|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2001 : 22:57:13
|
In so many forums, there are skeptics who challenge the pretty secure findings concerning the Big Bang.
There are a great many reasons for believing in the Big Bang, one of the greatest lying in the observations concerning the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). The BOOMERANG and MAXIMA balloon experiments have further substantiated the Big Bang theory among scientists. Of course, in science no theories are set in stone, but the Big Bang Theory is close to that.
The Quasi Steady State Cosmology of Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar have been thrust forward by them to cover the tracks of their old Steady State Cosmology which preceded it and which has been roundly dismissed in the Scientific Community. The Hot Big Bang theory will be improved upon, but the Quasi Steady State Theory will not be the result.
There is also the Halton Arp rejection of Redshift as a cosmological tool. This permits Dr. Arp to make all kinds of statements about the universe which are inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology. Discredit the scientific tools and what do you have left?
There is the accelerating universe of the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Search Team with its reinventing of the Cosmological Constant (or Lambda). Some cosmologists have introduced the name Quintessence to describe the energy which seems to be accelerating the expansion of the space between galactic groups (although the galaxies in the galactic groups remain gravitationally bound).
ljbrs
If I knew better, I could do better!
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 02:43:39 [Permalink]
|
I personally *believe* the big bang as it has been explained to me and as I have read about it. And was exposed to the Steady State over at Bad Astronomy, courtesy John Kiernan who ascribes to this theory. But the others I am unfamiliar with, as I have only recently come back to astronomy as an interest.
I would appreciate clarification regarding these other two theories. Why would someone reject red shift when even according to Einsteins theories of relativity? Would this not then refute these theories out of hand?
I'm not really sure I understand the last paragraph here. Do these projects support or challenge the big bang?
Thanks...
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
 |
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 08:15:19 [Permalink]
|
Trish:
I believe you wanted clarification of:
quote:
There is also the Halton Arp rejection of Redshift as a cosmological tool. This permits Dr. Arp to make all kinds of statements about the universe which are inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology. Discredit the scientific tools and what do you have left?
Halton Arp is an astronomer who was expelled from what was then known as the Mt. Wilson and Palomar Observatories, probably because of his ideas concerning the tools (redshift, etc.) being used by the other astronomers and astrophysicists there. He wrote an interesting book, "Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies" which showed unusual galaxies which were distorted in their shapes and were obviously the result of galactic mergers. He held ideas such as:
quote:
Far from being the most distant objects in the universe, quasars are associated in space with relatively nearby galaxies.
quote:
Quasars' enormous redshifts do not arise from the expansion of the universe, but rather are intrinsic properties of the quasars themselves.
quote:
Most galaxies show redshift anomalies related to quasars' redshifts.
quote:
Quasars and galaxies have an origin far different from that assumed in the "standard" big bang model of the universe.
On the covers of one of his books, "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies", it is stated:
quote:
Many astronomers, despite the acumulation of compelling evidence, defend what Arp believes is a fundamentally incorrect assumption about cosmic objects
Redshift is an important tool in astronomy and cosmology. It is a means of determining distance to objects in the universe which are too far away to use the usual standard candles. Redshift is used in conjunction with other tools. Arp could not make his theories meaningful without demolishing redshift, the use of which worked definitely against his ideas.
In addition, you wanted explanation of this:
quote:
There is the accelerating universe of the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Search Team with its reinventing of the Cosmological Constant (or Lambda). Some cosmologists have introduced the name Quintessence to describe the energy which seems to be accelerating the expansion of the space between galactic groups (although the galaxies in the galactic groups remain gravitationally bound).
The accelerating universe became known to the general public with the selection of this theory by SCIENCE as the "Discovery of the Year" for 1998 in its 18 December 1998 issue. The two teams, The Supernova Cosmology Project and The High-Z Supernova Search Team, began their search with the idea of determining the rate at which the universe was decelerating in its expansion (from the Big Bang). They used excellent standard candles for determining the distances involved: Type Ia Supernovae, which are thought to be caused by the explosion of white dwarf stars (binary systems) each of which having accreted material from nearby companion star onto an accretion disk. When the white dwarf star with its accreting (from its accretion disk) reached the Chandrasekhar Limit of 1.44 Solar masses, what is called "electron degeneracy" took over and the white dwarf star (no longer being able to support the mass) collapsed and then exploded -- a Type Ia Supernova (the most violent of the supernovae). Because each exploded at approximately the same mass, the brightness and duration of each Type Ia Supernovae became almost identical to the brightness and duration of each other Type Ia Supernovae. Using these as standard candles, one could determine distances in the far reaches of the visible universe. Well, to make a long story longer, instead of finding that the universe was contracting, they found that it was accelerating in its expansion. They have tested this again and again, using other methods to confirm their theories and have come up with the same conclusion. The universe is not only expanding but is accelerating in its expansion. The expansion occurs in the space between the galactic clusters and not in the individual galactic clusters themselves. Saul Perlmutter, et al., have used every method they could find to shoot down their theory. The Einstein term "Lambda" has been resurrected as a name for whatever is the cause of the accelerated expansion (probably something like "virtual particles"). Another term being used by other astronomers and astrophysicists is "Quintessence".
This has gained much acceptance among leading astronomers and cosmologists. The scientists involved are still trying to disprove their theory, but the results keep coming back positive.
I am betting on the accelerating universe as being the lasting theory (which, of course, will have revisions as more types of measurements can be made).
Astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists should follow the methods of these two teams (Supernova Cosmology Project and High-Z Supernova Search Team) by attempting to demolish their theories in every way possible. In this way, they will not come out losers in the long run.
ljbrs
They knew better and did better...
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 12:28:04 [Permalink]
|
Thank you. I've been following a couple of similar discussions over at Bad Astronomy but your explanation is much more at a level I can understand.
Does/did Harp attribute the red shift to the Compton Effect? This sounds very similar to the beliefs of John Kierein over at BA, I had him explain his theories to me once out of curiosity.
Thanks for the information regarding the accelerating universe, that makes clearer some of the discussions at BA right now.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 15:22:35 [Permalink]
|
Trish:
Redshift is used to calculate distances to extragalactic objects, such as quasars. Halton Arp (and others, such as Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar of "Revised Steady State" fame) must do away with the validity of the redshift in order to make their theories possible and plausible. This is part of the reasons for their attacks on quasars. Quasars have also been found to lie at the centers (as the nuclei) of the very massive galaxies in the universe. However, quasars have not been recorded by leading astrophysicists as having been expelled from galaxies.
My own question to Halton Arp would be: If the quasars are expelled from galaxies, why are none of them expelled in our direction, to make them blue shifted (or at least less redshifted). Quasars always have greater redshifts than the redshifts of the galaxies from which they have been mistakenly reported as being expelled. What makes the Solar System special as to the position for viewing these so-called "expelled" quasars.
Halton Arp has a popular book entitled, "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" where he offers his theory/theories to the ordinary public. I am not aware that Halton Arp used the Compton effect (see below). The word "Compton" is not listed in the index of his book, "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies". Therefore, I think that the Compton effect probably is not a part of his theory, at least not important enough to list in his Index. Regardless, I still insist that none of the quasars seem to be blueshifted, i.e. coming in our direction, which, to me, makes the theory specious, at best. Arp may have come around to using the Compton effect in his later years, since the publication of his books.
For your knowledge:
quote:
Compton effect: An increase in the wavelength of x-rays or gamma rays when scattered by loosely bound electrons in substances, the electrons being ejected. Theoretically the phenomonon is treated as a collision between a photon and an electron, the latter being regarded as a free particle initially at rest. The photon transfers energy and momentum to the electron, hence the wavelength increases.
"The Facts on File Dictionary of Physics" by John Daintith and John O. E. Clark, Third Edition. My favorites are the Facts on File Dictionaries in the various sciences. They are paperback, lightweight, and written at a level above the ordinary non-technical reference materials. Because they are easier to lift compared to my heavyweight reference books, I prefer them.
Getting old...
ljbrs
If Halton Arp knew better, he'd do better...
Edited by - ljbrs on 06/10/2001 15:28:16 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 16:08:50 [Permalink]
|
I'll have to see if I still have the link somewhere, John Kierein over at the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board uses the Compton Effect to explain red shift in his version of Steady State. I had expected that as the reason for red shift here also, mea culpa.
quote:
My own question to Halton Arp would be: If the quasars are expelled from galaxies, why are none of them expelled in our direction, to make them blue shifted (or at least less redshifted). Quasars always have greater redshifts than the redshifts of the galaxies from which they have been mistakenly reported as being expelled. What makes the Solar System special as to the position for viewing these so-called "expelled" quasars.
This is definitely a different view from John Kierein, his explanation is that quasars are just not as far out as we expect them to be.
I was always under the impression that there are actually blackholes at the center of a galaxy. I wasn't aware that some galaxies have quasars...or is this Arps interpretation? I may be a little confused here.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 16:47:17 [Permalink]
|
I wish I could add some clarification to this, but Astronomy/Cosmology is not my field.... Instead, I have a question:
What are the implications of an accelerating universe?
I initially disbelieved the idea, since that would (to me) imply there must be either something pushing the stars apart, or there must be something external pulling them (for acceleration to be present, the must be an applied force). My real question is: 'what is the force causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion?'
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 22:00:42 [Permalink]
|
Trish and Boron10, in order:
Trish:
I do not know who John Kierein is and neither did the Journal SCIENCE (SCIENCE MAGAZINE) when I did a search for his name. I tried a variety of spellings, but each came up without any sites in their archives. However, there are many detractors from the Big Bang Cosmology. You might check out Professor (UCLA) Ned Wright's sci-astro Cosmology Tutorial.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Dr. Wright discusses questionable ideas/theories concerning The Big Bang and related topics in cosmology and has an excellent Cosmology Tutorial, Relativity Tutorial, etc., connected to that site (both URLs being for these sites).
Grote Reber was a ham radio operator who built a large radio telescope (the first dish telescope) and was not an actual scientist, although he was a giant in the early stages of radio telescope technology.
Carl Jansen was the first accidental radio telescope designer which imaged the Milky Way in the radio spectra.
I do not trust the ideas which are not subject to the scientific peer review (which keeps the scientists honest with their ideas). If Science has not heard of Kierein (Or Kierinen, Keirinen, et al.), I guess that he has not made his mark with the scientific community.
Having been reared in a scientific family with generations of scientists before them, I trust the scientific community to make the proper challenges to such theories. There are very few theories which are rejected and then are later accepted.
==========
Boron10:
The accelerating universe is one of my favorites and I have followed it long before it finally burse upon the scene with publishable findings:
If you want to know more about it, go to the Supernova Cosmology Project and/or The High-Z Supernova Search Team and learn from the "horses mouth" go to these sites:
http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/
http://srd.yahoo.com/srst/8290033/High-Z+Supernova+Search+Team/1/1/*www.harvard.edu/cfa/oir/Research/supernova/HighZ.html" target="_blank">http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oir/Research/supernova/HighZ.html
I know that the last one is long, but I do not know how much can be cut out. I tried both and both take you to the appropriate sites. (See next post.)
ljbrs
Sometimes I know less than at other times...
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 22:03:11 [Permalink]
|
Boron: Try posting this question at www.badastronomy.com they've answered the question over there I think so you might check some of the earlier threads...
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 22:32:26 [Permalink]
|
Boron10:
The implications of the accelerating universe are that the space between the large galactic groups is accelerating in its expansion (but not in the individual galaxies or the smaller galactic groups). Eventually, there will be greater and greater distances between these galactic groups but not between the objects within those galactic groups. What will happen down the line, who knows? Cosmologists are not certain about the nature of the energy which seems to be causing the accelerated expansion. It may be the energy in the virtual particles or it may be something entirely different. However, whatever it is, it is causing the acceleration. Two names have been applied to this medium for acceleration: Lambda and Quintessence. Which name will stick will be up for grabs.
Incidentally, the stars are not being pulled apart. There was this surprise earlier on, because the stars in the individual galaxies were moving as fast at the outskirts of the galaxies as nearer to the center of the galaxies. This made scientists theorize that the dark matter is holding the galaxies in check with the extra mass. Scientists keep finding sources for the dark matter. After all, early on in this past century, nobody knew anything about the unseen other energy and the mass connected with that energy. It is the once-thought-to-be-empty space which seems to have the energy which is forcing apart the huge galactic structures/groups (containing smaller galactic groups). The cosmologists keep testing and keep coming up with the same answer: The universe is accelerating in its expansion. The explanation concerning the energy which is doing the accelerating probably will take a lot of time to determine its nature. There are a number of books for the general reader which contain information about this subject. I have a number of them in the next room, but it is late and I need to write one more answer about this before hitting the sack.
ljbrs
Scientists know better and they are doing better.
Nowadays, it has really caught on and the theory itself is accelerating in the scientific community. There are many, many books which include discussion (sometimes lengthy and sometimes book-length) of the accelerating universe. One might say that the theory of the accelerating universe is, itself, accelerating in the scientific community! It might take awhile for the ordinary man on the street to catch up. Remember, no theory is set in stone.
Watch out about the internet, not all sites have accurate scientific information. Check out all ideas with the scientific sites.
ljbrs
If I knew better I might do better...
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/10/2001 : 22:40:50 [Permalink]
|
On the web, a post can be made using any name that person wants, even the name of a scientist (if that scientist has not laid claim to his own name). I cannot know, for certain, if Kierein is a scientist, or just an ordinary person writing a post, such as I am.
I always believe in checking all ideas out with the writings by real scientists.
I, personally, do not like to read the posts of non-scientific scoffers. Such posts bore me to tears. Usually, they are bending the scientific ideas of others to make their points.
This means, also, that you should always check it out at real scientific sites if the writer is making challenges to accepted peer-reviewed scientific ideas. If somebody has an idea which is contrary, he/she should submit it to a scientific journal and see what happens.
ljbrs
Now it is time for beddy bye or I shall never be able to do better or know better the next day.
Edited by - ljbrs on 06/11/2001 19:26:30 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2001 : 03:09:05 [Permalink]
|
Like I said I questioned him, because I was unfamiliar with his *theory*. There were many other posters at the board who were also will to provide their explanations. And www.badastronomy.com is a site by Phil Plait who is an astronomer interested in debunking or pointing out the misconceptions about astronomy in particular and science in general, like standing an egg on end on the vernal equinox. If I have a question I've learned which posters to trust and which ones to take with a grain of salt.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2001 : 19:56:41 [Permalink]
|
Trish:
Thank you for the link to the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. I have gone there many times. It is an excellent site (and a lot of fun). Your discussions with others here made me realize that they had chat, too. Bad Astronomy will be helpful to straighten out true believers. However, when it gets to chat (including here), I am very, very careful. Because I am not a scientist, when I want to find out about a science with which I am unfamiliar, I go to one of the journals to which I subscribe, or I research it in one of my many reference books. I am not a scientist so I must be careful. I would hate to be bamboozled. However, posts can offer great ideas to think about, so I am not against that. I am always skeptical about posts which challenge the great scientists. If I want to see them challenged, I go to the places where peer review will keep the challengers honest. I am careful about any scientific ideas which I post here.
I belong to a skeptics group (and am their contact person for Skeptical Inquirer). I regularly attend physics lectures (in season), and I attend my astronomy group, which is full of (multiple) degreed scientists and not just "find that star" types. The members of my club know a lot about the things they find. Also, the scientists in the group have warned me about the web and have told me to look out for bad information being disseminated. So, I am a skeptic about skeptics (including myself). There is always the possibility that I have overlooked something. I do not challenge the professional scientists, but leave that to peer review. In such cases I am on the sidelines, cheering them on.
Thanks again.
ljbrs
If I knew better, I'd do better. I think...
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2001 : 22:35:56 [Permalink]
|
I tend to follow the links supplied by most of the board over there. They really are interested in locating and diseminating the information. I've never trully taken anything on blind faith or anyones say so. I follow the links and the other links I find at the site they've pointed to.
Many of the individual posters over there are extremely intelligent and do point out whether it's theory or conjecture. Like I said, I have learned who I can *trust* on certain information and who should be taken with a grain of salt. Most of those trustworthy individuals are not afraid of pointing out their specific qualifications regarding the subject. So I listen, learn and research those things I have questions about. I'm still learning where to go for proper information.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 15:57:19 [Permalink]
|
Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect - Kieren
For an enormously actice and important field as cosmology there are hundreds of papers published a year on the subject. There have been incredible mass of observations, at the highest detail ever, accumulated these last ten years. For example, here is a paper taken from an scientific archive almost at random. It is from this April.
Kieren's references are suspicious; his citations are old and few. He cites just one paper published in the last ten years. I had a professor who used to refer to this as "the Sins of omission".
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 21:10:43 [Permalink]
|
Bozola:
Thank you for the information. I could find no mention of Kierein anywhere in the archives of SCIENCE or of NATURE. I would think that if he were a real threat to astrophysics or cosmology, he would be cited somewhere in the major journals of science. Evidently he has yet to shake the scientific community with his ideas. They seem to have been totally ignored. I have other references I could access to find out more about his ideas, or I could go to the science library at my alma mater (a long trip).
Of course, no news does not necessarily mean bad news for Kierein (as spelled on another forum). Perhaps he is only using a false name.
Kierein (or Kieren) does not ring a large bell in my mind, except vaguely as being a previously-rejected pseudoscientist or crank of some kind or another. I have a problem. When I am reading anything scientific and come across anything that is actually partial or total baloney, I stop reading in order to keep from further polluting my mind with pseudoscientific nonsense. Bad habit. A phobia of mine... This does not mean that I stop reading articles with which I disagree. The accelerating universe breakthrough completely changed my mind about the fate of the universe, because the data offered (by Saul Perlmutter, et al.) was rock solid, and because the scientists involved were continuing to challenge their conclusions and calculations with everything they could find.
Thanks for the information.
ljbrs
Perhaps Kieren/Kierein does not know better and cannot possibly think better...
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
