Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

[Lydiot]

What worries me is that current astronomers embrace Hubble as if it is the final theory. That excludes any effort to improve our understanding of the universe.

Just because you disagree with their conclusions doesn't mean they aren't putting in effort to improve our understanding of the universe. Your statement seems to show you disdain for astrophysicists rather than their intent.

To say the least, we are at a slowdown of developing our understanding of the universe. A sort of dark ages on the timeline of emerging theories.

Kind regards, Vincent

Having recently found what appears to be the Higgs Boson I would say the above is a stretch.

[SkyBoat]

Vincent,

There is nothing wrong with challenging Hubble's theories and conclusions. Astronomers have been doing that for decades.

I've made the case based on the assumption that Hubble was right. You have expressed deep reservations about that.

Please share with us the cosmological model(s) you find more accurately describes the universe and what is the observational data that supports it? To be honest, I have not studied them, so I don't have any preconceptions about them.

I am eager to read about the theory you think could replace Hubble's model.

[KL-666]

Hello Skyboat,

I am one of the least likely to come up with a theory and try to prove it. Such thing is done by someone with thorough scientific knowledge. Until now every theory has been succeeded by an even better one, so i do not expect that sequence to stop. When? 20 years, 40 years from now? What i can see now is a current scientific community being very protective of Hubble's theory, which only delays a successor to his theory. Lydiot disagrees about the protectiveness, that is his rightful insight in the current situation.

The idea that a new theory should overthrow a predecessor theory is not exactly how i think about it. It may be like that, but it can also be that a current theory is expanded upon. Anyway, the question to come up with an alternative theory exactly now, is a bit unrealistic, especially if it has to come from me. A serious successor theory will have to grow out of the curiosity to find anomaly observations, raising the need to expand on the current theory.

We could talk about alternative theories right now. But it will be of no scientific value. It is more like bar talk, as we say in The Netherlands. I can say something about what i expect from a successor theory, but beware that it is totally speculative. I expect a very unintelligible successor theory, in a sense like the dents in space-time of Einstein (Einsteins visualization of gravity). I have never heard of anyone yet that really sees the universe like that. Everyone still sees balls circling each other. The successor theory of Hubble could be essentially that of a static universe, leaving room for viewing it as an expanding universe. Completely weird, but i like to keep the mind open. And remember this is pure speculation on future discoveries.

Kind regards, Vincent

[SkyBoat]

Hello KL-666-

I understand your reply, but what I was thinking was if you had read about a astronomer(or a group) who was proposing a different model than the Hubble expanding universe that you found intriguing and whose theory might provide a valid alternative to the current inflationary expansion model. If you have read about someone like this, I would be interested in hearing your explanation of the theory and how they show it provides new data that supersedes the Hubble model, as well as links for further reading.

[KL-666]

Hello Skyboat,

A couple of years ago i looked into some other theories. Have to find them back again. recently found this old one back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

Everything he said is probably refuted by now. But the interesting thing of him is that he at least did his best to find anomalies. When found, anomalies can either improve the current theory, or lead to a successor theory. Actually i am not much interested in completely new theories, but more into making sure there are no exceptions to the current theory, or else improve it.

Other well known theories are Einstein's infinite expanding and contracting universe. And some theories about parallel universes. Personally (which is very unimportant) i would like a theory to be elegant. Expanding is elegant, but if looking for an alternative then static is elegant too.

I'll try to find back some other theories in the near future. Having a busy week ahead.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

Hi Skyboat,

Tried to find some stuff back tonight which i never expected to have to look up again. Since it is not my work i do not need to keep bookmarks of them. Failed for now... But, came across something i find very interesting.

Christof Wetterich, A Universe Without Expansion

Here is an article describing it a bit:

http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/universe_expanding_or_are_we_shrinking-118673

He shows how you can come up with a completely different visualization of all the same facts that another theory uses, without crossing more boundaries of assumptions than the other theory does. So we are talking about equally valid visualizations. Interesting about his, is that the rather problematic singularity of big bang is avoided. Interesting about the whole exercise is that a different perspective may generate some good ideas with the astronomers.

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

came across something i find very interesting.

Christof Wetterich, A Universe Without Expansion

Here is an article describing it a bit:

http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/universe_expanding_or_are_we_shrinking-118673

He shows how you can come up with a completely different visualization of all the same facts that another theory uses, without crossing more boundaries of assumptions than the other theory does. So we are talking about equally valid visualizations. Interesting about his, is that the rather problematic singularity of big bang is avoided. Interesting about the whole exercise is that a different perspective may generate some good ideas with the astronomers.

Kind regards, Vincent

Thanks for posting this. Now, please consider the following, from the article:

The other way around, the further one goes back, the more the Planck density shrinks. The consequence is that there is no limit to how far one can go back, no big bang singularity is ever encountered. The further one goes back in time, the slower clocks tick and in a way the universe becomes static.

Now compare that to this:

KL-666 wrote:

Yes that Cause and Effect issue has always struck me as odd. The whole science and astronomy is built upon cause and effect, but then suddenly they say that with the big bang they can do without cause. This bending of their own rules is one of the strongest arguments against the big bang story.

Actually, I don't think it does. The argument that is put forth is that since time and space are intimately tied together we don't really know that time as we know it even exists at "the time of" the big bang. It might simply be a notion that no longer makes sense.

Well there we go, nothing can be said about the big bang (they speculate there is no time). Yet they tell it to the world as a fact. Over time and probably now already they believe in big bang themselves, so much that they will base other theories on this quicksand, making everything they say into quicksand.

The guy saying pretty much what I said 'they' said. Apparently you give the argument higher credibility now. For some reason.

[KL-666]

I do not know in what state of prejudice your mind is. But it is very strange to say

Apparently you give the argument higher credibility now.

When i say equal validity.

Kind regards Vincent

[Lydiot]

I do not know in what state of prejudice your mind is. But it is very strange to say

Apparently you give the argument higher credibility now.

When i say equal validity.

Kind regards Vincent

So, still "quicksand" then, correct?

[KL-666]

If you like. There is at least no contradiction in that.

Kind regards, Vincent