Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[YoursTrue]

Four points:

1. From the time of nucleosynthesis, we are looking at an expansion factor of at most a billion. So, yes, while smaller it is hardly small on a human scale.

2. An inflationary time period may have produced a similar factor, but the data on this is sketchy and it should be considered to be speculation (although supported by a lot of actual, testable physics).

3. When you say 'started from nothing', exactly what do you mean? Once again, there was not point in time when there was 'nothing'. This is for the obvious reason that time is *something*. but, in more detail, there was no point in time when there was no matter, energy, or natural laws. And no, natural laws don't require a 'law maker': how can a 'law maker' make anything without natural laws?

4. The Big Bang is a description of the expansion *after* things got started. While there is some speculation about *how* things got started, there isn't data to allow for distinguishing the different hypotheses.

 

[YoursTrue]

When I said that nothing comes from nothing, I guess one would have to decide if ever there was nothing. And frankly now that we're mentioning it, is there nothing? Or was there nothing? Seems you are says,no there never was nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I said that nothing comes from nothing, I guess one would have to decide if ever there was nothing. And frankly now that we're mentioning it, is there nothing? Or was there nothing? Seems you are says,no there never was nothing.

"nothing" may be impossible. At least in our universe. Even empty space is alive with virtual particles. They consist of particles and their anti-particles popping in out out of existence together.

 

[YoursTrue]

Plus now I see gravity is something that no one understands is that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

"nothing" may be impossible. At least in our universe. Even empty space is alive with virtual particles. They consist of particles and their anti-particles popping in out out of existence together.

We'll, I was thinking that there is more than the universe. What it is I have no idea. We're still trying to figure out what is the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plus now I see gravity is something that no one understands is that right?

That would be incorrect because quite a bit of it is understood. We do not understand everything about it, but we know far more than nothing about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be incorrect because quite a bit of it is understood. We do not understand everything about it, but we know far more than nothing about it.

That's not what I read. We know that it is associated with mass and weight. According to NASA website, What is gravity?. No one knows.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not what I read. We know that it is associated with mass and weight. According to NASA website, What is gravity?. No one knows.

Sorry, but that is out of context.

 

[gnostic]

When I said that nothing comes from nothing, I guess one would have to decide if ever there was nothing. And frankly now that we're mentioning it, is there nothing? Or was there nothing? Seems you are says,no there never was nothing.

The Big Bang theory don’t propose there being “nothing”.

Only people such as yourself would make this argument out from ignorance.

At best, nothing can be described as vacuum of space, but even then true nothingness don’t exist, as the entire universe are filled with quantum fields.

And like @Subduction Zone said, virtual particles can materialize in vacuum. Neutrinos & photons can stream through vacuum before they can be measured.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I read what was on the link you supplied. It simply doesn't work in the way claimed. First of all, any interaction with IGM is going to show he spectrum of the IGM material. And that *is* taken into account in cosmology. In fact, determining the amount of IGM is a key aspect of cosmology and interpreting a lot of visual data,

Second, interaction with IGM isn't going to produce a uniform frequency shift. We know how hydrogen interacts with light and it isn't in the way necessary to produce a *red shift* as opposed to a reddening (which is simply an increase of red end light). Dust and IGM produces a reddening, not a red shift.

Next, the CMBR cannot be explained by interaction of light with IGM. It is way too uniform and matches the Planck distribution too well (to within 1 in 100,000). So the 'explanation' given by tired light simply doens't fit the detailed data we have about it (it might have before some of our probes gave detailed data, but not now).

Sorry, but there is a reason tired light isn't taken seriously by astrophysicists. And it isn't a religious devotion to BB cosmology. It is that tired light, to the extent it makes any predictions at all, makes predictions that are contradicted by the actual data,

However research into TLT continues, this article is from 2018.

Wrt dust and IGM, given the slightly lower frequency of red in the visible frequency spectrum, I can see that there may be more attenuation of the higher frequencies, but would not this affect BB redshift readings too?

I can't see why their CMBR explanation is faulty, the TLT may be correct given an infinite universe. There should be omnipresent EM microwave radiation as a result of infinite distant EM radiation sources.

 

[Polymath257]

Plus now I see gravity is something that no one understands is that right?

We understand it well enough to match calculations with observation to several decimal places. What we don't understand is quantum gravity, which we know will be relevant for the very early universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Precisely. As my signature says, the opinions of 10,000 people who aren't qualified is irrelevant.

And you are? I mostly respect your views on scientific matters, but given the totality of the knowledge of every scientist alive, they know relatively little about reality, after all, they can only observe less than 5% of the stuff the universe. Humility trumps arrogance.

 

[Polymath257]

That's not what I read. We know that it is associated with mass and weight. According to NASA website, What is gravity?. No one knows.

This is a first approximation. But gravity is also associated with energy, momentum, and stress forces.

Newton gave a very good approximation for gravity 350 years ago. Einstein gave a much better description just over 100 years ago. The site you gave gives a very elementary treatment, but it is very far from the best that is known.

 

[Polymath257]

And you are? I mostly respect your views on scientific matters, but given the totality of the knowledge of every scientist alive, they know relatively little about reality, after all, they can only observe less than 5% of the stuff the universe. Humility trumps arrogance.

I'm certainly not at research level for this stuff, but I do know enough to filter out the garbage. Tired light is in the garbage category.

To get to the research level would take about a year for me to get up to speed on all the details.

 

[Polymath257]

However research into TLT continues, this article is from 2018.

Wrt dust and IGM, given the slightly lower frequency of red in the visible frequency spectrum, I can see that there may be more attenuation of the higher frequencies, but would not this affect BB redshift readings too?

[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Red is a specific range of frequencies. A red shift is a shift of frequencies to lower values (and thereby longer wavelengths) and reddening is an increase in red light. They are very different concepts.

I can't see why their CMBR explanation is faulty, the TLT may be correct given an infinite universe. There should be omnipresent EM microwave radiation as a result of infinite distant EM radiation sources.

Nope. Once again, the CMBR is way too uniform to be the result of interactions with IGM. And it is perfectly thermalized, which is impossible, even in an infinite universe (where we would at least get the variations for the local materials).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm certainly not at research level for this stuff, but I do know enough to filter out the garbage. Tired light is in the garbage category.

To get to the research level would take about a year for me to get up to speed on all the details.

So please try and keep up, The New Tired Light Theory correctly predicts the redshift of the CorBor galaxy cluster.

The New Tired Light Theory (NTL) is tested by using known data of the distance to the Corona Borealis galaxy cluster (A2065 in particular) and from this predicting the red-shift of the galaxy. This is then compared to the measured value. In NTL, photons of light are continually absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the plasma of interga-lactic space which recoil both on absorption and re-emission. Energy is transferred from the photon to the recoiling electron and thus the photon energy is reduced, the frequency is reduced and the wavelength is increased. It is redshifted. Using the wavelength of the ‘K line’ of ionised calcium, standard physics and published collision cross-sections, the predicted redshift by NTL is found to be z = 0.067. This compares favorably with the measured redshift value of 0.0714 - they agree to within 6%. The energy transferred to the recoiling electron is emitted as secondary photons. The predicted wavelength of these secondary photons is calculated and is shown to be in the microwave region of the electro-magnetic spectrum. This again is consistent with the NTL prediction that these secondary photons form the CMB.

The New Tired Light Theory correctly predicts the redshift of the CorBor galaxy cluster.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Red is a specific range of frequencies. A red shift is a shift of frequencies to lower values (and thereby longer wavelengths) and reddening is an increase in red light. They are very different concepts.

Yes, I understand, but I understood you were implying that the reddening was not a lowering of all wavelengths, in which case the question begs, how do you know it is not a result of TLT/NTL. Particularly now that we have this NTL explanation, "In NTL, photons of light are continually absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the plasma of inter-galactic space which recoil both on absorption and re-emission. Energy is transferred from the photon to the recoiling electron and thus the photon energy is reduced, the frequency is reduced and the wavelength is increased. It is redshifted."

Nope. Once again, the CMBR is way too uniform to be the result of interactions with IGM. And it is perfectly thermalized,

I am open to the possibility that it is a NTLT effect. See this, " The energy transferred to the recoiling electron is emitted as secondary photons. The predicted wavelength of these secondary photons is calculated and is shown to be in the microwave region of the electro-magnetic spectrum. This again is consistent with the NTL prediction that these secondary photons form the CMB."

The New Tired Light Theory correctly predicts the redshift of the CorBor galaxy cluster.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I understand, but I understood you were implying that the reddening was not a lowering of all wavelengths, in which case the question begs, how do you know it is not a result of TLT/NTL. Particularly now that we have this NTL explanation, "In NTL, photons of light are continually absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in the plasma of inter-galactic space which recoil both on absorption and re-emission. Energy is transferred from the photon to the recoiling electron and thus the photon energy is reduced, the frequency is reduced and the wavelength is increased. It is redshifted."

I am open to the possibility that it is a NTLT effect. See this, " The energy transferred to the recoiling electron is emitted as secondary photons. The predicted wavelength of these secondary photons is calculated and is shown to be in the microwave region of the electro-magnetic spectrum. This again is consistent with the NTL prediction that these secondary photons form the CMB."

The New Tired Light Theory correctly predicts the redshift of the CorBor galaxy cluster.

When it comes to distant galaxies they can still do spectral analysis. That demonstrates that the red shift is a lowering of all wavelengths. When does the light get iron poor blood?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a first approximation. But gravity is also associated with energy, momentum, and stress forces.

Newton gave a very good approximation for gravity 350 years ago. Einstein gave a much better description just over 100 years ago. The site you gave gives a very elementary treatment, but it is very far from the best that is known.

It certainly may be associated with energy, momentum, and stress forces, but -- according to the NASA website, no one really know what gravity is. Of course it holds our bodies to the earth and the pull of gravity on the moon makes it difficult for men to walk as they would on the earth. But no one really knows what gravity is. There are explanations that go into more detail, but in the end and long run, no one really knows what gravity is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When it comes to distant galaxies they can still do spectral analysis. That demonstrates that the red shift is a lowering of all wavelengths. When does the light get iron poor blood?

View attachment 73043

I have no idea what you are trying to convey?