dennislmay

Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory

Recommended Posts

Since 2005 I have been discussing some of my work on alternative physics and alternative cosmology in various forums – primarily on a yahoo discussion group in addition to self-published book form. The work extends from 1990 to the present.

It is my opinion that there are many misconceptions as to the current state of evidence supporting Big Bang Cosmology. It is my contention that every major tenant of the Big Bang approach may be better explained using an alternative approach that is internally consistent and consistent with observation.

The three major tenants of the Big Bang Theory are:

The observed Hubble red-shift is the result of the expansion of space as modeled using General Relativity.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation [CMBR] is the radiation left over from a time when the universe was in black-body thermal contact prior to the continued expansion of the universe.

The ratio of light elements found the universe is due to the conditions found during the early portion of Big Bang expansion.

My alternative explanation for each of these primary points originates in the foundations of a particular non-linear branch of de Broglie-Bohm [deBB] quantum mechanics incorporating the work of Gregory S. Duane on the foundations of such a quantum mechanics.

A quick summary of the alternative explanation for each of the three major tenants:

The observed Hubble red-shift is the result of a slow universal increase in the speed of passage of time. Space is not expanding. This is a by-product of the non-linear model of quantum mechanics.

Example of observational support – the apparent geometrical size/brightness of galaxies does not match their Big Bang derived distance – rather a distance you would expect if the universe is not expanding.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation [CMBR] is the black-body radiation resulting from non-linear QM thermal contact in the present nearby universe.

Example of observational support – the CMBR does not having lensing or shadowing characteristics consistent with a source from near the beginning of a Big Bang expansion. In fact the CMBR shadows fills in behind galaxies indicating continual production in nearby space.

The ratio of light elements found the universe is due to the continual recycling and regeneration of matter in a very old universe using non-linear QM.

Example of observational support – though supporters claim the ratio of elements support the Big Bang model there are numerous observations contradicting this assertion. The most glaring example is the failure to find first generation red-dwarf stars which according to all theory should be abundant and only beginning their long existence in the age available to the Big Bang theory. Red-dwarf stars are the most abundant type indicating a first order failure in prediction.

This is just a flavor and I hope to have time to expand during further discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is my opinion that there are many misconceptions as to the current state of evidence supporting Big Bang Cosmology. It is my contention that every major tenant of the Big Bang approach may be better explained using an alternative approach that is internally consistent and consistent with observation.

Have you had much success with conversational astrophysics on the internet forums so far, Dennis -- and can you give us a link to some of the work you may have published to date?

I should note, not unkindly, that you probably mean to use the word tenet rather than tenant. A tenet is an item of opinion, premise, principle and so on. A tenant is an Objectivist who has been prevented by Socialism from owning a home.

Not meaning to be a Grammar Fascist, but hey . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 2005 I have been discussing some of my work on alternative physics and alternative cosmology in various forums – primarily on a yahoo discussion group in addition to self-published book form. The work extends from 1990 to the present.

It is my opinion that there are many misconceptions as to the current state of evidence supporting Big Bang Cosmology. It is my contention that every major tenant of the Big Bang approach may be better explained using an alternative approach that is internally consistent and consistent with observation.

The three major tenants of the Big Bang Theory are:

The observed Hubble red-shift is the result of the expansion of space as modeled using General Relativity.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation [CMBR] is the radiation left over from a time when the universe was in black-body thermal contact prior to the continued expansion of the universe.

The ratio of light elements found the universe is due to the conditions found during the early portion of Big Bang expansion.

My alternative explanation for each of these primary points originates in the foundations of a particular non-linear branch of de Broglie-Bohm [deBB] quantum mechanics incorporating the work of Gregory S. Duane on the foundations of such a quantum mechanics.

A quick summary of the alternative explanation for each of the three major tenants:

The observed Hubble red-shift is the result of a slow universal increase in the speed of passage of time. Space is not expanding. This is a by-product of the non-linear model of quantum mechanics.

Example of observational support – the apparent geometrical size/brightness of galaxies does not match their Big Bang derived distance – rather a distance you would expect if the universe is not expanding.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation [CMBR] is the black-body radiation resulting from non-linear QM thermal contact in the present nearby universe.

Example of observational support – the CMBR does not having lensing or shadowing characteristics consistent with a source from near the beginning of a Big Bang expansion. In fact the CMBR shadows fills in behind galaxies indicating continual production in nearby space.

The ratio of light elements found the universe is due to the continual recycling and regeneration of matter in a very old universe using non-linear QM.

Example of observational support – though supporters claim the ratio of elements support the Big Bang model there are numerous observations contradicting this assertion. The most glaring example is the failure to find first generation red-dwarf stars which according to all theory should be abundant and only beginning their long existence in the age available to the Big Bang theory. Red-dwarf stars are the most abundant type indicating a first order failure in prediction.

This is just a flavor and I hope to have time to expand during further discussion.

Have you looked at the alternative theory of Paul Steinhardt and Niel Turok?

See http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/qa_turok

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my view that the theory of Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok suffers from most of the same problems as the Big Bang Theory – thus I find it of no interest.

Some further history of my work:

My undergraduate thesis was an early version of a portion of this work and I enjoyed support in that effort. I worked on my masters thesis and some PhD work in the same area of research but did not enjoy support in that effort.

I sought the advice from “Foundations of Physics”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics

in that effort and they directed me to J.P. Vigier for advice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Vigier

Vigier was there at the beginning of deBB mechanics and directed me to people doing similar work in computer modeling. This was 1990-1991 - prior to the work of Gregory S. Duane in 2001 which I assumed correct but had no proof of at the time. So the foundation of my work sat in limbo from 1990-2001. Sometime after the work of Duane I once again contacted “Foundations of Physics” in regard to correcting a series of papers containing an obvious thermodynamic error which I dealt with as a minor side effect in my work from 1990. I found that moneyed interests [DOE funding to the University of California – San Diego] outweighs basic physics considerations and I fought them for two years without being allowed to publish my point of view until they had someone publish a correction - in convoluted form - disguising the nature of the obvious error in what they had done. By this time I was very disgusted with “Foundations of Physics” and became even more so after Gerard 't Hooft became the editor-in-chief in 2007. In the time frame of 1990-1991 I attempted to publish my early work in most all the physics journals accepting work in alternative QM and found none as welcoming as “Foundations of Physics”. I self published an early version of the work at that time.

After the fiasco of attempting to deal with “Foundations of Physics” I started the yahoo group:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Physics_Frontier/

to discuss my work and get valuable input from others with similar interests in alternative physics and cosmology. I have self published two editions [still working on 3rd] outlining my work. I have free copies of the 2nd edition available for those interested – just email me at dennislmay@yahoo.com with your address and I will send you a copy. The experience of 2 years of arguing on two occasions to get less than 1% of my work understood in a physics journal has left me working as a one man band except for the online support and help I have received over the years. I have contacted a half dozen or so prominent researchers about my CMBR work with no response. Over the years I have received support from a dozen or so university physics professors around the world but entire topic of deBB QM and non-linear QM generally has been languishing in a dying exponential manner. So I remain the sole advocate for all intents and purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my view that the theory of Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok suffers from most of the same problems as the Big Bang Theory – thus I find it of no interest.

Some further history of my work:

My undergraduate thesis was an early version of a portion of this work and I enjoyed support in that effort. I worked on my masters thesis and some PhD work in the same area of research but did not enjoy support in that effort.

I sought the advice from "Foundations of Physics"

http://en.wikipedia....ions_of_Physics

in that effort and they directed me to J.P. Vigier for advice.

http://en.wikipedia....n-Pierre_Vigier

Vigier was there at the beginning of deBB mechanics and directed me to people doing similar work in computer modeling. This was 1990-1991 - prior to the work of Gregory S. Duane in 2001 which I assumed correct but had no proof of at the time. So the foundation of my work sat in limbo from 1990-2001. Sometime after the work of Duane I once again contacted "Foundations of Physics" in regard to correcting a series of papers containing an obvious thermodynamic error which I dealt with as a minor side effect in my work from 1990. I found that moneyed interests [DOE funding to the University of California – San Diego] outweighs basic physics considerations and I fought them for two years without being allowed to publish my point of view until they had someone publish a correction - in convoluted form - disguising the nature of the obvious error in what they had done. By this time I was very disgusted with "Foundations of Physics" and became even more so after Gerard 't Hooft became the editor-in-chief in 2007. In the time frame of 1990-1991 I attempted to publish my early work in most all the physics journals accepting work in alternative QM and found none as welcoming as "Foundations of Physics". I self published an early version of the work at that time.

After the fiasco of attempting to deal with "Foundations of Physics" I started the yahoo group:

http://tech.groups.y...ysics_Frontier/

to discuss my work and get valuable input from others with similar interests in alternative physics and cosmology. I have self published two editions [still working on 3rd] outlining my work. I have free copies of the 2nd edition available for those interested – just email me at dennislmay@yahoo.com with your address and I will send you a copy. The experience of 2 years of arguing on two occasions to get less than 1% of my work understood in a physics journal has left me working as a one man band except for the online support and help I have received over the years. I have contacted a half dozen or so prominent researchers about my CMBR work with no response. Over the years I have received support from a dozen or so university physics professors around the world but entire topic of deBB QM and non-linear QM generally has been languishing in a dying exponential manner. So I remain the sole advocate for all intents and purposes.

Whatever theory you chose to develop do not repeat Hoyles mistake of a steady state cosmos. It is a looser.

QM is the best physics ever produced. Consider the technology that flows from it. It is counter intuitive, but so what? It predicts well to 12 significant figures and is yet to be falsified empirically. There is nothing wrong with QM except that it is not congruent with our so-called "common sense" which is wrong far more often than it is right. I often ask people who think QM is wrong what makes your computer work? So, what makes your computer work?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My alternative cosmology is a form of steady-state cosmology. It is a different model than Hoyle's and does not suffer the same problems. The failure of one model does not imply a blanket failure of all theories with some features in common.

Quantum mechanics is not being thrown out - deBB QM is a different interpretation producing the same results as conventional QM. My non-linear offshoot of deBB QM does have some different predictions in some areas as all non-linear QM must. There are many competing models for QM producing accurate results within certain ranges of assumptions and measurements. Questioning the foundations of QM is not an all or nothing proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My alternative cosmology is a form of steady-state cosmology. It is a different model than Hoyle's and does not suffer the same problems. The failure of one model does not imply a blanket failure of all theories with some features in common.

Quantum mechanics is not being thrown out - deBB QM is a different interpretation producing the same results as conventional QM. My non-linear offshoot of deBB QM does have some different predictions in some areas as all non-linear QM must. There are many competing models for QM producing accurate results within certain ranges of assumptions and measurements. Questioning the foundations of QM is not an all or nothing proposition.

Interpretations be damned. The math IS the theory. The math works.

Only one thing counts: Are the predictions empirically corroberated. If not, the theory is busted.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interpretations are fundamental to understanding, using and being able to expand quantum mechanics. An incorrect view of hidden variables generated by John von Neumann was propagated as fact from 1932 until disproven by J.S. Bell in 1964. This did not end the issue as the results of the mistake of von Neumann are erroneously reported as fact to this day. J.S. Bell discussed the issue of the result of his work being misinterpreted and misrepresented in his book “Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics”. Different interpretations take you along very different mathematically equivalent paths – though some methods are easier to apply than others and some interpretations have been worked on more than others building a larger mathematical tool-chest. The wave formulation, the matrix mechanics formulation, the vector formulation, the Bohmian, approach and some others all produce the same results and are explained by Bell. Some erroneously claim their interpretation [and supporting math] is the only one producing the correct results – they are wrong and have been known to be wrong since 1964.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interpretations are fundamental to understanding, using and being able to expand quantum mechanics. An incorrect view of hidden variables generated by John von Neumann was propagated as fact from 1932 until disproven by J.S. Bell in 1964. This did not end the issue as the results of the mistake of von Neumann are erroneously reported as fact to this day. J.S. Bell discussed the issue of the result of his work being misinterpreted and misrepresented in his book "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics". Different interpretations take you along very different mathematically equivalent paths – though some methods are easier to apply than others and some interpretations have been worked on more than others building a larger mathematical tool-chest. The wave formulation, the matrix mechanics formulation, the vector formulation, the Bohmian, approach and some others all produce the same results and are explained by Bell. Some erroneously claim their interpretation [and supporting math] is the only one producing the correct results – they are wrong and have been known to be wrong since 1964.

Please refer to any refereed journal articles falsifying quantum mechanics and in particular the Standard Model of Fields and Particles, the all time champion theory.

In the last analysis it is the math that cranks out the predictions. In this particular I side with Dirac who claimed that the only virtue of a physical theory is the correctness of its predictions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no falsification at this point - there is more than one approach to get the same results and more than one interpretation. Dirac supported the vector approach which was later shown to produce the same predictions as many other mathematical approaches - some of which have very different interpretations.

Some believe the success of the “Standard Model of Particles and Fields” excludes alternative interpretations – Bell showed is not true at all. Its success is also success for all mathematically equivalent theories regardless of interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no falsification at this point -

End of story.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as any non-linear effect of any kind is experimentally proved the "Standard Model of Particles of Fields" will not be able to adapt – neither will Special Relativity. The question of interpretation and adaptability will then become very important. The non-linear deBB approach is already a known approach to this problem and Special Relativity will need to be replaced with something like Lorentzian ether theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

My entire alternative approach to physics and cosmology is to use the assumption of non-linear QM to explain numerous observations. Definitive experimental proof of a non-linear QM effect has yet to be found though I believe cosmology gives clear indications that such effects exist.

I have done some minor experimentation to provide such proof but the equipment required to go much further is financially on the order of buying a nice house plus having the right kind of lab infrastructure to put it in. As such it is a slow process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as any non-linear effect of any kind is experimentally proved the "Standard Model of Particles of Fields" will not be able to adapt – neither will Special Relativity. The question of interpretation and adaptability will then become very important. The non-linear deBB approach is already a known approach to this problem and Special Relativity will need to be replaced with something like Lorentzian ether theory.

http://en.wikipedia....tz_ether_theory

My entire alternative approach to physics and cosmology is to use the assumption of non-linear QM to explain numerous observations. Definitive experimental proof of a non-linear QM effect has yet to be found though I believe cosmology gives clear indications that such effects exist.

I have done some minor experimentation to provide such proof but the equipment required to go much further is financially on the order of buying a nice house plus having the right kind of lab infrastructure to put it in. As such it is a slow process.

I will quash an quell any laughter ensuing from accepting the Loretnz aether theory which has been smacked down, trampled and beaten to death by laboratory results. They do the MMX with lasers now and the results are still the same: no aether. The idea of the cosmos being filled up by Space Jello, stiffer than steel and rarer than virtue is unlikely at best. If aether exists then why aren't the planets heated up by friction with the aether and slowed down in their orbits? Or has the conservation of momentum been repealed?

Write us when two things happen.

1. You come up with a theory that predicts all empirically verified results heretofore predicted by currently accepted theories.

2. Your theory predicts something not predicted by any of the current theories and is empirically verified and replicated.

There's a good fellow

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

“Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

"In 1904 J. J. Thomson[36] considered a Le Sage-type model in which the primary ultramundane flux consisted of a hypothetical form of radiation much more penetrating even than x-rays. He argued that Maxwell's heat problem might be avoided by assuming that the absorbed energy is not be converted into heat, but re-radiated in a still more penetrating form."

The thermodynamics of re-radiating models is the work that was never done - hence the entire approach was abandoned based on doing half the minimum required research.

There is no experiment proof that SR has any superior claim to the LET. Certain ether models are known to have contained errors – there is no experimental evidence to exclude all ether theories and very little theoretical work has been done beyond that known to have been incomplete and misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....tz_ether_theory

"Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment."

http://en.wikipedia...._of_gravitation

"In 1904 J. J. Thomson[36] considered a Le Sage-type model in which the primary ultramundane flux consisted of a hypothetical form of radiation much more penetrating even than x-rays. He argued that Maxwell's heat problem might be avoided by assuming that the absorbed energy is not be converted into heat, but re-radiated in a still more penetrating form."

The thermodynamics of re-radiating models is the work that was never done - hence the entire approach was abandoned based on doing half the minimum required research.

There is no experiment proof that SR has any superior claim to the LET. Certain ether models are known to have contained errors – there is no experimental evidence to exclude all ether theories and very little theoretical work has been done beyond that known to have been incomplete and misleading.

You are a refreshing difference. Little did I dream that I would corresponding with an aetherist.

That is almost as surprising as meeting up with a flat-earther or a hollow-earther in this day and age.

In the mean time quantum electrodynamics which is based on Einstein's special theory of relativity (in part) still produces dazzling correct predictions.

And particle accelerators operate every day as advertised again and again corroberating Einstein's theory.

Write us when you can match that.

There's a good fellow.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You are a refreshing difference. Little did I dream that I would corresponding with an aetherist. That is almost as surprising as meeting up with a flat-earther or a hollow-earther in this day and age."

I’m as refreshing as a flat-earther who lives in the hollow-earth.

“In the mean time quantum electrodynamics which is based on Einstein's special theory of relativity (in part) still produces dazzling correct predictions.”

Still based on SR and QM that cannot be mathematically distinguished from LET or other QM models in their predictions.

“And particle accelerators operate every day as advertised again and again corroborating Einstein's theory.”

Again:

http://en.wikipedia....tz_ether_theory

"Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You are a refreshing difference. Little did I dream that I would corresponding with an aetherist. That is almost as surprising as meeting up with a flat-earther or a hollow-earther in this day and age."

I'm as refreshing as a flat-earther who lives in the hollow-earth.

"In the mean time quantum electrodynamics which is based on Einstein's special theory of relativity (in part) still produces dazzling correct predictions."

Still based on SR and QM that cannot be mathematically distinguished from LET or other QM models in their predictions.

"And particle accelerators operate every day as advertised again and again corroborating Einstein's theory."

Again:

http://en.wikipedia....tz_ether_theory

"Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment."

SR is simpler and more general. Lorentz only spoke of how electrons and the aether interacted. Yes, they did come up with the same equations, but the approach and application was much different. Einstein won and Lorentz lost. Aether is simply not regarded seriously these days. There is nothing that aether "explains" that cannot be accounted for without it and it has never, ever been detected. Not once. Not by interferometers and not by devices such as Trouton and Noble used.

The aether theory is dead and nearly buried.

There are a few folks like (the late) Petr Beckman and such who try to revive aether but to no avail.

If you think you can do something with it develop a theory that can:

1. Account for every correct prediction made by quantum theory and relativity

2. Make an empirically correct prediction that current theories do not make, or make incorrectly.

without sacrificing scope and generality. If you can do that, you have succeeded. Otherwise, you have not.

I am not a betting man but I would give odds that you do not succeed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compartmentalizing the successes of individual theories should not insulate them from criticism when application in a composite concept such as the “Big Bang Theory” does not produce good results.

General Relativity is unable to correctly predict the velocity profiles of galaxies. The solution was to create Dark Matter to fix theory to observation. Now comes the observation that galaxies that look alike have the same velocity profiles and are thus required to have identical Dark Matter distributions:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-doubts

This kind of required uniformity cannot be justified.

If General Relativity on the galactic scale is in doubt the entire Big Bang physics is in doubt. A failure of General Relativity would seem to bring with it the possibility of a failure in Special Relativity – a non-linear effect which in turn brings up the question of LET and non-linear QM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does "a slow universal increase in the speed of passage of time" mean? What is the evidence for it and what would be the cause of it?

Edited by Starbuckle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“What does "a slow universal increase in the speed of passage of time" mean?”

It means that say one billion years ago the speed of light throughout the observable universe was less than it is now so we observe events from one billion years ago as red-shifted and moving more slowly. This is equivalent to what you would expect to see if the universe were expanding.

“What is the evidence for it and what would be the cause of it?”

The apparent geometrical size and brightness of galaxies does not match the distance they should be at based on the expanding universe model and the red-shift they display. Instead their size and brightness indicates red-shift and time dilation without the universe expanding.

When I was developing my non-linear QM theory I discovered in 1990 that the ether in space and traveling light are part of a thermodynamic system in which changes to the ether affects the velocity of light. The ether is a supraluminal system so when changes occur they happen quickly over vast regions. Feedback between the ether and matter/energy causes the speed of light to gradually increase over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“What does "a slow universal increase in the speed of passage of time" mean?”

It means that say one billion years ago the speed of light throughout the observable universe was less than it is now so we observe events from one billion years ago as red-shifted and moving more slowly. This is equivalent to what you would expect to see if the universe were expanding.

“What is the evidence for it and what would be the cause of it?”

The apparent geometrical size and brightness of galaxies does not match the distance they should be at based on the expanding universe model and the red-shift they display. Instead their size and brightness indicates red-shift and time dilation without the universe expanding.

When I was developing my non-linear QM theory I discovered in 1990 that the ether in space and traveling light are part of a thermodynamic system in which changes to the ether affects the velocity of light. The ether is a supraluminal system so when changes occur they happen quickly over vast regions. Feedback between the ether and matter/energy causes the speed of light to gradually increase over time.

Is your cosmological model based on an assumed universe of infinite age? If so, then if your assumption that the speed of light keeps increasing with time and was slower in the past is true, then if you keep going back far enough in time, you would reach the point at which the speed of light was zero, unless you assume a minimum speed of light that you approach asymptotically as you go back in time. Alternatively, if the age of the universe is assumed to be infinite, and if the speed of light has been increasing all of this time, then the speed of light should now be infinite (increasing in speed for an infinitely long time), unless you again assume that there is a maximum speed of light that can only be approached asymptotically. But the assumption of asymptotic upper and lower limits to light speed doesn't seem to be make sense in the context of an infinite universe of infinite age.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My model assumes an arbitrarily old and arbitrarily large universe. With no outside of the universe referents there is no limit to how slow in the past or how fast in the future the universe can operate while maintaining its current appearance – the speed of passage of time can only be measured internally against other portions of the universe we can observe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My model assumes an arbitrarily old and arbitrarily large universe. With no outside of the universe referents there is no limit to how slow in the past or how fast in the future the universe can operate while maintaining its current appearance – the speed of passage of time can only be measured internally against other portions of the universe we can observe.

In short a Steady State theory which was shot to smithereens by the discovery of CMBR in 1965.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My model assumes an arbitrarily old and arbitrarily large universe. With no outside of the universe referents there is no limit to how slow in the past or how fast in the future the universe can operate while maintaining its current appearance – the speed of passage of time can only be measured internally against other portions of the universe we can observe.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. In your previous post, you said that, according to your model, the speed of light itself was slower in the past than it is now. This is different than saying that the speed of the passage of time has changed. If the speed of light itself keeps getting slower as we go back in time, then there's a problem, because there is a limit to how slow the speed of light can be -- 0. So, in other words, if the speed of light in our present universe is =~ 186,000 miles/sec, and it was slower than this one billion years ago, and presumably still slower 100 billion years ago, eventually you reach the point where the speed of light is 0, or you approach some asymptotic limit.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My model assumes an arbitrarily old and arbitrarily large universe. With no outside of the universe referents there is no limit to how slow in the past or how fast in the future the universe can operate while maintaining its current appearance – the speed of passage of time can only be measured internally against other portions of the universe we can observe.

In short a Steady State theory which was shot to smithereens by the discovery of CMBR in 1965.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The CMBR provides no support for the Big Bang Theory because it fails several crucial tests for a radiation from a source at the beginning of a Big Bang age:

It fails to lens as a distant source should:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bigbang-05b.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276

It fails to shadow as it should and the shadows fill in with distance:

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html

http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=480

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160

It has features that cannot come from a simple Big Bang but could come from local sources:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-glimpse-universe-big.html#

There are dozens of other observations that do not support the CMBR as the remnants of a Big Bang expansion though it continues to be held up as proof. The “proof” requires the introduction of Dark Energy and spontaneous inflation that then spontaneously stops at the right moment for the numbers to remotely appear to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...