Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

The Big Bang

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:19:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How do you deal with people who think the Red Shift is due to something else besides the universe expanding, and that the Cosmic Microwave Background is due to something else? This view of theirs seems strange. To me, it does not seem like anything in the universe can account for me mass amounts of radiation shown in the Cosmic Microwave Background. However, how does claim the universe's expansion in concrete pertaining to the Red Shift?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:57:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The only alternative explanation I've heard for the red shift is that distant galaxies may appear more red than nearby galaxies because they really are more red, and not because of a redshift.

But that doesn't explain the more important aspect of the redshift, which is the fact that the chemical fingerprints in the light are shifted to the red end of the spectrum. I've never heard an alternative explanation for that.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 12:28:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 11:57:00 AM, philochristos wrote:
The only alternative explanation I've heard for the red shift is that distant galaxies may appear more red than nearby galaxies because they really are more red, and not because of a redshift.
Maybe, but EVERY distant object no matter what direction we look at? Seems implausible.

But that doesn't explain the more important aspect of the redshift, which is the fact that the chemical fingerprints in the light are shifted to the red end of the spectrum. I've never heard an alternative explanation for that.
Bingo! The spectral lines do not lie!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:10:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"It's not the afterglow of a fictitious Big Bang. It's the background radiation generated by the Birkeland currents that power all stars and galaxies."

I would respond to the above by claiming it would not account for the amount of radiation found. Am I correct? How would you respond to the above?
Subutai
Posts: 3,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:25:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There were two main people who tried to change the idea of redshift, Halton Arp and William Tifft.

The basis of their theories is the conclusion that the redshift measured for many distant objects is not cosmological in nature.

Refuting Halton Arp's objection, recently, a study by Scranton et al (2005) may have shed some light on this controversy. Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the positions of 200,000 quasars were correlated with the positions of 13 million galaxies. In Arp's model, galaxies and quasars are physically associated with each other and, hence, one would expect that correlating the two populations would look a great deal like correlating the galaxies with themselves. On the other hand, the Big Bang Theory (BBT) tells us that the quasars are much more distant than the galaxies in this sample, so the cross-correlation due to actual gravitational clustering should be nearly zero. Instead, we should see an induced cross-correlation due to the gravitational lensing of the quasars by the foreground galaxies. This signal is much smaller than the one expected from Arp's model and it changes sign depending on the quasar population. When the SDSS researchers made the measurement, the results matched the expectation from BBT to a high statistical significance.

Tifft tried to hold up Arp's theory that redshift can not have any arbitrary value, but can be "quantized". Galaxies are not randomly distributed throughout the universe. Instead they are clustered in clusters, "walls" and "filaments" thanks to their mutual gravitational attraction. Likewise, this clustering gives way to large voids between these structures. If one were to look only at a long narrow beam through this structure (a "pencil-beam" survey -- as was done for much of the early redshift catalogs), one would naturally expect to see some "quantization" as a relic of this gravitational interaction. When astronomers were able to use a much larger, wider sample of galaxy redshifts, like the 2dF galaxy survey, they found no evidence of Tifft's quantization.

More information on their arguments, that their theories's refutations can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org....

Btw, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was formed when radiation and matter seperated. The CMBR pretty much proves the BBT and disproves other models.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:28:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:10:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"It's not the afterglow of a fictitious Big Bang. It's the background radiation generated by the Birkeland currents that power all stars and galaxies."

I would respond to the above by claiming it would not account for the amount of radiation found. Am I correct? How would you respond to the above?

You are correct. Although many different processes might produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMBR.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:59:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:19:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
How do you deal with people who think the Red Shift is due to something else besides the universe expanding, and that the Cosmic Microwave Background is due to something else? This view of theirs seems strange. To me, it does not seem like anything in the universe can account for me mass amounts of radiation shown in the Cosmic Microwave Background. However, how does claim the universe's expansion in concrete pertaining to the Red Shift?

Red Shift is only that objects are moving away from us relatively. Andromeda is in blue shift because it's moving towards us. The Big Bang does explain most of the Red Shift, but someone could easily argue that the objects further away might be closer to a more massive object then we are. Since all object will be in Red Shift or Blue Shift even in a Static Universe Red Shift alone wouldn't justify the big bang.

The MBR could be explained away by claiming that it's a static signal emitted by every spacial point. Sounds crazy, but it would explain it away.

However, in conjunction, and with all the additional evidence, only the Big Bang model explains them all. It also predicted them before we found them.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 5:53:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:59:29 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 10:19:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
How do you deal with people who think the Red Shift is due to something else besides the universe expanding, and that the Cosmic Microwave Background is due to something else? This view of theirs seems strange. To me, it does not seem like anything in the universe can account for me mass amounts of radiation shown in the Cosmic Microwave Background. However, how does claim the universe's expansion in concrete pertaining to the Red Shift?

Red Shift is only that objects are moving away from us relatively. Andromeda is in blue shift because it's moving towards us. The Big Bang does explain most of the Red Shift, but someone could easily argue that the objects further away might be closer to a more massive object then we are. Since all object will be in Red Shift or Blue Shift even in a Static Universe Red Shift alone wouldn't justify the big bang.
Pretty unlikely, as there would have to me massive objects near galaxies in all directions. Besides, I thought that every galaxy was moving away from every other galaxy (the center is everywhere), so a massive object cannot explain it.

The MBR could be explained away by claiming that it's a static signal emitted by every spacial point. Sounds crazy, but it would explain it away.

However, in conjunction, and with all the additional evidence, only the Big Bang model explains them all. It also predicted them before we found them.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 7:05:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:19:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
How do you deal with people who think the Red Shift is due to something else besides the universe expanding,

I don't necessarily think I have to "deal with" other's who have different ideas, I think the two most common alternative explanations for Redshift are "Tired Light", the idea that photons lose energy over time through collisions with other particles, and the idea that time-dependent changes in our fundamental physical constants could account for the redshift observations.

and that the Cosmic Microwave Background is due to something else? This view of theirs seems strange. To me, it does not seem like anything in the universe can account for me mass amounts of radiation shown in the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Alternative explanations for the CMB are that it could be constantly emitted by subatomic particles, or perhaps a phenomenon of empty space attributed to the physical dynamics of spacetime itself, and there"s a Hydrogen/CMBR model that sees it resulting from the interchange of microwave quanta between atoms of interstellar hydrogen. The postulated unobserved and perhaps unobservable mysterious dark matter and dark energy certainly invites speculation regarding the effects these mysterious entities could have on light over time and how the CMB might be produced.

However, how does claim the universe's expansion in concrete pertaining to the Red Shift?

I have no idea what that means so I don't think I'll "deal with it".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 7:36:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:25:50 PM, Subutai wrote:
There were two main people who tried to change the idea of redshift, Halton Arp and William Tifft.

The basis of their theories is the conclusion that the redshift measured for many distant objects is not cosmological in nature.

Refuting Halton Arp's objection, recently, a study by Scranton et al (2005) may have shed some light on this controversy. Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the positions of 200,000 quasars were correlated with the positions of 13 million galaxies. In Arp's model, galaxies and quasars are physically associated with each other and, hence, one would expect that correlating the two populations would look a great deal like correlating the galaxies with themselves. On the other hand, the Big Bang Theory (BBT) tells us that the quasars are much more distant than the galaxies in this sample, so the cross-correlation due to actual gravitational clustering should be nearly zero. Instead, we should see an induced cross-correlation due to the gravitational lensing of the quasars by the foreground galaxies. This signal is much smaller than the one expected from Arp's model and it changes sign depending on the quasar population. When the SDSS researchers made the measurement, the results matched the expectation from BBT to a high statistical significance.

Tifft tried to hold up Arp's theory that redshift can not have any arbitrary value, but can be "quantized". Galaxies are not randomly distributed throughout the universe. Instead they are clustered in clusters, "walls" and "filaments" thanks to their mutual gravitational attraction. Likewise, this clustering gives way to large voids between these structures. If one were to look only at a long narrow beam through this structure (a "pencil-beam" survey -- as was done for much of the early redshift catalogs), one would naturally expect to see some "quantization" as a relic of this gravitational interaction. When astronomers were able to use a much larger, wider sample of galaxy redshifts, like the 2dF galaxy survey, they found no evidence of Tifft's quantization.

More information on their arguments, that their theories's refutations can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org....

Btw, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was formed when radiation and matter seperated. The CMBR pretty much proves the BBT and disproves other models.

This post helped a lot thank you :)
pmb
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 12:15:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:19:10 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
How do you deal with people who think the Red Shift is due to something else ..

The first thing you need to know when dealing with such people is to understand their reasons for believing otherwise and then address that issue. Different people, different issues and therefore different methods of handling them.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 4:27:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 11:57:00 AM, philochristos wrote:
The only alternative explanation I've heard for the red shift is that distant galaxies may appear more red than nearby galaxies because they really are more red, and not because of a redshift.


It's all just red out there, man.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord