomaly, and in fact one is visible in the image between North and South.

I'm rather skeptical of this paper.

Aug 08, 2014
@billpress11, cosmic inflation is very well supported, not only by the CMB observations of COBE, WMAP, and Planck, but also by theoretical considerations such as the horizon problem, the domain walls problem, the missing monopoles, and the observed distribution of galaxies in the universe, to name but a few. There are many more. This is not a fringe theory of any kind; it is the mainstream theory at this time. You will need extremely good evidence to disprove it, and I have reviewed your posts and I don't see that.

I have also seen you claim that the universe is not expanding, and that's risible. There's no point whatsoever in claiming this; the evidence is multi-disciplinary, and includes observations of Type Ia supernovae over more than half a century, as well as red shifts of galaxies, observed since Hubble discovered it in the 1930s.

Adding your disbelief in dark matter and dark energy, both of which are very well supported also, only makes it worse.

Are you religious?

Aug 08, 2014
Torbjorn, according to Linde and Vilenkin, as quoted by Leonard Susskind (the inventor of the original bosonic string theory from which current string physics was derived) in his recent book, The Cosmic Landscape, the cause of inflation is the same as the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe at about half its current age: lambda, AKA "dark energy," AKA negative gravity, AKA the Casimir Effect. It's the lambda in lambda-CDM. This is a very parsimonious hypothesis, which makes it the simplest explanation that fits the facts.

Do you agree?

Aug 08, 2014
Hey Scroof. I happened to notice that you're thinking of the Big Bang happening in a small place. It's not like that at all. Current inflationary ΛCDM has the universe start as a vacuum fluctuation with a large negative Λ but not much else; as a result of the high negative Λ inflation (exponential expansion) happens. However, a high negative Λ is unstable, and quite quickly (10⁻³⁵ s or so) undergoes vacuum decay. By the time this has happened the universe is at least 40 billion light years wide; remember, the inflation is exponential. When vacuum decay occurs, the vacuum energy (Casimir effect) is dumped into the nascent universe and becomes real energy. This is the Big Bang, and it happens everywhere in the universe at once. The new value of Λ is still negative, but it's very low-- almost zero. That's the value we see today, and it's responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe since it was half its current age.

Aug 08, 2014
One last thing for everyone to keep in mind: the CMB comes from the surface of last scattering, which was the end of the recombination era. This was preceded by the nucleosynthesis era in which the universe became a giant hydrogen bomb and most of the hydrogen was turned into helium (and a little bit into lithium) as the protons fused into helium atoms. Recombination is when the background energy was freed into the universe by becoming low enough for electrons to combine with the nuclei to form the first atoms. Before this, the photons of the background couldn't go very far because they'd hit an electron or a nucleus/proton, so the universe was opaque; afterward, it became transparent and the cosmic background was freed. Since then the universe has expanded so much that that original high-energy radiation has become low-energy microwaves.

Aug 08, 2014
The Da,
Wow... I've never seen it described so clearly and succinctly before...
gonna have to read your comments over a couple times...

this is the day....

Aug 08, 2014
Da Schneib, I am a little late answering your post. Below are quotes from your posting and my responses.

" cosmic inflation is very well supported, not only by the CMB observations" That is just not the case, cosmic inflation became necessary because the CMB and distant observation contradicted the BB theory. The universe appeared the same in all directions, it is flat.

"you claim that the universe is not expanding, and that's risible" I assume you mean visible. Well I sure you have heard of mirages and illusions, one or both of these may make the "that's visible" very misleading and down right wrong.

"This is not a fringe theory of any kind; it is the mainstream theory at this time." Here I agree with you but that does NOT make it the correct theory. I also agree with you that is "at this time". It is highly doubtful that it is the final theory.

"Type Ia supernovae over more than half a century, " Distant type 1a supernova do NOT support the BB theory.
Con't

Aug 08, 2014
Con't
Type 1a supernova are dimmer than the BB theory allows for at the distances observed. That is why the second ad-hoc patch, the accelerating expansion of the universe was created to rescue the BB theory for the second time.

I never mentioned dark energy and matter in any of my posting, I tend to believe they do exist.

"Are you religious?" I am not the religious one in these discussions here. It is you believers in the BB that fit that description. You are taking it on FAITH that something can happen faster than the speed of light and that space can expand.

I also agree with you about the size of the universe after the so call inflationary period. I have stated in many posts before that the minimum size of the universe after the inflationary period was at least the visible size we observe. Of course I don't believe the BB and the inflationary ever happen.

Aug 08, 2014
Da Schmeib, one more thing I notice you are quite up to date in the latest wrinkle in the BB theory. To avoid the faster that light problem, it is now believed that during the inflationary period every thing came into being every where at the same time. If that is true one doesn't even need a BB any more do they? Well geez, that sure sound like a religious creation tale to me.

Aug 08, 2014
@IMP9 Why would i argue data that is straight doctored? I only gave you one example. I won't even get into the Black body curve "calibration file" where all the extrema data signals got relegated. As if random noise ( the vast majority of Microwave signal 1000-1 or greater) only has values in the extrema of a data set and that those values can be used a calibration. That isn't calibration that is scrubbing.

There are more instances of spurious data and mathematical manipulation of the input and output.

I'll tell you what ain't sexy to the public that funded this 4 decade longdebacle... maps of random noise.

BTW the SZ effect was not the predicted value so try again. 1 BTC gets you the link.

i don't work for free.

Well Your wrong about the SZ effect being confirmed by WMAP or COBE.

In fact, it's the exact opposite. I can't post the chart here but the SZ effect was NOT the predicted value.

Aug 08, 2014
Type 1a supernova are dimmer than the BB theory allows for at the distances observed. That is why the second ad-hoc patch


A non-zero cosmological constant was predicted by several people. There was nothing in the big bang model which dictated it should be zero.


Aug 08, 2014
billpress11, your beliefs are contrary to the evidence. If you have links to support them, you'll need to provide those. I have no intention of dealing with a bunch of "that's not true" statements without any supporting data. For my data, you can check Wikipedia and follow the references to scientific papers published in the scholarly literature, and read a few books that deal with cosmology, such as The Cosmic Landscape, Perfect Symmetry (old but still excellent, and just out in reprint- the death of Heinz Pagels in a skiing accident was a horrible tragedy), and Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy. You might also try some of Stephen Hawking's popular science books, particularly The Universe In a Nutshell and A Brief History of Time.

As far as inflationary ΛCDM and "the speed of light problem," the universe is not an object and therefore is not subject to the speed of light limit.

Please don't waste my time with fringe theories.

Aug 08, 2014
Indio, the doctored data is the data the above article is talking about. Masking is doctoring.

Aug 08, 2014
IMP-9, to be absolutely accurate, the prediction is for a value *close to* zero. And that's what we see. You're completely correct that the Big Bang theory says nothing about that; it also says nothing about lambda, dark matter, inflation, or anomalies in the CMB.

As far as the objection you're responding to, the correct answer is to note that the Type 1a supernova data agree with the redshift data, and disagree with a steady state universe, or a universe expanding only from the impetus of the Big Bang. But I can see why you gave the answer you did so I gave you five stars anyway. :D

Aug 08, 2014
@indio007 I never said anything about doctoring data. I don't know why you would say that.

the Black body curve "calibration file" where all the extrema data signals got relegated


Please give a citation. Misconduct is a serious accusation, I will not take your word over theirs.

the SZ effect was not the predicted value


It's not a "value" type experiment and on this nonsense statement I'm quite sure you have no idea what you're talking about. COBE had nothing to do with it, further proof you're talking complete rubbish. Even WMAP is limited in detecting the SZ effect. I can assure you the SZ effect works as predicted, it has been detected many times.

http://arxiv.org/...65v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4219
http://www.aanda....de7.html
http://sci.esa.in...-effect/

No I'm not paying you money. If you have nothing to say then the SZ effect still stands.

Aug 08, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory and its finding did not support the BB theory. In fact it undermined the foundation of the BB theory. That is why the inflationary period was created to explain away the observed flatness.

Here is some links for you Da Schneid:
why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat,
http://en.wikiped...smology)

so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.[2] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universehas been accelerating[3][4] since around redshiftof z~0.5.[5] - - - - - - discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z") supernovae.[6][7]
http://en.wikiped...universe

More con't

Aug 08, 2014
Da Schneib, you see These distant supernova are dimmer than red-shifts would indicate. So the added another ad-hoc fix to the BB theory. Funny it never dawn on them that these supernova maybe further then the BB allows for them!

"Never the less, after about a decade of searching and refining, the Supernova Cosmology Project from Berkeley and the High Redshift Supernova Search Team from Harvard have demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt that:
*** The luminosities of these High-z Sne appear too faint for their redshifts, for the "Standard Cosmological Model" of the 20th Century. This provides independent evidence for the cosmological consant!
*** The best fitting model indicates that there was an increase in the expansion rate of the universe at a redshift close to z=0.5, corresponding to approximately 5 billion years ago, in the history of the Universe."
http://web.physic...sne.html

Please don't waste my time with magical theories, like the BB.

Aug 09, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted the CMB from the original BB theory, serendipitously at the same time that Penzias and Wilson detected it. This is a well-known fact; you can review it on Wikipedia, where it is sourced to the original scientific papers. http://en.wikiped...adiation

Aug 09, 2014
The Big Bang is the overwhelming consensus of cosmologists today.

You're arguing for phlogiston.

yep
Aug 09, 2014
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Alfven
Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation. He said he heard Lemaître (who was, at the time both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist) say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo creation out of nothing.

Aug 09, 2014
The Big Bang is the overwhelming consensus of cosmologists today.

You're arguing for phlogiston.

There was "overwhelming consensus" that sun, moon and stars rotated around the earth before Copernicus also. Did that make it a fact then, does the same today for the BB theory make it right today. It was not proof then and it is NOT proof today of the BB theory.

Aug 09, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted the CMB from the original BB theory, serendipitously at the same time that Penzias and Wilson detected it. This is a well-known fact; you can review it on Wikipedia, where it is sourced to the original scientific papers. http://en.wikiped...adiation

Let's say the above is a fact. The strange thing is that the CBR created a problem for the BB theory while at the same time was a natural for the SS infinite universe. It is a natural ending for light to red-shift to from all directions in an infinite universe.

The SS made misstates, they did not realize the gift horse the cbr was to them. They assume the ONLY explanation for the observed red-shift was the expansion, this created another misstate, they needed to create matter out of nothing, MAGIC.

The BB-ers made their misstate by introducing the MAGIC of inflation.

Aug 09, 2014
So what was this problem created for the BB-ers, darn it placed us in the center of the universe again. Well some smart astronomers were not about to let this happen again. They thought one way around that problem would be if at the moment of the BB the universe had already expanded beyond the observable universe. Va la, the magic of inflation is born.

MAGIC is MAGIC whether it is in support of SS or BB theories. I am confident the real answer will be found in the future that does not need MAGIC.

Aug 09, 2014
Wow. That certainly got them going.
This poor layman thinks that the Fact of Quantum Erasure is the big puppy do-do in the middle of the carpet. Puppy does not want to look. Puppy knows nothing about it at all.

It is all a simulation. Digital QM.
If you want to change Reality, Erase the data and take the measurement again.

There is nothing "Out There." It is all data.

But hey! It is Your Illusion, your game. Enjoy.

See you on the other side- don't bring your Ego.

Aug 09, 2014


If inflation is true, and the BB is true, then to me there is only one logical explanation for inflation.


Geometrically there is another explanation for an apparent superluminal expansion of space-time. An intruding hyperspace can be shown to intrude into a lower space faster than c propagates in the lower space.

You can visualize this in flatland as a gedanken. Push a 3D cone through a 2D surface. The point of the cone is the singularity. The edge of the cone is the 3D space-time front expanding into the 2D space-time of flatland.

Aug 10, 2014
There was "overwhelming consensus" that sun, moon and stars rotated around the earth before Copernicus also. Did that make it a fact then, does the same today for the BB theory make it right today. It was not proof then and it is NOT proof today of the BB theory.
Umm, it's not the 16th century anymore.

Aug 10, 2014
Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation.
The Big Bang theory is a theory, which is not a hypothesis. It's made a large number of predictions that have turned out correct. It's the current consensus of the overwhelming majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists.

What you're doing is a logical fallacy called "Poisoning the well." See here: http://www.nizkor...ell.html

Aug 10, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted the CMB from the original BB theory, serendipitously at the same time that Penzias and Wilson detected it.
Let's say the above is a fact. The strange thing is that the CBR created a problem for the BB theory.
If it's a fact, then in fact it didn't create a problem because DIcke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted it from the Big Bang theory.

Make up your mind.

They assume the ONLY explanation for the observed red-shift was the expansion, this created another misstate, they needed to create matter out of nothing, MAGIC.
No, the impetus for the expansion indicated by the red shift (and confirmed by supernova data) was the Big Bang. There is no problem.

The BB-ers made their misstate by introducing the MAGIC of inflation.
At the time (1964) the CMB was discovered there wasn't even a conjecture of inflation. It didn't come until the 1980s.

Aug 10, 2014
So what was this problem created for the BB-ers, darn it placed us in the center of the universe again.
This is incorrect. The Big Bang was never thought to have occurred at some point in the universe. What cosmologists *always* said was it happened everywhere in the universe at once; and that the *visible* universe started at the size of a pea or smaller. This has been repeatedly misstated by people like you ever since.

Well some smart astronomers were not about to let this happen again. They thought one way around that problem would be if at the moment of the BB the universe had already expanded beyond the observable universe. Va la, the magic of inflation is born.
That is not the justification for cosmic inflation and never was. The main motivations for suggesting it were the flatness problem, the horizon problem, and the magnetic monopole problem.

Now you're just making stuff up.

Aug 10, 2014
Wow. That certainly got them going.
This poor layman thinks that the Fact of Quantum Erasure is the big puppy do-do in the middle of the carpet. Puppy does not want to look. Puppy knows nothing about it at all.

It is all a simulation. Digital QM.
If you want to change Reality, Erase the data and take the measurement again.
That's not how the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser works. The DCQE erases the welcher weg ("which way" in German) data carried by a copy of a photon that has already been detected, restoring the interference fringes its partner photon would not have made if "which slit" data had not been erased. You can change reality until you look at it, or make it impossible to do so; if you looked then there is no interference, if you didn't then there is.

It proves that either state information can be transmitted instantaneously (violating locality) or that particles that have not been measured have parameters that *do not have a value* (violation of local realism).

Aug 10, 2014
Geometrically there is another explanation for an apparent superluminal expansion of space-time. An intruding hyperspace can be shown to intrude into a lower space faster than c propagates in the lower space.

You can visualize this in flatland as a gedanken. Push a 3D cone through a 2D surface. The point of the cone is the singularity. The edge of the cone is the 3D space-time front expanding into the 2D space-time of flatland.
Actually, this is correct. However, when you look out at the horizon, you can't see anything past it because things past the horizon are receding faster than light. Consider carefully what happens if you consider what aliens on a planet on the other side of the galaxy see, at the same time you're looking at your horizon. For them, the horizon is moved by the distance between them and us. So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not?

Good luck with that.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
Wow. That certainly got them going.

It is all a simulation. Digital QM.
If you want to change Reality, Erase the data and take the measurement again.

That's not how the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser works. , , ,detected, restoring the interference fringes its partner photon would not have made if "which slit" data had not been erased. You can change reality until you look at it, or make it impossible to do so; if you looked then there is no interference, if you didn't then there is.


If the information gathered at the slit is not recorded, or the record is destroyed later, the results are always interference patterns.
If the information is examined years later, the result is always point scattering.
The key is whether or not the data is available in this reality. It is all about data (and uncertainty). Lose the data and a new reality is possible. It is all data. Nothing else.

Aug 10, 2014
Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation.
The Big Bang theory is a theory, which is not a hypothesis. It's made a large number of predictions that have turned out correct. It's the current consensus of the overwhelming majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists.

What you're doing is a logical fallacy called "Poisoning the well." See here: http://www.nizkor...ell.html

It is not me that is poisoning the well, it is the observation made over the last 50 years or so that have done a very good job at that. They have created the need to add the inflationary period and more recently the accelerating expansion. So the need for them was predicted by the BB theory, tell me when? No it is not 1600 but we are ALL still fallible human beings.

Aug 10, 2014
Quote Da Schneib: "For them, the horizon is moved by the distance between them and us. So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not?

Good luck with that."

That is your problem, not mine. You should know by now I believe the observed red-shift is cause by something other than the expansion of the universe. So in my view they are NOT receding faster than the speed of light. In fact, adjusting for the observed red-shift no faster toward or away from us than local galaxies.

I have in many previous posting pointed out the flatness of the observable universe as creating the need for adding the (predicted?) inflationary period. But I'll admit it is a beautiful (but incorrect) solution because it solved center of the universe problem for them at the same time.

Aug 10, 2014
Actually, this is correct. However, when you look out at the horizon, you can't see anything past it because things past the horizon are receding faster than light. Consider carefully what happens if you consider what aliens on a planet on the other side of the galaxy see, at the same time you're looking at your horizon. For them, the horizon is moved by the distance between them and us. So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not? Good luck with that.

Maybe it's time for a simpler analogy -
I, on the Earth in Chicago, rotating at (approx.) 1000 miles an hour. Ava, on the same Earth in Germany, is rotating at the same rate.
at 10pm the sun has just set for me. For her it's about to rise.
Or something like that...


Aug 10, 2014
Actually, this is correct. However, when you look out at the horizon, you can't see anything past it because things past the horizon are receding faster than light. Consider carefully what happens if you consider what aliens on a planet on the other side of the galaxy see, at the same time you're looking at your horizon. For them, the horizon is moved by the distance between them and us. So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not? Good luck with that.

Maybe a simpler analogy -
I, on the Earth in Chicago, rotating at (approx.) 1000 miles an hour. Ava, on the same Earth in Germany, is rotating at the same rate.
at 10pm the sun has just set for her. For me it's about to rise.
It's still 93m miles away and light takes 8 min's to reach Earth - regardless of where we are on that earth
Or something like that...:-)


Aug 10, 2014
Oops... sorry bout the double..

Aug 10, 2014
If the information gathered at the slit is not recorded, or the record is destroyed later, the results are always interference patterns.
If the information is examined years later, the result is always point scattering.
The key is whether or not the data is available in this reality. It is all about data (and uncertainty). Lose the data and a new reality is possible. It is all data. Nothing else.
You have a point here.

Aug 10, 2014
The Big Bang was never thought to have occurred at some point in the universe.
Unfortunately its models handle it so.
This is incorrect. Inflationary cosmology proposes that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation, then grew to enormous size, then underwent spontaneous vacuum decay which injected the energy from the inflaton AKA cosmological constant AKA Casimir force into everywhere in the enormous, empty universe. Since the cosmological constant is a property of space, and since space can be freely created and destroyed, there is no violation of the Law of the Conservation of Mass/Energy.

Aug 10, 2014
For them, the horizon is moved by the distance between them and us. So things that are receding faster than light for us, aren't for them. So are they moving faster than light, or not?
That is your problem, not mine.
No it isn't. It's proof there is no center of the universe. Ever heard of relativity? Know why it's called "relativity?" It's because there is no absolute motion, nor is there absolute location or absolute time. There is only absolute acceleration.

You should know by now I believe the observed red-shift is cause by something other than the expansion of the universe. So in my view they are NOT receding faster than the speed of light. In fact, adjusting for the observed red-shift no faster toward or away from us than local galaxies.
The problem with that is that the supernova data say the same thing as the redshift data say the same thing as the cosmological constant term in relativity. So now you have to make up explanations for all three of these.

Aug 10, 2014
Maybe a simpler analogy -
I, on the Earth in Chicago, rotating at (approx.) 1000 miles an hour. Ava, on the same Earth in Germany, is rotating at the same rate.
at 10pm the sun has just set for her. For me it's about to rise.
It's still 93m miles away and light takes 8 min's to reach Earth - regardless of where we are on that earth
Or something like that...:-)
Pretty good, Whyde, but you gotta take the analogy up a level to make it tell you more. You're getting the feel for it, though.

Aug 10, 2014
... since space can be freely created and destroyed...

THAT is one I'm gonna have to say "yeah, but..." on...

Aug 10, 2014
What you're doing is a logical fallacy called "Poisoning the well." See here: http://www.nizkor...ell.html
It is not me that is poisoning the well,
Yes it is. You brought up Lemaitre. This is clear guilt by association. That's not evidence of anything at all.

Aug 10, 2014
... since space can be freely created and destroyed...

THAT is one I'm gonna have to say "yeah, but..." on...
Why? Be more specific and I'll see if I can clear it up for you. Note also that cosmological constant is also called "dark energy."

Space has nothing in it but cosmological constant AKA dark energy; but we know for a fact it has cosmological constant because of the Casimir effect. You can freely create and destroy space (nothingness) without violating any conservation laws.

Aug 10, 2014
... since space can be freely created and destroyed...

THAT is one I'm gonna have to say "yeah, but..." on...
Why? Be more specific and I'll see if I can clear it up for you. Note also that cosmological constant is also called "dark energy."

Space has nothing in it but cosmological constant AKA dark energy; but we know for a fact it has cosmological constant because of the Casimir effect. You can freely create and destroy space (nothingness) without violating any conservation laws.

Magic word - energy (dark or otherwise). You seem to be saying space has energy in it. All of it or just random (I hate that word) parts of it? If there is no space, there is no energy. Ergo, space = energy or energy = space.
Create or destroy space and you've created or destroyed energy(the violation).
You can move it around all you want, but you can't create or destroy it.
Unless, of course, you just imagine it in your head...:-)

Aug 10, 2014
The evil Artist sat hunkered in his secret lab/workshop/lair, rubbing his gnarled hands together and issuing a mirthful -
"MWAHAHAHAHA !!!"

Meanwhile, an unsuspecting planet, went about it's business, blissfully ignorant of his intentions...

Aug 10, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is simply incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted it in 1964. I've already posted the Wikipedia link, and the article is well-sourced. In addition, this has been mentioned in every book about cosmology I've ever read.

Sorry, you're just wrong and that's all there is to it.

Aug 10, 2014
... since space can be freely created and destroyed...

THAT is one I'm gonna have to say "yeah, but..." on...
Why? ... Note also that cosmological constant is also called "dark energy."
...
You can freely create and destroy space (nothingness) without violating any conservation laws.

Magic word - energy (dark or otherwise).
But you see, there's nothing in relativity that conserves cosmological constant. "Dark energy" is just a handle astrophysicists stuck on it to have something to call it before they realized it was just cosmological constant AKA vacuum fluctuations AKA zero point energy. Note the "zero." By the *real* Law of the Conservation of Energy, vacuum fluctuations must always add up to zero over the long term; this can be violated over very short times and distances, but the violating particles must violate again and disappear back into nothing. This is real; the Casimir effect proves it. You should look it up on Wiki.

Aug 10, 2014
Continued...
You seem to be saying space has energy in it.
No. It's cosmological constant AKA vacuum fluctuations.

All of it or just random (I hate that word) parts of it?
All of it. Cosmological constant is a property of empty flat spacetime.

If there is no space, there is no energy. Ergo, space = energy or energy = space.
No. Space (actually we should be saying "spacetime") is not equal to energy.

Create or destroy space and you've created or destroyed energy(the violation).
You can move it around all you want, but you can't create or destroy it.
No. Space is not energy. Cosmological constant is a property of space, just as gravity is a property of space. There is a gravity field everywhere in the universe. Saying "there's no gravity field here" is like saying "there will be no weather tomorrow." It might be zero, but there's a gravity field everywhere. It's the curvature of space.

Aug 10, 2014
Cosmological constant is the lambda (written Λ) in ΛCDM. That's its symbol in the Einstein Field Equations. Look here: http://en.wikiped...quations on the right under the standard picture of the grid with a ball pushing it down in the middle. The equation actually expands to a family of equations in tensor calculus. These are, for gravity, the equivalent to Maxwell's Equations for electromagnetism. Instead of four equations, the EFE reduces to ten equations.

Aug 10, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is simply incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted it in 1964. I've already posted the Wikipedia link, and the article is well-sourced. In addition, this has been mentioned in every book about cosmology I've ever read.

Sorry, you're just wrong and that's all there is to it.

I already stated I will accept the predictions of BB supporters but it did NOT predict the need for an inflationary model. It was not developed until about 20 years later to solve the flatness problem which the BB never predicted either.

The inflationary hypothesis was developed in the 1980s by physicists Alan Guth and Andrei Linde.[5]
http://en.wikiped...smology)

It is just to bad that the CBR was not a natural fit for the BB, it is for a SS universe.

Aug 10, 2014
I was unclear: you should look up *the Casimir Effect* on Wikipedia. I'll save you some effort: http://en.wikiped...r_effect

Aug 10, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is simply incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted it in 1964. I've already posted the Wikipedia link, and the article is well-sourced. In addition, this has been mentioned in every book about cosmology I've ever read.
I already stated I will accept the predictions of BB supporters but it did NOT predict the need for an inflationary model.
I never said it did; quite the opposite.

You were claiming that the CMB was not predicted by the BB Theory and this is plain wrong.

It was not developed until about 20 years later to solve the flatness problem which the BB never predicted either.
Which I also told you above.

The inflationary hypothesis was developed in the 1980s by physicists Alan Guth and Andrei Linde.
Correct, and updated by Leonard Susskind and Alex Vilenkin.

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, the BB theory also did not for see the need for the accelerating expansion of the universe. I believe that patch did not come about until the middle to late 90's.
You can read for yourself that the observed red-shift does NOT square with the brightness of distant supernova.

Never the less, after about a decade of searching and refining, the Supernova Cosmology Project from Berkeley and the High Redshift Supernova Search Team from Harvard have demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt that:
*** The luminosities of these High-z Sne appear too faint for their redshifts, for the "Standard Cosmological Model" of the 20th Century. This provides independent evidence for the cosmological consant!
*** The best fitting model indicates that there was an increase in the expansion rate of the universe at a redshift close to z=0.5, corresponding to approximately 5 billion years ago, in the history of the Universe.
http://web.physic...sne.html

Aug 10, 2014
There *must* be physics beyond what we know. Big stuff. Accolades await those who figure it out!


"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." Douglas Adams


Hey, based on the other insane shit you believe in, the idea that a thought exercise could destroy the entire universe is not something I would expect you to have anything other than 100% total faith in.

Aug 10, 2014
I was unclear: you should look up *the Casimir Effect* on Wikipedia. I'll save you some effort: http://en.wikiped...r_effect


Da Scheib, modern day science is to quick to accept something as fact when there may be other explanations. The casimir effect is another example.

The "attraction" of the two plates may be nothing more than the reflected radiation of all frequencies on the outside of the plates creating greater pressure inward than the amount pressure being created outward by the reflected radiation on the inside.

Aug 10, 2014
The CMB was not predicted by the BB theory
This is simply incorrect. Dicke, Peebles, and Wilkinson predicted it in 1964. I've already posted the Wikipedia link, and the article is well-sourced. In addition, this has been mentioned in every book about cosmology I've ever read.

Sorry, you're just wrong and that's all there is to it.


Da, how many times do I have to state this. This is the third time I stated I accept it. The thing is it does not have any effect on things because it a perfect natural fit for an infinite SS universe but has created problems for the BB theory.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, the BB theory also did not for see the need for the accelerating expansion of the universe.
I believe that patch did not come about until the middle to late 90's.
So what? Red shift data is too coarse to show it. It wasn't until they found out that there is a type of supernova, Type 1a, whose power is related to its decay time, that they realized they could use such supernovae as "standard candles," the same way Cepheid variables are used for relatively close by galaxies where individual stars can be resolved to determine their distances, as well as within our own galaxy.

You can read for yourself that the observed red-shift does NOT square with the brightness of distant supernova.
Where? No alternative sites please. Preferably a reputable scientist's scholarly paper, please. I don't expect anything here given your track record of making claims without any evidence and then changing the subject when someone asks for it but hope springs eternal.


Aug 10, 2014
Never the less, after about a decade of searching and refining, the Supernova Cosmology Project from Berkeley and the High Redshift Supernova Search Team from Harvard have demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt that:
*** The luminosities of these High-z Sne appear too faint for their redshifts, for the "Standard Cosmological Model" of the 20th Century. This provides independent evidence for the cosmological consant!
*** The best fitting model indicates that there was an increase in the expansion rate of the universe at a redshift close to z=0.5, corresponding to approximately 5 billion years ago, in the history of the Universe.
http://web.physic...sne.html
Actually it was about 7 billion years ago, but you just proved my point in your last quote. Do you understand how? That quote is the proof of so-called "dark energy," which is actually cosmological constant AKA vacuum fluctuations. Add this in and the red shifts and supernova data agree.

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, it states in the link I gave you about distant supernova being dimmer than they should be at around .5 Z in distant. I'd hate to see how much bigger it might be at a red-shift of 2 or Z. The observed red-shift does not square with the observed dimmest.

Aug 10, 2014
Da, how many times do I have to state this. This is the third time I stated I accept it.
Well, you didn't above. You claimed that the CMB was not predicted by BB Theory, and have said the same thing on other threads.

The thing is it does not have any effect on things because it a perfect natural fit for an infinite SS universe but has created problems for the BB theory.
Oh really? If it's Steady State, why did the expansion rate change 7 billion (or if you prefer 5 billion, using old data) years ago? Doesn't sound very steady to me. Also, where are the new galaxies that should be popping into existence in between existing galaxy clusters? Everything's getting farther away, and we know how fast from the red shift data, the value of the cosmological constant, and the supernova data.

Aug 10, 2014
Actually Arties, the energy that makes up the CMB emerged after recombination, which is after the Big Bang.

And claiming that BB Theory is wrong because it got 6 degrees above absolute zero instead of 2.3 is silly.

Aug 10, 2014
@ Da Schneib
If you want to popularize science, do not assume that others understand what you are talking about.
The problem with that is that the supernova data say the same thing as the redshift data say the same thing as the cosmological constant term in relativity.
Totally agree! But you should explain what is observed, what it implies and how it refutes the alternative.

In your quoted statement e.g. there is a measurable increase of time dilation proportional to the distance of the supernova observed, this is concurring with the actual interpretation off the red shift; in other words the further the sn the more the light of the sn event takes time to crest. That demonstrates very well that space is expanding and refutes the hypothesis that light is losing momentum through massive object interaction 'tired light'. This kind of formulation shows a little humbleness and is more suitable if you want bilcrest11 to re-evaluate his position.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, it states in the link I gave you about distant supernova being dimmer than they should be at around .5 Z in distant. I'd hate to see how much bigger it might be at a red-shift of 2 or Z. The observed red-shift does not square with the observed dimmest.
Yes, because before 7 billion years ago the expansion was slowing due to gravity rather than accelerating like it has been since then. Not only did gravity grow weaker as the galaxy clusters moved farther apart, but the amount of space increased, and as I have already said (and referenced proof of), cosmological constant and space are not conserved, and therefore when you create space you create cosmological constant. At the point where the cosmological constant became stronger than the gravity, the expansion started to accelerate. And that point was 7 (or, as I said, if you prefer old data, 5) billion years ago.

Aug 10, 2014
Doing my best, TechnoCreed. Thanks for the advice. I'll try to keep it in mind.

Worth mentioning that it's kinda hard to do in 1000 characters.

Also, billcrest does in fact seem to be changing his position. I just want him to admit it.

Aug 10, 2014
Quote Da Scheib: "Actually it was about 7 billion years ago, but you just proved my point in your last quote. Do you understand how? That quote is the proof of so-called "dark energy," which is actually cosmological constant AKA vacuum fluctuations. Add this in and the red shifts and supernova data agree."

While I stated before that I tend to believe in dark energy and matter, I do not believe dark energy is expanding the universe. It is only a unusable energy that can create dark matter which only has an affect on gravity. The dark energy and dark matter are constantly changing back an forth between each other. So I cannot add it to the red-shift of the supernova data. To me the supernova are in fact further than the BB theory allows for, its just that simple.


Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
Hi again, Da Schneib.
The Big Bang was never thought to have occurred at some point in the universe. What cosmologists *always* said was it happened everywhere in the universe at once; and that the *visible* universe started at the size of a pea or smaller.
Careful.

Theory has it there is no 'absolute' reference. So '"size of a pea" for visible universe 'beginning' is not founded on any reality reference, only false assumption of 'knowing' the whole universal size for 'comparing' scale of 'visible universe' of BBang 'initial state/size' claims.

So 'pea size' claim contradicts its own premise of "no absolutes".

That is not the justification for cosmic inflation and never was...
Mainstream BB/Inflation/expansion model(s) appeal to 'dark energy' to 'create more space' etc. Yet in the same breath they reject infinite/eternal Steady State Universal energy-space-matter cycling occurring at base local levels 'everywhere'?

Do you see any irony and double standards in that? :)

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib,
The Z factor in the BB theory has always been shown to rise in a parabolic curve. I do not understand your point. Of course it means little to me because I think there is a better than two to one odds that the observed red-shift is caused something other that the expansion of the universe. I think the Z factor and distance are most likely directly related.

Aug 10, 2014
While I stated before that I tend to believe in dark energy and matter, I do not believe dark energy is expanding the universe.
It says so in the Einstein Field Equations. So-called "dark energy" is the cosmological constant term, lambda, or Λ. The link to the EFE article on Wikipedia is above. This is why the current cosmological theory is called ΛCDM.

It is only a unusable energy that can create dark matter
Can I have a source for that please?

which only has an affect on gravity.
That's correct; but the presence of Λ in the EFE indicates that it has an effect on gravity as well; those are the field equations for gravity, equivalent to the Maxwell Field Equations for electromagnetism.

Aug 10, 2014
The dark energy and dark matter are constantly changing back an forth between each other.
Again, a reference please?

So I cannot add it to the red-shift of the supernova data.
Since this is based so far only on your personal beliefs, I challenge it based on the fact the premise for it is unsupported.

To me the supernova are in fact further than the BB theory allows for, its just that simple.
The problem with this being that the supernova redshifts are the same as the redshifts of their host galaxies.

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib,
The Z factor in the BB theory has always been shown to rise in a parabolic curve. I do not understand your point. Of course it means little to me because I think there is a better than two to one odds that the observed red-shift is caused something other that the expansion of the universe. I think the Z factor and distance are most likely directly related.
billpress, are you aware that Z is simply a measure of the redshift? And of the Hubble Constant? Your last statement is therefore correct, but the preceding one is not, and cannot be, by your own data.

I am unclear on what part of my point you aren't understanding. Could you be a little more detailed, please? I'll do my best to explain.

Aug 10, 2014
Hi again, Da Schneib.
What cosmologists *always* said was it happened everywhere in the universe at once; and that the *visible* universe started at the size of a pea or smaller.
Careful.

Theory has it there is no 'absolute' reference. So '"size of a pea" for visible universe 'beginning' is not founded on any reality reference, only false assumption of 'knowing' the whole universal size for 'comparing' scale of 'visible universe' of BBang 'initial state/size' claims.

So 'pea size' claim contradicts its own premise of "no absolutes".
I don't see why saying "the visible universe was the size of a pea" has anything to do with absolute location or absolute motion. Could you explain that for me please?

And actually, acceleration is absolute, according to Einstein; you can always perform a local experiment to determine if you are being accelerated, but you cannot tell if the acceleration is due to a local effect like a rocket engine, or to gravity. So there are absolutes.

Aug 10, 2014
That is not the justification for cosmic inflation and never was...
Mainstream BB/Inflation/expansion model(s) appeal to 'dark energy' to 'create more space' etc.
No. We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*. Badly named so-called "dark energy" is the current best explanation for that fact, as shown in billpress' link to Harvard (and the bullet point that precedes it, which is perfectly correct).

Yet in the same breath they reject infinite/eternal Steady State Universal energy-space-matter cycling occurring at base local levels 'everywhere'?
So where are the new galaxies being formed as the old galaxies move apart? All the galaxies at a given distance seem to be much the same age, except for the little ones. This does not support a steady state. Nor does the abrupt change in acceleration 7 billion years ago.

Do you see any irony and double standards in that? :)
No.

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, you keep making reference to the fact that everything is relative as far as velocity is concerned. I not so sure it is quite that clear cut.
Here is a link that can make one wonder:
How fast is the earth moving? - Scientific American
www.scientificamerican.com ' Space ' Ask the Experts Scientific American
Oct 26, 1998 - Each of the motions described above were given relative to some structure. ... The earth is moving with respect to the CBR at a speed of 390 ..."

I think it is quite strange that the earth is only moving about 390 kilometers per second in the CBR. After all that is about the same as the velocity as the Milky Way, our solar system and the earth's velocities combined. Yep strange indeed.

Other factors too are the velocity of light cannot be added to or subtracted from, the very basis of the Sagnac Effect and the global positioning satellite system.

So to me that is not a completely settled science.

Aug 10, 2014
@billpress11
Please put a little substance in your position in a way that we could understand your point of view: What is the basis of the cosmology you are defending? Do you have a known model we can refer to?

Also: Did you read the paper that I linked (Fred Hoyle QSS model)? Did you understand my refutation of the tired light (The last comment that I addressed to Da Schneib)?
I think there is a better than two to one odds that the observed red-shift is caused something other that the expansion of the universe.
I do not care if you believe in the BB or not but, from what we can observe, the universe expansion is pretty hard to refute!

Aug 10, 2014
BTW In contemporary physics we can observe apparent trend, when with improving sensitivity and technology state of observations many alleged deviations from standard models observed at the end of 90's disappeared in the recent decade. The first victims were string theory and LQG theory (gamma ray speed controversy).
Could you please explain this some more? I'm not clear on how string theory or loop quantum gravity were refuted, and I don't know what the "gamma ray speed controversy" is.

contd...

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib quote: "No. We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*. Badly named so-called "dark energy" is the current best explanation for that fact, as shown in billpress' link to Harvard (and the bullet point that precedes it, which is perfectly correct)."

More space being created, that could simply be an illusion.

Quote Da Scheib: "So where are the new galaxies being formed as the old galaxies move apart? All the galaxies at a given distance seem to be much the same age, except for the little ones. This does not support a steady state. Nor does the abrupt change in acceleration 7 billion years ago."

I never stated that the galaxies WERE moving apart, I don't even accept that the universe is expanding, so why would there even be a need for new galaxies.


Aug 10, 2014
Even the various artifacts of Higgs field predicted on behalf of SUSY were left unconfirmed.
Ummm, they just discovered the Higgs at the LHC. What "various artifacts of [the] Higgs field" are you talking about? At this point supersymmetry is only a hypothesis, and barely that given how hard it is to test for in current accelerators (though the new laser/plasma accelerators detailed in another article on this site may change that). Also, what's this got to do with cosmology?

The alleged CPT violations in mezon decays were left unconfirmed.
This is incorrect. In fact, CPT violation has been extensively confirmed in the neutral kaon decades ago, I think they confirmed it in the D meson as well, and I heard they are looking for it in the B meson. I haven't been following it for a while.

The axion finding at PAVLAS experiment - unconfirmed.
I think this is correct but not conclusive.

contd

Aug 10, 2014
I think it is quite strange that the earth is only moving about 390 kilometers per second in the CBR. After all that is about the same as the velocity as the Milky Way, our solar system and the earth's velocities combined. Yep strange indeed.
Obvious misunderstanding; the CMB is not a 'backdrop' that comes from the edge of the universe... We are 'bathing' in it.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib,
The Z factor in the BB theory has always been shown to rise in a parabolic curve. I do not understand your point. Of course it means little to me because I think there is a better than two to one odds that the observed red-shift is caused something other that the expansion of the universe. I think the Z factor and distance are most likely directly related.
billpress, are you aware that Z is simply a measure of the redshift? And of the Hubble Constant? Your last statement is therefore correct, but the preceding one is not, and cannot be, by your own data.

I am unclear on what part of my point you aren't understanding. Could you be a little more detailed, please? I'll do my best to explain.

Here I am in agreement with you we are talking past each other. I think my statement above is correct. The Z factor rises in a parabolic curve compared to the age of the universe according to the BB theory.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
I think it is quite strange that the earth is only moving about 390 kilometers per second in the CBR. After all that is about the same as the velocity as the Milky Way, our solar system and the earth's velocities combined. Yep strange indeed.
Obvious misunderstanding; the CMB is not a 'backdrop' that comes from the edge of the universe... We are 'bathing' in it.

Than where does it come from if not from the edge of the visible universe?

As for the model of the universe I think is most likely? A steady state recycling universe infinite in age and size.

Aug 10, 2014
The predictions for quark gluon glass - unconfirmed.
OK; I'm unfamiliar with this, but I'll take your word for it. Again, it has nothing to do with cosmology.

Now even the observations new physics in CMBR evaporated. What happens here?
I think that's speculative at best.

Well, in AWT geometry the violations from established theories manifest itself only weakly and at the quite limited dimensional scale, as denoted with vertical bars at this graph.
Aether theories were refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment in the nineteenth century. There is no aether nor is any required. Light is particles, as proven by Einstein's paper on the photoelectric effect at the beginning of the twentieth century (for which he won a Nobel Prize).

Aug 10, 2014
Hi Da Scneib. :)
I don't see why saying "the visible universe was the size of a pea" has anything to do with absolute location or absolute motion.
If the universe 'is all there is", then unless you 'know' its 'global extent', you can't 'meaningfully compare' any 'local extent' to it. So 'backtracking' from current visible extent to some unmeasured 'a-priori' global extent makes for self-referencing 'BB explanations', yes? That was the point.

...acceleration is absolute...
Agreed. But be careful re 'acceleration' arguments. LOCAL accelerations are 'felt/occur' locally. But what is GLOBAL UNIVERSAL 'acceleration' with respect to, if you have no global extent to compare to except your 'assumed' backtracking from current LIMITED visible extent?

So beware. Einstein Relativists & Big Bangers want it BOTH ways; but neither actually consistent when boiled down to such 'explanations/assumptions' as those you have been depending on for your arguments against SS models. Take care.:)

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib, you keep making reference to the fact that everything is relative as far as velocity is concerned. I not so sure it is quite that clear cut.
So you deny Special Relativity Theory?

Here is a link that can make one wonder:
How fast is the earth moving? - Scientific American
http://www.scient...ican.com ' Space ' Ask the Experts Scientific American
Oct 26, 1998 - Each of the motions described above were given relative to some structure. ... The earth is moving with respect to the CBR at a speed of 390 ..."
The CMB is not space. It's *in* space, just like radio waves, microwaves, infrared, light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. Anisotropy in the CMB therefore does not mean that there is absolute motion, or absolute location.

contd...

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
I think it is quite strange that the earth is only moving about 390 kilometers per second in the CBR. After all that is about the same as the velocity as the Milky Way, our solar system and the earth's velocities combined. Yep strange indeed.
Again, this does not prove either absolute motion or absolute location as a property of spacetime.

Other factors too are the velocity of light cannot be added to or subtracted from, the very basis of the Sagnac Effect and the global positioning satellite system.

So to me that is not a completely settled science.
I don't see what that has to do with it. Could you explain this more thoroughly please? Remember that although light is always measured travelling at the speed of light, the Doppler effect causes it to change frequency if you're moving relative to its source.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*.
Nope, we just observe, how the light of distant galaxies becomes more redshifted.
Yes, and the redshift is due to them receding. It's a standard effect called the Doppler effect. What's your explanation for the redshift?

This is the actual FACT, everything else is just more or less dull interpretation of this fact in the name of particular ideology.
Science isn't about politics. Science is a method of finding the reasons for observed facts. The most parsimonious explanation that fits all the facts is the most likely to be correct, according to William of Ockham. This is often known (and misspelled) as "Occam's Razor."

If your explanation involves aether, it's not simple at all.

contd

Aug 10, 2014
Than where does it come from if not from the edge of the visible universe?
there is no object at the edge of the universe sending photons! It is everywhere, permeating the universe, like the settling dust after an explosion. A settling cloud of... photons, that the wavelength as been stretch for 13.8 billion years because of the expending universe. The wavelength distribution of the CMB is analog to the curve of a blackbody that has cooled down to 2.73 Kelvin; an afterglow.
Here I have just copied a comment that I have made under a different article.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
HI again, Da Schneib.
We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*.
No. You *infer* based on *assumptions* from observed radiation info received; and make *interpretations* from theory.

As the BICEP2 'work/paper' assumptions/methodology etc fiasco shows only too well, such flawed assumptions/interpretations/inferences may be wrongly trusted as 'reality' because they did not know the difference between 'results' *inferred*, and the actual *observed* data as such which did not support their 'treatment/claims' for it.
...where are the new galaxies being formed as the old galaxies move apart?
You assume/interpret 'expansion/inflation', not 'observe' it as such.

And recent observations show ever increasing population of previously undetected galaxies/matter. :)

But in any case, SS models do NOT require 'full blown' galaxies to 'just appear' as you imply.

Like your 'dark energy', SS 'new matter' from recycling energy-space is low level 'locally'.

No problem! :)

yep
Aug 10, 2014
I brought up Lemaitre for historical perspective, which is important when discussing theory that morphs instead of falsifies like most of the " overwhelming consensus of cosmologists today." Sixty plus years ago Charles E.R. Bruce showed us that supernova were examples of electric discharge. He was ignored, fortunately his career was not destroyed like that of Halton Arp forcing him to leave the country to pursue his research. If you are not familiar with Arp his heresy was showing that sometimes high and low red shift objects are connected by bridges of matter so it cannot be a measure of distance. Redshift is a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies. "Arp found that the intrinsic red shift from a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy."

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
Actually, even the (fringe but mainstream) Doppler shift based explanation doesn't imply any formation of space - it just considers the collective motion of massive objects from the Earth across the existing (i.e. already created) space.
This is incorrect. The mainstream view is that space is expanding and carrying the distant galaxies along with it. See below.

The "creation of space" is just a personal hypothesis of yours, presented here as a mainstream one.
Actually, it says so in every book on cosmology I've ever read-- and I've read a lot of them. This is the mainstream understanding of cosmology. Astrophysicists and cosmologists emphasize repeatedly that distant galaxies are not *moving through space*, but instead that *space is expanding and distant galaxies are carried along with it*. Expansion of space means creation of more space. Otherwise, how could it expand?

Aug 10, 2014
Hi Arties. :)
BICEP2 'work/paper' assumptions/methodology etc fiasco
This is somewhat strong description of situation. The inflationary interpretation of BICEP2 observations was just doubted with (equally biased) proponents of string theory and ekpyrotic cosmology, who are desperately looking for some confirmation of their theories too - and the inflation doesn't belong into them.


I was referring to MY immediate assessment of the BICEP2 'work/paper' as initially presented, and caution to uncritical mainstream 'cheerleaders'.

Only afterwards did dissenting 'mainstream physicists' get involved (and confirmed my immediate assessment of flawed confirmation-biased assumptions, treatment and interpretations/claims).

Such obvious 'publish or perish' crap/claims (to have 'confirmed BBang/Gravity-waves etc) are a serious problem, as it prevents proper REVIEW of evidence when the reality does not gel with mainstream orthodoxy/models/interpretations.

No 'excuses' for them. :)

Aug 10, 2014
Da Scheib:
No. We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*. Badly named so-called "dark energy" is the current best explanation for that fact, as shown in billpress' link to Harvard (and the bullet point that precedes it, which is perfectly correct).
More space being created, that could simply be an illusion.
How? Please explain this in detail and provide reputable scholarly sources. This is the mainstream understanding of cosmology.

So where are the new galaxies being formed as the old galaxies move apart? All the galaxies at a given distance seem to be much the same age, except for the little ones. This does not support a steady state. Nor does the abrupt change in acceleration 7 billion years ago.
I never stated that the galaxies WERE moving apart, I don't even accept that the universe is expanding, so why would there even be a need for new galaxies.
Then where does the redshift come from? Again, please provide scholarly sources.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
I think it is quite strange that the earth is only moving about 390 kilometers per second in the CBR. After all that is about the same as the velocity as the Milky Way, our solar system and the earth's velocities combined. Yep strange indeed.
Again, this does not prove either absolute motion or absolute location as a property of spacetime.

Other factors too are the velocity of light cannot be added to or subtracted from, the very basis of the Sagnac Effect and the global positioning satellite system.

So to me that is not a completely settled science.
I don't see what that has to do with it. Could you explain this more thoroughly please? Remember that although light is always measured travelling at the speed of light, the Doppler effect causes it to change frequency if you're moving relative to its source.

Just what is the proof that there is no absolute motion? The proof that there is is the speed of light.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
HI again, Da Schneib. :)
This is incorrect. The mainstream view is that space is expanding and carrying the distant galaxies along with it.
Mate, you really must be more careful and stop promulgating 'facile' and meaningless 'glib explanations' like that one.

How can galaxies be 'taken along with space expansion' if there is NO COUPLING mechanism provided by the theory that claims this?

And where are the 'geodesics' for such 'galaxies taken along with space'?

No-one has yet provided the BBang etc model/theory with either a coupling mechanism OR the descriptive motional 'geodesics' which such 'with space' recessional motions must have if 'true' in reality physics. So in mainstream models/theory it's all facile CONJECTURE pure and simple.

Really, please be more careful not to repeat such facile non-explanations which the current models/theory is riddled with; while pretending to be better than the SS infinite/eternal recycling energy-space-matter-processing models/theories. :)

Aug 10, 2014
@RealityCheck
Science does not pretend to know what reality is. Reality is a puzzle that the human conscience struggle to figure out. With our senses we perceive just a little bit of what reality is and with our tools, just a little bit more. You should stop believing that our brain is designed to understand reality. What science is constructing is only possible models of reality and it work just fine. It has permitted humanity to develop some very sophisticated technology. What is wrong with that?

Aug 10, 2014
What "various artifacts of [the] Higgs field" are you talking about
How is it possible, you're trying to argue here and don't know http://www.newsci...shy.html in connection to Higgs boson finding.
New Scientist is not a scholarly journal. It often prints speculative theories, and the editors are not always entirely careful about noting that.

However, in this case, they were very fact-based, simply reporting what the results were from the LHC. And you've misunderstood the article; the findings on the Higgs have nothing to do with the lack of supersymmetry evidence.

The problem with most of people here is they have memory of tropical fish and they don't remember even one tenth of articles, which I remember. Every opinion based on it and presented here is therefore considered as a unsubstantiated and as such dismissed.
Good luck with that. Thanks for the insults.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
@RealityCheck
Science does not pretend to know what reality is. Reality is a puzzle that the human conscience struggle to figure out. With our senses we perceive just a little bit of what reality is and with our tools, just a little bit more. You should stop believing that our brain is designed to understand reality. What science is constructing is only possible models of reality and it work just fine. It has permitted humanity to develop some very sophisticated technology. What is wrong with that?

I think there is plenty of reality we understand, like the conservation of energy and moment, the finite speed of light, plus all the science that have made our very sophisticated technology. Where we get into trouble is assuming things to be fact when they either haven't been proven yet or when there are OTHER possible explanation. And that applies to the science of astronomy doubly today.

Aug 10, 2014
Of course it means little to me because I think there is a better than two to one odds that the observed red-shift is caused something other that the expansion of the universe. I think the Z factor and distance are most likely directly related.
Your last statement is therefore correct, but the preceding one is not, and cannot be, by your own data.

I am unclear on what part of my point you aren't understanding. Could you be a little more detailed, please? I'll do my best to explain.
I think my statement above is correct. The Z factor rises in a parabolic curve compared to the age of the universe according to the BB theory.
Not that statement. I agree that the Z factors are rising in an approximately parabolic curve; however I should point out that there is a bend in it at about 7 billion light years.

I deleted everything but the two statements I was talking about to make this clearer.

Aug 10, 2014
Let us all sing songs of friendship and laughter. Life is too short to care about this.

Prepare for ScienceX to ban you.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
Obvious misunderstanding; the CMB is not a 'backdrop' that comes from the edge of the universe... We are 'bathing' in it.
This is straw man argument, as the billpress11 didn't say something like this. He just presented well known http://www.astro....-DT.html here. How does it imply, that the CMBR is some "backdrop from edges" or whatever else? Of course in no way - therefore your post is irrelevant.
Actually, Techno is saying the same thing I am, but a different way. Movement relative to the CMB (I said) is not necessarily (nonexistent, according to Special Relativity Theory) movement relative to spacetime. Whichever way of saying it you understand is the best-- for you.

Aug 10, 2014
Hi TechnoCreed. :)
You should stop believing that our brain is designed to understand reality. What science is constructing is only possible models of reality and it work just fine. It has permitted humanity to develop some very sophisticated technology. What is wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with that. :) But unlike some, I'm not 'defeatist' when it comes to the human mind understanding the full reality when given its full potential/info to do so based on the reality and not on fantasies.

And it's always advisable to distinguish between 'technology' and 'science'.

The former may arise from observation/trial-and-error methodologies (cavemen used rubbing sticks and striking flint to make fire, but understood nothing of the underlying physical mechanisms/origins etc); while the latter must arise from strict understanding of the underlying causes/mechanisms/origins etc.

Only when 'myths and fantasies' are excluded will the reality stand out clearly. Cheers all real scientists! :)

Aug 10, 2014
As for the model of the universe I think is most likely? A steady state recycling universe infinite in age and size.
But you haven't answered either the question of why there aren't new galaxies forming in between the old, or where the redshift comes from if not the Doppler effect.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
Hi Da Scneib. :)
I don't see why saying "the visible universe was the size of a pea" has anything to do with absolute location or absolute motion.
If the universe 'is all there is", then unless you 'know' its 'global extent', you can't 'meaningfully compare' any 'local extent' to it. So 'backtracking' from current visible extent to some unmeasured 'a-priori' global extent makes for self-referencing 'BB explanations', yes? That was the point.
But we're not talking about the whole universe, only the visible universe. That's why I said "visible universe."

...acceleration is absolute...
Agreed. But be careful re 'acceleration' arguments. LOCAL accelerations are 'felt/occur' locally. But what is GLOBAL UNIVERSAL 'acceleration' with respect to, if you have no global extent to compare to except your 'assumed' backtracking from current LIMITED visible extent?
It's accelerating *expansion*. Not ordinary acceleration. There is no "global universal 'acceleration.'"

Aug 10, 2014
Let us all sing songs of friendship and laughter. Life is too short to care about this.

Prepare for ScienceX to ban you.

Thank you for a very good laugh!

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
This is incorrect. In fact, CPT violation has been extensively confirmed in the neutral kaon decades ago
Which is exactly the reason, I don't talk just about it. I'm talking about CPT violations expected in mesons of higher generations, which are the matter of NA312, KTeV and NA48 experiments in the latest decades.
I misspoke. In fact, CP violations have been observed, but they are always accompanied by T violations. This preserves the CPT symmetry. It was proven in 2002 that a CPT violation would be a Lorentz symmetry violation, i.e. a refutation of Special Relativity Theory. The D0 meson has been proven to violate CP, and there is preliminary evidence the B meson does too.

Anisotropy in the CMB therefore does not mean that there is absolute motion, or absolute location
It just means, you're moving with respect to all observable universe. Which more absolute motion do you have on mind?
Ummm, you'll need to prove this. Scholarly literature please.

Aug 10, 2014
Hi Da Schneib. :)
But we're not talking about the whole universe, only the visible universe. That's why I said "visible universe."
Yes, so was I. You made a claim about 'pea size' for visible universal extent, and I pointed out there was no meaningful 'reference' for making such 'backtracking assumptions' from current visible to BBang initial 'pea size' visible 'comparison' scaling etc.

It's accelerating *expansion*. Not ordinary acceleration. There is no "global universal 'acceleration'.
But you said "galaxies taken along with" expanding space at ever-increasing RATE of "expansion".

I pointed out no coupling mechanism (between space and galaxies/matter) provided by current models/theory to effect that.

Which is why talk of 'accelerating expansion' etc is fraught with misunderstanding, and is meaningless, glib, non-explanation for what you claim is so.

I further pointed out that no 'geodesics' are provided etc.

And SS 'new matter' is low level locally. So no probs! :)

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
As for the model of the universe I think is most likely? A steady state recycling universe infinite in age and size.
But you haven't answered either the question of why there aren't new galaxies forming in between the old, or where the redshift comes from if not the Doppler effect.

There are other ideas out there, I posted the link below in a MUCH earlier posting. Admittedly it has not been proven but it at least offers a possible test that could indicate whether it might be an explanation or at least have some merit.
http://www.scribd...-Physics

It's in the waves of particles theory of light section.

Aug 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 10, 2014
Aether theories were refuted by the Michelson-Morley experiment in the nineteenth century.
AWT is based on dense aether model of Oliver Lodge, this model was never refused with any experiment.
There is no aether nor is any required.
How can you explain the existence of gravity, light waves, magnetic field or quantum noise after then?
DeBroglie showed that waves and particles are different aspects of the same phenomena, Planck proved that light is emitted as particles, and Einstein proved it's absorbed as particles, too. Individual photons can be detected with CCD detectors, and in fact these are what all the big particle accelerators use to detect *all* particles.

We only have ad-hoced formulas, but not casual explanation for these phenomena. They're just assumed with contemporary physics as such. The EM field simple likes doing the waves - http://www.youtub...lMb6A...
Particles are not "assumed." They can be detected individually.

Aug 10, 2014
I think there is plenty of reality we understand, like the conservation of energy and moment, the finite speed of light, plus all the science that have made our very sophisticated technology. Where we get into trouble is assuming things to be fact when they either haven't been proven yet or when there are OTHER possible explanation. And that applies to the science of astronomy doubly today.
At the human scale, I accept that we are connected to reality by our senses and much of it is confirmed by mathematics. But that does not mean that we know what reality is. There is still too many pieces of the puzzle that are not in place to have a definitive 'image' of it.
Just what is the proof that there is no absolute motion? The proof that there is is the speed of light.
Since you do not accept or do not understand relativity (not sure exactly). I cannot help you here yet.

Aug 10, 2014
It's a standard effect called the Doppler effect. What's your explanation for the redshift?
Just another standard effect, called the scattering of waves.
Science isn't about politics. Science is a method of finding the reasons
You should never confuse the practical science done with contemporary scientists and it's hypothetical rules, which aren't followed at all. After all, just the Feynman has said, that the science doesn't ask for reasons, it doesn't ask http://www.youtub...A9lMb6A, so you even don't know, what the scientific method is in contemporary physics.
So why do refrigerators and jet aircraft and computers work if modern physics doesn't follow the scientific method? How about the discovery of the Higgs? I'm sorry, quoting Feynman and claiming he's denying the scientific method is-- to quote some Feynman myself-- cargo cult science.

Aug 10, 2014
Nothing wrong with that. :) But unlike some, I'm not 'defeatist' when it comes to the human mind understanding the full reality when given its full potential/info to do so based on the reality and not on fantasies.
Do you realize that the reality you are defending is a reconstruction of it inside your head? Although, like you, I have good feelings about human intellectual abilities and I have great hope that we are going to keep moving forward, unlike you I accept that the brain is limited because nature built it around our limited senses. So limited in fact that, less than a century ago, people were sick because of 'bad air'. We can laugh at this today but only because we could amplify our senses with tools and not because we have superior cognitive abilities than our ancestors. We even created tools to detect and study phenomenon that we do not have any natural sensible abilities to detect like e.g. neutrinos. They were first inferred than detected and confirmed. So, tell me, how much of reality is still hidden because we have no sense to detect it? And when will you have enough humility to accept it? You do not have to answer the last question; it is just food for thought.

Aug 10, 2014
We *observe* more space is being created. That's a *fact*.
No. You *infer* based on *assumptions* from observed radiation info received; and make *interpretations* from theory.
Well, actually we do the same thing with our eyes. "You" exist behind your forehead; your eyes observe radiation info and convert it to electrochemical impulses that go to your hindbrain, and from there get processed and passed into the midbrain and eventually to the cortex for decisions. Do you doubt what you see, or do you think it's all just conjecture? If you don't, then why do you doubt what we see with telescopes?

Aug 10, 2014
As the BICEP2 'work/paper' assumptions/methodology etc fiasco shows only too well, such flawed assumptions/interpretations/inferences may be wrongly trusted as 'reality' because they did not know the difference between 'results' *inferred*, and the actual *observed* data as such which did not support their 'treatment/claims' for it.
What fiasco? You mean all the rumors? Actually they're checking the results with the Keck Array and South Pole Telescope right now, and they expect to be able to check them more thoroughly when the next Planck data comes out in October. So your assumption that these results are wrong is incorrect. Read here: http://www.pbs.or...hold-up/

Note the source is PBS, not a bunch or rumors. It was the rumormongers that created the fiasco, not the BICEP2 team.

Aug 11, 2014
Hey vieux Ira, I am glad you are still around. This is just a little word to tell you that I miss your colorful comments. À bientôt!

Aug 11, 2014
where are the new galaxies being formed as the old galaxies move apart?
You assume/interpret 'expansion/inflation', not 'observe' it as such.
Actually it has nothing to do with inflation, only with expansion. And expansion is proven by Einstein in the EFE, and by the redshift data, and by the supernova data. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

And recent observations show ever increasing population of previously undetected galaxies/matter. :)
Of course they do; we're making better and better telescopes all the time, and putting them in better and better locations. That doesn't show that galaxies are being created in empty space. We'd need at least hundreds of thousands of years to confirm that.

But in any case, SS models do NOT require 'full blown' galaxies to 'just appear' as you imply.
There's no evidence of forming galaxies either. And I did not imply that full-blown galaxies should be appearing instantaneously.

Aug 11, 2014
Like your 'dark energy', SS 'new matter' from recycling energy-space is low level 'locally'.
But if there's "new matter" appearing out of nowhere, then there should be galaxies that were formed more recently than the surrounding ones, by billions of years. And we know a lot about the life cycles of galaxies, and there just aren't any. For example, where are all the nearby quasars? There aren't any. All the galaxies are too old to make quasars any more.

Steady state is deprecated. Time to move on to more modern theories.

Aug 11, 2014
It's a standard effect called the Doppler effect. What's your explanation for the redshift?
Just another standard effect, called the scattering of waves.
Dang it, I forgot to respond to this.

What's scattering the waves, and why is it uniform? All the matter we see out there is clumpy. That's because of gravity. And don't tell me Compton shift; that was debunked long ago. I have the link right here: http://www.astro....ein.html

Aug 11, 2014
I brought up Lemaitre for historical perspective,
No, you brought up LeMaitre to poison the well. LeMaitre's Big Bang shares almost nothing with the current Big Bang Theory, other than starting small and hot. What his motivations were is immaterial to the facts.

Aug 11, 2014
Just what is the proof that there is no absolute motion? The proof that there is is the speed of light.
It's a postulate of Special Relativity. Special Relativity is pretty much as good as a theory gets. It's made numerous predictions that have all been proven correct. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with its postulates.

Aug 11, 2014
The mainstream view is that space is expanding and carrying the distant galaxies along with it.
Well, this is not what the Doppler shift actually is.
If a car is on a train, and the train goes by you, and there's a person in the car honking the horn, will you hear a Doppler shift?

No difference between that and this. It doesn't matter if the universe is moving the galaxies, or if the galaxies are moving *in* the universe. You'll still get a Doppler shift. You can alternatively propose that the expansion of space is expanding the light waves and causing the redshift, too; either way is consistent with observation. Many cosmologists prefer to describe it that way, because of the mainstream view that space is expanding rather than the galaxies moving through space, but the fact of the matter is that the math gets the same results either way.

Aug 11, 2014
Anyway, this model doesn't imply any "formation of space" - only expansion of already existing one.
Ummm, where does the extra space between the two things that are receding from one another come from then? Space is just distance, nothing more. To expand space, you have to add more space. Anybody who's put a new room on their house knows this intuitively.

BTW the distant galaxies are much more luminous, larger and separated each other, than the expanding space model predicts, so it's BS anyway.
First, you'll need a scholarly source for this because this is not the mainstream understanding. Unless you're talking about quasars, which only happen in galaxies much younger than any of the galaxies around us; but that's a matter of galactic evolution.

Second, assuming you're correct, how come galaxies that are distant are different from galaxies in our neighborhood? Are you claiming the laws of nature are different there than here?

Third, what happened to steady state?

Aug 11, 2014
The expanding space would imply the expansion of everything, including molecules, atoms and solar systems into account of their mutual force interactions
This is incorrect. Locally, gravity overcomes the cosmological constant. It's only over long distances that the cosmological constant overwhelms gravity.

whereas the red shift model is just based on assumption,
Now you're denying the redshift?

the spectra of atoms and Kepler laws inside of galaxies remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a reference for measuring of Hubble constant and density of dark matter.
I don't understand what this means. Could you explain it some more?

The Big Bang model is therefore internally inconsistent, no matter how you take it.
You haven't shown this, or linked anything that proves it so far. Could you explain exactly how you think it's internally inconsistent please? As always, with references to the scholarly literature.

Aug 11, 2014
This is incorrect. The mainstream view is that space is expanding and carrying the distant galaxies along with it.
Mate, you really must be more careful and stop promulgating 'facile' and meaningless 'glib explanations' like that one.
You'd better tell that to about twenty thousand cosmologists and a like number of astrophysicists because it's what they all say.

How can galaxies be 'taken along with space expansion' if there is NO COUPLING mechanism provided by the theory that claims this?
The coupling mechanism is inertia, which is caused by conservation of momentum. If space expands, and there is no appreciable movement of the galaxy within that space, then later it will be farther away.

And where are the 'geodesics' for such 'galaxies taken along with space'?
I don't understand what you're objecting to. Could you please expand on this some more? As always, scholarly literature article links should accompany your explanation.

Aug 11, 2014
No-one has yet provided the BBang etc model/theory with either a coupling mechanism
As I said above, it's conservation of momentum.

OR the descriptive motional 'geodesics' which such 'with space' recessional motions must have if 'true' in reality physics.
Are you claiming that they're ignoring General Relativity Theory? Are you aware that the Big Bang theory is *based upon* GRT? Can you clarify please?

So in mainstream models/theory it's all facile CONJECTURE pure and simple.
This is incorrect. GRT is not conjecture, it's a theory. Conjectures remain so until a method of testing them is determined; then they become hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has passed a test, or depending on how controversial it is some tests, then it becomes a theory. GRT has achieved this status long ago. We're still checking on little details like frame dragging, but so far they're all turning out to be correct.

Are you claiming to have found a refutation of GRT? Please clarify.

Aug 11, 2014
No, you brought up LeMaitre to poison the well. LeMaitre's Big Bang shares almost nothing with the current Big Bang Theory, other than starting small and hot. What his motivations were is immaterial to the facts.
Do not be so narrow minded many religious scientists made important contribution to the wealth of human knowledge.

Aug 11, 2014
Movement relative to the CMB (I said) is not necessarily (nonexistent, according to Special Relativity Theory) movement relative to spacetime.
It is under the situation, when the CMBR fills/pervades whole the observable space-time as we know and understand it.
You'll find a very good answer, from a Professor of Cosmology and Astronomy at the University of British Columbia named Douglas Scott, here: http://www.astro....sic.html It's titled "How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB?" so search on that, or just scroll down a bit.

Professor Scott points out that while we can perform an *external* experiment that defines a frame motionless with respect to the CMB (i.e. measuring its redshift in various directions), we cannot perform a *local* physics experiment that differentiates this frame from any other inertial frame. And that's what the principle of relativity means. There are no special inertial frames.

Aug 11, 2014
No, you brought up LeMaitre to poison the well. LeMaitre's Big Bang shares almost nothing with the current Big Bang Theory, other than starting small and hot. What his motivations were is immaterial to the facts.
Do not be so narrow minded many religious scientists made important contribution to the wealth of human knowledge.
Sorry, I didn't mean that to be a dig at LeMaitre. Thanks for pointing it out so I could clarify it. He is of course the "L" in FRLW and was a great cosmologist. Given that lots of digs about the BBT being religiously motivated have been thrown around on this thread and a couple other similar ones, I thought it was pretty clear what was intended there. For example, search billpress11's posts for the word "MAGIC" in all caps.

BTW, I don't mean to spam the board; I'm responding to three people at once, and limited to a thousand characters per post. If I'm posting too much, let me know and I'll spread it out more over time. I want to give good posts

Aug 11, 2014
BTW, I don't mean to spam the board; I'm responding to three people at once, and limited to a thousand characters per post. If I'm posting too much, let me know and I'll spread it out more over time. I want to give good posts.
Au contraire, I very much appreciated your patience and contribution to this hectic comment tread. It was intelligent and a good entertainment. On this, good night. TC

Aug 11, 2014
... in general relativity the motion with respect to flat empty space-time remains undefined - but has such a space-time a physical meaning.
Actually, it's Special Relativity Theory (and in fact one of its postulates), and what it says is that no inertial frame is special, not even the one that's motionless with respect to the CMB, In other words, no local physics experiment can be performed that differentiates this inertial frame from any other.

I don't understand what you mean when you ask, "but has such a space-time a physical meaning[?]." That spacetime is our spacetime.

Can space-time exist without its quantum fluctuations? In AWT model not, therefore the existence of relative motion with respect to CMBR is a problem of general relativity - not my problem.
Actually, as Professor Scott points out, it's not a problem. Meanwhile, what does GRT have to do with quantum fluctuations? And how can any spacetime exist without quantum fluctuations?

Aug 11, 2014
The GR just applies to hypothetical situation, which can never (quite) happen in our Universe.
This is incorrect. GR describes our universe; it's been extensively tested and never failed. As a recent example, Gravity Probe B finally proved frame dragging.

Aug 11, 2014
BTW, I don't mean to spam the board; I'm responding to three people at once, and limited to a thousand characters per post. If I'm posting too much, let me know and I'll spread it out more over time. I want to give good posts.
Au contraire, I very much appreciated your patience and contribution to this hectic comment tread. It was intelligent and a good entertainment. On this, good night. TC
Excellent! Thanks for the compliments. I'm enjoying it too. :D

Aug 11, 2014
why there aren't new galaxies forming in between the old, or where the redshift comes from if not the Doppler effect
We observed a number of young galaxies together with old ones (which usually look like the dwarf satellite galaxies).
I am not aware of any such observations. Can you, as always, provide some evidence from the scholarly literature please?

Also the anthropic condition may be a source of bias here - the formation of intelligent life requires lotta time and quite old well developed and stable galaxies, which is why we are surrounded preferably with similar ones.
Again, now you're saying the universe is different over there than it is over here. And as always, "over there" means "back then," as well. So much for steady state.

Aug 11, 2014
After all, even the AWT model doesn't favor the steady state model completely - it's just more close to the description of the actual observations. In AWT the Universe is just random and the presence of some global inhomogeneity of it (like the CMBR anisotropy) is therefore welcomed.
There are two anisotropies, actually. One, the dipole (2-lobe) anisotropy, is the bias caused by the movement of Earth relative to the CMB. The other is a quadrupole (4-lobed) anisotropy that comes in three flavors, of which we have so far only seen two (and expect, if inflation is correct, not to see much of the third, but our instruments aren't sensitive to see it yet). Unfortunately for your AWT conjecture, the two we have seen so far strongly favor not only the Big Bang (the E mode) but also inflation (the T mode).