Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Big Bang Never Happened?


Joshpantera

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator

...so says plasma theory proponents: http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

 

 

Evidence for Plasma cosmology

Plasma theory correctly predicts light element abundances

Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies. These stars produce and emit to the environment the observed amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.

Plasma theory predicts from basic physics the large scale structure of the universe
In the plasma model, superclusters, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments. The plasma cosmology approach can easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts from basic physical principles a fractal distribution of matter, with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects. This fractal scaling relationship has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.

Plasma theory of the CBR predict absorption of radio waves, which is observed
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. It has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from the COBE sattelite. Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption has been demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect. New observations have shown the exact same absorption at a wavelength of 850 microns, just as predicted by plasma theory.

The alignment of the CBR anisotropy and the local Supercluster confirms the plasma theory of CBR
If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed.

 

The anti-BB movement is something that came up recently in another thread so I figured we could branch off and make this a topic unto itself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't read the link, but does the theory account for observed redshift of distant galaxies? Nothing in the quoted text seems to even mention it. That would be a rather large problem for the theory if it doesn't account for the biggest piece of evidence that led scientists to formulate the big bang theory in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

So we have this minority community of scientists opposing both religious YECists and secular BBT standard model proponents suggesting that both parties are wrong and the truth is yet to be discovered.

 

They take issue with red shift in the series below:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deMPlC1rc7U

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kePDAAEZ_s

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf49V9QYU-k

 

The series is actually pretty interesting with this new interpretation of galaxy formation. But of course I'm awaiting BAA and other cosmology fans to analyze this series and comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

^ Dam, Lerner was really hitting the standard model hard as a type of "myth" or "religious" idea rather than sound science. This is a strange angle to approach because you generally only see creationists opposing the BBT because they want the universe much younger than 13.7 billion years +/- . But according to this newer secular view even the 13.7 billion year old universe is fanciful and mythological and they figure the universe is more than likely much older than that, perhaps infinitely old...

 

The series continues:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't exactly a "new" view. Lerner first published his book on plasma cosmology in 1991. The fact that it hasn't gained any acceptance by the mainstream yet should be a clue; twenty years is a long enough time for a new theory to gain acceptance, as long as it has the evidence to back it up, even with "closed-minded" scientists. I don't know enough about cosmology to debunk his specific claims, but something about this doesn't pass the smell test for me.

 

EDIT: I've belonged to a forum (CosmoQuest Forum, formerly Bad Astronomy/Universe Today, formerly the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board) for a long time now that has a number of actual professional scientists that have participated over the years. I might try doing some research and getting their input on the subject. They could probably find the flaws in the data/reasoning on this much better than I could, since I'm just a layman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

This isn't exactly a "new" view. Lerner first published his book on plasma cosmology in 1991. The fact that it hasn't gained any acceptance by the mainstream yet should be a clue; twenty years is a long enough time for a new theory to gain acceptance, as long as it has the evidence to back it up, even with "closed-minded" scientists. I don't know enough about cosmology to debunk his specific claims, but something about this doesn't pass the smell test for me.

 

EDIT: I've belonged to a forum (CosmoQuest Forum, formerly Bad Astronomy/Universe Today, formerly the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board) for a long time now that has a number of actual professional scientists that have participated over the years. I might try doing some research and getting their input on the subject. They could probably find the flaws in the data/reasoning on this much better than I could, since I'm just a layman.

Oh yes of course, I only meant new in comparison to the BB theory which is of course much older than the 90's.

 

Thanks for taking up the issue @ the astronomy forum. Let me know if you come up with anything interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is "plasma cosmology" the same as the "electric universe" theory? If so, then I have seen this addressed on CosmoQuest rather extensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I watched the first video and did a little bit of digging. First off, their claim that we don't know how something as small as quasars could generate the energy they do from such a small space is flat out untrue. Quasars are generally accepted today to be the central black holes of galaxies that are in the process of being formed; since galaxy formation mostly took place soon after the Big Bang, this is why these objects are always so far away from us (and why they always have such high redshifts). As the galaxies formed, there was huge amounts of matter falling into their central black holes, which gives off enormous amounts of energy. Quasars are in fact similar enough to closer active galaxies to be able to determine how much mass is falling into the central black hole to generate the energy output being observed. Eventually, the amount of mass available to the central black holes diminished, and the galaxies settled into the forms that we see today. The fact that they start out with such blatant misinformation about quasars makes me very highly suspicious of the rest of anything they may have to say.

 

Also, I think the denial of redshift information also fails to take into account the fact that supernovas and cepheid variables have been observed in other galaxies, and that their redshifts do actually correspond to their distances from us according to the brightness of these stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I have to go back and look, but I think they get into an alternative interpretation in the 3rd and 4th videos. You may want to just go through the series to see what they were setting up for in the first few videos.

 

 

First off, their claim that we don't know how something as small as quasars could generate the energy they do from such a small space is flat out untrue

 

But if untrue, are we then looking at something similar to what the ID / IC lobby like to do towards the standard model of Darwinian Evolution? That is, claim that the standard model can not explain something that it actually can explain?

 

In this case we find secular scientists who are putting forward an alternative model that can make predictions and in this case they claim to make even better predictions about quasar's and blackholes and provide data to support the claims. This is very different in comparison to the ID / IC lobby which neglect to provide alternative prediction making models, let alone any model that's supposed to make better predictions.

 

I do believe that this plasma universe and the electric universe are the same thing. Or at least they appear together as interchangeable on youtube.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

^ That's probably the most intelligent answer any one could hope to offer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if untrue, are we then looking at something similar to what the ID / IC lobby like to do towards the standard model of Darwinian Evolution? That is, claim that the standard model can not explain something that it actually can explain?

 

For the most part, yes. You also find a lot of people who support this kind of thing who say, "Well, they didn't believe Galileo, either, but he was right!"

 

I have to go back and look, but I think they get into an alternative interpretation in the 3rd and 4th videos. You may want to just go through the series to see what they were setting up for in the first few videos.

 

In this case we find secular scientists who are putting forward an alternative model that can make predictions and in this case they claim to make even better predictions about quasar's and blackholes and provide data to support the claims. This is very different in comparison to the ID / IC lobby which neglect to provide alternative prediction making models, let alone any model that's supposed to make better predictions.

 

I do believe that this plasma universe and the electric universe are the same thing. Or at least they appear together as interchangeable on youtube.

 

Promoting pseudoscience or faulty scientific theories is certainly not limited to theists claiming to be scientists. I'll have to track down the actual numbers and why the ones that the plasma cosmologists propose won't work (that may take some time, but I'm interested in knowing the reality of it all), since people who are more knowledgeable in the field would be able to nail it down a little better.

 

Oh, also of note is that in the beginning of the first video, they graph the brightness of spiral galaxies against their redshift, and therefore say there's a galactic brightness/redshift correlation. Then they do the same thing with quasars, and the numbers are all over the graph. One problem with this is that depending on how much mass a galactic core in a quasar is consuming, and also depending on which direction the galactic pole of the quasar is pointing (quasars often direct more energy out along their poles, in the form of giant jets), the brightness will be all over the place. No correlation of brightness between quasars and redshift can be made. Some quasars only consume the equivalent of hundreds of solar masses a year, while others consume many times more than that, which can lead to a quasar that is much farther away being brighter than one that is closer.

 

If something this basic is wrong in the video, then there's a good chance the rest of it is wrong since this does not represent a problem in cosmology in need of being solved by using a new theory. No new physics or cosmology is required to explain quasar redshifts.

 

In the reading I've done so far, there are also other problems with plasma cosmology. One is that plasmas in galaxies simply aren't sufficiently dense to do what the theory's proponents say they are doing. Another is that the kinds of energies required for plasmas to shape galaxies simply haven't been observed anywhere. Another issue is that if the theory's proponents are suggesting that the universe has been around for a much longer time than we think it has, then there should be entire galaxies visible to us in which the vast majority of stars have burned out, and we have no evidence of such a thing. Lastly, it looks like all of the "problems" that plasma cosmology claims to solve can be explained by more conventional means.

 

It seems that plasma cosmology is pseudoscience, although it is admittedly one that is far more sophisticated than intelligent design or irreducible complexity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I spend another half hour or more listening to scientists who find themselves on the fringe because of their theories whine and complain about how they have been rejected by the mainstream, does this series of videos ever present mainstream scientists an opportunity to explain the observations? If not, then this isn't much better than a typical video by creationists.

 

I've finished through the end of Part 3, and all I'm hearing is whine, whine, whine, nobody likes us, whine, whine, whine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I spend another half hour or more listening to scientists who find themselves on the fringe because of their theories whine and complain about how they have been rejected by the mainstream, does this series of videos ever present mainstream scientists an opportunity to explain the observations? If not, then this isn't much better than a typical video by creationists.

 

I've finished through the end of Part 3, and all I'm hearing is whine, whine, whine, nobody likes us, whine, whine, whine...

 

Dear Josh and T2M,

 

With all due respect, I'm not going to get into this topic.

 

T2M sums it all up neatly, so I've quoted him above.

 

Anyone with sufficient resources can publish books, make fancy-looking videos with profound-sounding music and write lengthy, technical-looking pdf's.  They can hammer away at non-scientists and laypeople on various forums... http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=5574774 (Michael is pushing the Electric Sun/Electric Universe concept) ...in the hope of gaining converts and increasing book/dvd sales. They can also cash in on the conspiracy theory bandwagon, hoping to pull in those who are already predisposed towards that mindset. But none of these activites qualifies as bona fide, peer-reviewed and published science.

 

When they go thru the proper channels and do real science, that's when I'll pay attention to these people.

 

I began to watch each of the videos, getting only partway thru and then groaning inwardly, shaking my head and thinking, "Yep! All the usual suspects (Burbidge, Arp, etc.), all the usual disinformation, all the old issues trotted out once again and given a re-polish, fresh spin and new computer-generated graphics.".

.

.

.

 

Guys,

 

About two years ago an Muslim Creationist called Eemaan came to this forum, claiming that the Quran was proven to be true by science.  She offered up videos, links to Islamic outreach sites and quotes from her holy book.  I asked her to show me the peer-reviewed and published science papers that would corroborate her claims.  Of course, none were forthcoming. 

 

Similarly, we were visited for a time by Paradox, an anti-Einstein activist, who went to great lengths to convince anyone who'd listen that Relativity Theory was a lie, perpetrated by a ruling elite of physicists, united in a secret global alliance.  Any science papers to back up his claims?  Well, yes actually... but only from non-accredited sites, where anyone can post anything without it having to be peer-reviewed.  'Nuff said?

 

That's the standard I hold to and I try to apply even-handedly across the board.  So, I don't care if you're a Muslim or a Christian, an Electric Universe advocate, a Big Bang denier or even a Flat Earther - just show me the peer-reviewed and published paper that details your work.  If you can't, then we're done.

 

I hope this message doesn't come across as too abrupt, but I've already seen too many pseudo-scientific videos and listened to too many anti-establishment talking heads to go any further with this.

 

Sorry, but no thanks.

 

Bye!

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole peer-reviewing industry is a cabal controlled by a few elite scientists and administrators.  It serves the industry of those currently in power.  It siphons all the grant money from mainstream sources to them.  That's why places like the Creation Institute and the websites you malign, BAA, are so important - they are the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

 

The wilderness, of course, can yield hefty profits, too!  mua ha ha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole peer-reviewing industry is a cabal controlled by a few elite scientists and administrators.  It serves the industry of those currently in power.  It siphons all the grant money from mainstream sources to them.  That's why places like the Creation Institute and the websites you malign, BAA, are so important - they are the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

 

The wilderness, of course, can yield hefty profits, too!  mua ha ha!

 

Perhaps to a certain degree this may be true, but one of my reasons for pointing out that Lerner first published his book over twenty years ago is that there has since been enough time for some changeover in "the old guard," and for younger minds to investigate this more closely. If there is actual substance to the arguments, they would have had more backing than they do by now, even if that meant waiting for several decades for some of the stodgy old elite to retire or die.

 

Also, remember that the precursors to Lerner go back into the 1960s with this theory. Considering that the big bang theory was only proposed in the thirties and wasn't even really settled on until the sixties (Hoyle's steady state theory was still something of a viable contender until that time), this is more of a contemporary to big bang theory, and is not something new at all. The fact that Hoyle, Arp, and those that follow them are still whining now that no one is accepting their "new" ideas is laughable, since their ideas are virtually the same age as the ones that are now considered mainstream, and those ideas were dropped when evidence for the big bang became overwhelming. I really see that people like Hoyle and his successors (since Hoyle passed away in 2001) are still just bitter that their theories haven't been accepted as the mainstream line of thinking (I've read about Hoyle complaining and whining since I was a teen in the eighties).

 

Then there is the astronomer in the video who commits what I call the "these kids today..." fallacy when he talks about how "these kids today in graduate school aren't taught how to think." People have been complaining about that since there were people. I'm sure Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates had similar complaints, and they probably complained about the horrible music the younger generation listened to, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

One of the meanings of this thread is to consider non-theists who join in against the establishment and back ideas that creationists enjoy, such as the BBT is wrong as well as Evolution. Do non-theists lend credibility to these ideas simply because they're supposedly "unbiased?" So far the answer seems to be no, they are actually biased in some way even though their bias is not of the religious oriented variety. 

 

Eric Lerner is not campaigning on behalf creationism, quite the opposite, and yet creationists can pick up on his critique of the BBT as a way of saying, "look, the scientists are lying to us all and yet demanding that they speak the truth." 

 

Over 20 years into it, yeah, you'd think that if the plasma model had enough credibility it would have changed much of mainstream science by now. But it hasn't. The BBT continues to address the problems of new data within it's frame work that there's no major standard model change on the heels of paradigm shift, as far as I know. I've followed several secular anti-BB theories and they seem very similar in that they complain about the peer review process and biased funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All scientists have biases. Every last one of them. They are all humans, after all. Even the scientists who happen to be right (about a particular subject) have biases. However, some of them have facts and data to support their arguments. The best scientists are flexible enough to modify or drop their theories in light of new data. For example, the big bang theory was only finally fully accepted when the cosmic background radiation was discovered, and found to have the properties that big bang theory predicted; as far as I know, no steady state theory can account for this adequately. From what I can see from those that argue against the big bang, they are unwilling to accept the overwhelming amount of data supporting it, and are still holding on to their theories for purely personal reasons.

 

Also, as you pointed out, Josh, while the people who are against the big bang certainly aren't theists (unlike most creationists/intelligent design proponents/irreducible complexity proponents), you also pointed out that their ideas of a universe that is virtually infinite in age is totally against the creationist point of view. However, there is some of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that goes on, and creationists will latch on to these arguments just because they go against the scientific mainstream and supposedly create doubt about things like the big bang. It's similar to how creationists will say that scientists are complete idiots and are pulling the wool over everyone's eyes in a big conspiracy... unless what they find can be twisted or misinterpreted to support some creationist argument or other.

 

It's also worth pointing out that Hoyle was a big proponent of interstellar panspermia as the source of life on earth, in spite of the fact that this would be far less likely to happen than for life to get started in the massive petri dish that the primordial earth would have been. Pseudoscience and biased thinking are certainly not owned by theists in any way. There are plenty of scientists that have done great work in one field, but believe in bizarre, unprovable woo in another field.

 

EDIT: Also, some scientists do great work in some aspect of their career, but hold onto untenable ideas, even in their own field. Note that Fred Hoyle is actually Sir Fred Hoyle. He did some great astronomical work in his younger days, but he never let go of his outdated views on steady state theory, even as the evidence for the big bang continued to pile in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I've heard about the "electric universe" theory, also known as plasma cosmology.  I must say, however, that I know scarcely little about it.  And this isn't for lack of trying.  Obviously I never even heard about it in grad school or in any of the papers I generally read, since it's not a generally accepted theory.  But I've tried searching for it on the Internet, and I must say that it's hard to come by any standard text on the subject.

 

 

Also, I think the denial of redshift information also fails to take into account the fact that supernovas and cepheid variables have been observed in other galaxies, and that their redshifts do actually correspond to their distances from us according to the brightness of these stars.

 

Like you say, this would be an excellent confirmation of standard cosmology.  By observing cepheid variables and making redshift measurements, one can actually measure the Hubble parameter (and thus deduce the age of the universe).  At this point it becomes hard to deny cosmological expansion without also denying some well-accepted facts about the luminosity-period relationship in cepheids.

 

 

Note that Fred Hoyle is actually Sir Fred Hoyle.

 

Random fact.  If I recall correctly, Sir Fred Hoyle is in fact not "Dr." Fred Hoyle, and for the strangest reason.  Apparently the guy did all the work for his PhD, but didn't bother submitting the graduation paperwork.  Must have predicted he'd get an even better title sometime in the future...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh, here's an interesting discussion that took place on the scienceforum back in 2011:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59446-big-bang-theory-disputed-with-evidence/

 

I remember trying to follow the discussion at the time, but it's all too technical for me.  The replies seem very interesting, especially those of 'Pantheory' in post #19.  wink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh, here's an interesting discussion that took place on the scienceforum back in 2011:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59446-big-bang-theory-disputed-with-evidence/

 

I remember trying to follow the discussion at the time, but it's all too technical for me.  The replies seem very interesting, especially those of 'Pantheory' in post #19.  wink.png

 

If I may...BC.

 

Bhim, who's just joined this forum, is an astrophysicst.  

Wouldn't he be the ideal person to examine Pantheory?  Why don't you ask him and see if he'll oblige?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

I am a cosmologist and theoretical physicist of the second order (little recognized). I've been creating theories since the late 1950's. I have never believed in the BB model. There was a time in my early teens when I adhered to Hoyle's steady state model. Since that time I have developed my own theory which can be found by using any search engine looking for the Pan Theory.

 

Thanks BC, I'll read more on his Pan Theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.