JoeyBlades said:
No. GR says that space is negatively curved by massive bodies. Euclidian space is flat. GR allows (but does not require) that space be globally curved.
Putting a limit on the range of gravity means that photons have mass. If they have mass it must be very very small.
For Avalongod:
In the quest for the TOE (Theory of Everything) we’ve been slowly moving up the ladder to better and better definitions of the Universe. While still incomplete the theories we have now are extremely accurate and comprise what is now known as the Standard Model. Also, for what it’s worth, all of Newtonian Mechanics can be completely derived from Relativity equations (if you do the math Newton’s equations will literally come out of Einstein’s equations). Newton is fine for figuring out day-today stuff but Einstein’s equations go further and are more accurate even though it too has its limits.
Source: Hyperspace by Michio Kaku
I don’t think it is reasonable to assume there was a huge mass present. It is reasonable to assume there was a huge amount of energy present. Energy and mass are equivalent so eventually this energy turned into mass but not till the Universe was well under way.
My question is does energy affect the curvature of space-time the same way mass does? Light (energy) is affected by mass because mass warps space-time, if there is no mass at the beginning does this mean there was no warping hence no gravity?
100% WAG here (like the rest hasn’t been either ;)).
The only explanation I’ve heard for ‘where did the Big Bang come from?’ is the splitting of 4-dimensional space-time from its 10-dimensional(? superstring ?) whole. 4-D spacetime unfolded (expanded) and the rest of the dimensions curled-up into a planck-length ball.
So…
A black-hole singularity is folding in on itself.
Big Bang universe is unfolding.
Semantics?
To address one of your questions: Energy and mass are not merely equivalent, they are identical as far as Relativity is concerned. We think we see a difference, but that may be an artifact of our limited senses. So energy is mass is energy, and they both affect the curvature of space-time in the same way.
Very interesting thread about some things I’ve been wondering about myself lately. Here’s some references you may find interesting:
Caroline Thompson’s Physics site:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/
blurb:
This site is about what is wrong with Fundamental Physics. It started with the discovery that we have been misled. We have been told that experiments agree with all the predictions of quantum theory, including those that involve the impossible - the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) experiments, that are supposed to show totally incomprehensible effects of separated particles on each other. I have looked at the evidence. The “loopholes” that they know are present are large enough to allow for perfect straightforward explanations, with no sign of “non-locality”. I am led to suggest that perhaps there is other currently-accepted “evidence” for both quantum theory and Einstein’s relativity theories that needs re-investigation. I am not talking of “re-interpretation”, but of recognising that if we want to understand nature, not just produce “predictions”, the first step is to re-assess the facts, reject falsehoods.
Ralph Sansbury:
http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/Index.htm
blurb:
One could characterize this book as being about evidence for charge polarization inside electrons and atomic nuclei and what that implies, particularly with respect to gravity and light and the effect of gravity on light. But it can also be characterized as being about the two most damaging mistakes in the history of physics.
The first mistake was Roemer’s so called measurement of the speed of light in 1676 and the second was Kaufmann’s 1903 measurement of the apparent increase of the mass of beta electrons as their velocity increased. The experts of the times in these specific sorts of measurements, in each case, were ignored. Preference was given to the opinions of a larger number of scientists whose expertise lay elsewhere
Halton Arp says that he has found evidence showing that certain relatively nearby systems are connected by sort of bridges of matter to certain quasars, which seem to be very far away. Those are high redshift quasars connected with low redshift galaxies.
Galaxies, like our Milky way, are vast systems composed of hundreds of billions of stars. That is a fact which everybody agrees upon. It’s the quasars where the disagreement starts.
According to Arp certain galaxies throw out quasars, which on their turn develop into new galaxies when time goes by. So the active galaxies are often surrounded by quasars, which are sort of moons surrounding the mother galaxy. The reason for high redshift values is that the quasars are made of new matter, Arp’s theory says.
The bigbangers think that quasars are extremely luminous objects or systems situated very far away. So they can not exist near to the lower redshift galaxies. The distance marker is the high redshift, mainstream claims.
another link:
http://www.achilles.net/~jtalbot/bio/Humason.html
blurb:
‘Picture yourself during the early 1920’s inside the dome of the 60-inch telescope on Mount Wilson. One of the men who had driven the mules that carried the pieces of that same 60-inch telescope up the old Mount Wilson trail was Milton Humason. Humason stayed on at the observatory to become janitor and then night assistant on the telescope. (Eventually he became secretary of the Observatory and a delightful and famous astronomer.) Humason was by then an observing assistant, and we can picture him talking to the well known Carnegie Institution astronomer, Harlow Shapley, in that dome.
Humason is showing Shapley stars he had found in the Andromeda Nebula that appeared and disappeared on photographs of that object. The famous astronomer very patiently explains that these objects could not be stars because the Nebula was a nearby gaseous cloud within our own Milky Way system. Shapley takes his handkerchief from his pocket and wipes the identifying marks off the back of the photographic plate.’
Of course, Hubble came along in 1924 and showed that it was just these Cepheid variable stars in the Andromeda Nebula which proved that it was a separate galaxy system.
Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an ‘elegant’ or ‘robust’ theory. But it isn’t science.
Electric Universe:
http://www.holoscience.com/news/science_bang.htm
blurb:
Forget the glossy astronomy books and magazines - the Big Bang is pure fiction. The discoveries that prove it will also bring about the end of science-as-we-know-it. Of course, many books and articles have been published recently heralding the end of science - meaning there is little left to learn. The truth is the opposite. Much of what we think we know “ain’t so”. As always, unlearning it will give us more trouble than learning something new.
Tom Van Flandern:
top 10 problems with the big bang:
http://www.metaresearch.org/mrb/top10BBproblems.htm
Finally:
Firstly, I’m pretty skeptical of the statement that any alternative is based on even less evidence. Alternative theories to the big bang have little chance of being heard no matter the evidence to support them. Ask Hoyle and Arp. Even Hubble (Arp was his assistant btw for those who don’t know) cautioned astronomers not to assume that redshift is based solely on the Doppler effect.
Secondly, considering the fact that we are just babies (in the sense that life on Earth esp. intelligent life, has been around for such a short period of time), we’ve just barely managed to visit some bodies in our solar system, haven’t come close to visiting any other solar system, and have no realistic hope at this time to be able to do so in the next thousands of years with any technology we’ve seen so far. Yet scientists proclaim with such certainty not only how far away bodies we’ve just barely been able to detect are, but also how old the universe is and how it began.
A little humility by the proposers and supporters of the Big Bang might make them think twice of making such sweeping statements about the birth of our Universe.
The concept of the doppler effect allowing us to measure the distance of celestial objects is very clever, perhaps almost genius. But the assumption that we “know” the distance is arrogance.
By the same token, if you accept the Doppler effect theory of the cause of redshifts in deep space, the big bang is a clever, even very clever, assumption which follows. But if there are other causes for redshift, then the big bang theory pretty much dies.
Why do astronomers so readily accept the concept of gravitational lensing, where gravity can make the entire beam of light to be so drastically distorted, yet the idea that gravity or other things may have an effect on the redshift doesn’t even dawn on them?
Therefore, I tend to agree with avalongod on this one.
Quoth JoeyBlades:
If you’ll look up a little higher in that post, you’ll see that I specify I’m ignoring the Cosmological Constant, which is a necessary ingredient for an inflationary Universe. I’ll admit that, given current evidence, that’s an unreasonable assumption, so in that sense, you may be right.
Jeff_42: Gedanken experiment to demonstrate that energy gravitates: Picture a device that can convert a significant mass to photons, and back. The photons are stored in a completely efficient mirror box, so they’re kept localized. The system starts off with the box contents in “mass” form, and a test mass just outside the box. Now, we convert the box contents to energy. If energy did not gravitate, we could now easily move the test mass away from the box, without having to fight gravity. Now, we turn the energy back into matter, gravity resumes, and we’ve got more potential energy in the system than when we’d started.
AnotherHeretic: I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make in a lot of places there, so I’ll address what I can pick out.
>>1) Roemer’s measurement of the speed of light wasn’t the most accurate, but it was within an order of magnitude, and it was much better than the previous value, which was “very fast”. I don’t see what’s “so-called” about it. <<
This relates to the blurb about Sansbury’s theory. I’m not personally making a statement pro or con on his ideas as I haven’t even finished reading what he has to write. I just gave the link for people who may be interested. As I understand it, Sansbury’s theory about the speed of light is that it is near instantaneous and Roemer’s measurement would not have detected it because the earth was under the clouds for some of the measurements.
But to get the proper idea, you’d need to read his book which is online. The reason I got interested in him is due to the fact that he’s been doing experiments on faster than light light. He too had trouble getting published and the latest reports on FTL in the NYTimes apparently was similar to his work.
>>2) The “light bridges” between quasars and galaxies have, in every case, been shown to be illusions, coincidences, or instrumental artifacts. The assosciation in the sky doesn’t mean anything more for galaxies than it does for constellations.<<
Is any of this material on the Internet? If not, can you point me to specific instances, I’d love to see it. Arp seems to believe that they are more than statistical coincidence. I’ve seen the picture of 5 interconnected galaxies and would love to know how this can be proven as an illusion or a coincidence. I understand how big bangers explain it away, but proving it a coincidence would be very interesting to me. What were those spirals? Stars? How many stars were there? What were the redshifts of those stars? If it was extragalactic, were the redshifts different for different parts of the spiral? What kind of matter was it?
>>3) The redshift of distant objects is, in fact, due to something other than Doppler shift-- It’s due to the expansion of the Universe. As space expands, the light in it expands, as well, leading to longer wavelengths. In a uniformly expanding Universe, as ours seems to be, the effects are indistinguishable, but there are conceivable cases where they’d yield different results.<<
Interesting. Sounds almost identical to doppler effect. Could you point out where there would be different effects? Who came up with this alternate to Doppler and why?
BTW, your statements here illustrates something that does bother me. And again, I do say this respectfully as I do respect you and your opinion. But to say definitively that redshift “is, in fact, due to something other than Doppler shift”, you are engaging in the type of certainty which we don’t have about objects too far away to talk definitively about. “We think” would be much more appropriate words than discussing the theories as facts, at least IMHO.
>>4) How on Earth, or off of it, would matter being “young” cause a redshift? I’ve never even heard of such a notion.<<
I don’t remember saying that. I just said that there may be something else causing a redshift. I didn’t specify. And I think there’s nothing wrong with not specifying. Stars are so far away from us there could be a million reasons for things we see that we have no knowledge about.
An intelligent deep sea organism that never left the ocean would have a tougher time explaining night and day than a human living on land. A mountain might be unknown to that organism, yet exists. The same mountain may cast a shadow on certain parts of the ocean. The intelligent being may come up with all kinds of theories about that shadow, but I wonder if he’d be able to come up with a theory that a “mountain” shadows the light from the sun which revolves around the earth. Would be interesting if this organism could come up with a theory for the beginning of the universe.
Who knows what’s out there. Nothing wrong with coming out with theories, but writing about the first 3 minutes of the existence of the universe as some have done doesn’t make much sense to me except as a mental exercise and taking such discussion seriously as though we humans have a clue about the beginning seems arrogant to me. No offense is meant by that.
Just curious, have you read Arp’s books?
>>5) I stand by my statements that the Big Bang model is the only one consistent with all of the evidence: How does Hoyle’s steady-state theory account for the microwave background radiation?<<
Good question. The truth is, I’m not advocating any theory at all. My point is, if Hoyle wants the backup of the establishment to come up with answers to your question and to honestly evaluate it, he will have a tough time. The establishment is not giving equal or nearly enough consideration to alternate theories.
>>6) True, we’ve only personally been to the nearest other body in the Solar System, and by most definitions, we haven’t even sent an unmanned probe out of the system. How does this affect our ability to look up at the stars?<<
It doesn’t. By all means, let’s look and look and look, and theorize all day long. But let’s show some more humility about our theories which may make sense today and may look ridiculous tomorrow. And let’s open up to alternate theories.
>>All of the information we have was gained just by looking, and that information has proven sufficient to develop all of our current models. Certainly, we’d be able to learn more if we could travel farther, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t learn anything from where we are.<<
I agree with you (though some would argue that how good those models are is a matter for debate).
I’m curious, what is your view about my point on peer review? Do you agree with the people responsible for Arp being kicked out of Palomar? Do you think that the reason Arp had difficulty getting his work published in the mainstream journals was due to his theories being objectively and obviously wrong, or because the people reviewing his work have a vested interest in the big bang? Do you really feel that peer review rewards, or let’s say does not unfairly reject, independent thinking?
Thanks for your point of view.
So my WAG on energy not being mass didn’t fly (not surprised…I knew mass/energy were equivalent but didn’t know they’d exhibit the same effects).
This next one is out of my a$$ but thought I’d throw it out anyway. Not as explanation necessarily but to promote debate.
A black-hole singularity is a folding of this (4-D) universe’s structure.
The Big Bang singularity was/is THE universe.
Does that make any sense? Think of sand falling down a hole on the earth then comparing the earth falling down someother hole. I don’t think they equate.
I don’t know if that should make a difference but at a gut level it seems as if it should. Of course, at a gut level, time seems like a constant so I won’t claim that this is in any way a final answer.
AnotherHeretic
I’m all for counter proposal’s/arguments to the status quo. I also think the history of science has its share of good ideas buried because others ‘knew’ better at the time. Still, I think you are giving short-shrift to current theories.
They do not come from ideas that merely sound good but have real science behind them. I.e. Distance to other stars/galaxies may not be absolutely ‘proven’ till we actually fly there but there is excellent evidence supporting the assumptions scientists currently make. If someone proves one of their assumptions to be worng then they have to go back to the drawing board.
At least, that’s how I always though it was supposed to work.
Thanks for your comments.
>>Still, I think you are giving short-shrift to current theories.<<
Hmm, I wonder why you said that? I never said the big bang didn’t happen or that I disagree or agree with the theory. In fact, to my mind, if Arp’s interpretations of the red shift are wrong, and it was alleged that this has been basically proven to be the case, then I’d say that within the confines of the visible universe, the expanding universe makes sense and even the big bang makes sense. But what is “beyond” the visible universe or what is in other dimensions etc… would be beyond the scope of the big bang. What disturbs me is the lack of hubris by those proposing the theory.
Actually, what also disturbs me is that Arp was kicked out of Palomar. With his credentials, that shouldn’t have happened. And if he’s right, that’s definitely a big bang killer. As I said before, I’d love to see the evidence brought against Arp. I haven’t seen it anywhere and I always look for references to Arp in journals, books etc… regardless if it’s pro or con.
>>They do not come from ideas that merely sound good but have real science behind them.<<
I agree.
>> I.e. Distance to other stars/galaxies may not be absolutely ‘proven’ till we actually fly there but there is excellent evidence supporting the assumptions scientists currently make. If someone proves one of their assumptions to be worng then they have to go back to the drawing board.<<
Well, I bring this up because of Arp. From what I’ve seen so far he brings evidence counter to Redshift being “solely” distance. I urge you to look at the pictures he took. It’s easy to explain it away if you want to by saying that it’s an optical illusion, but see the pictures yourself first. You may feel differently.
The Church didn’t want to look at galileo’s telescope. And they could explain him away quite well without looking at it. Having looked at the evidence, I’d have to see some pretty convincing arguments to make me think Arp was wrong. But I am open to it and again would love to see a valid justification for kicking him off Palomar.
One clarification about Hoyle and the Steady-State model, AnotherHeretic (I’m going to focus on Hoyle here, because I’m not as familiar with Arp. I imagine that much of the same applies, but I can’t be sure). Currently, yes, the Steady-State model is ridiculed. However, this was not always so. When the model was first proposed, in fact, it was very popular, and was considered a serious, realistic theory (this was before the discovery of the microwave background radiation). At that time, a paper on the steady-state model was just as likely to be published as one on the Big Bang, all other things being equal, and I’m sure that you could find a number of scholarly, well-received papers on the topic, from that time. As new evidence came out, however, it became clear that the Steady-State model was at the best badly incomplete, and at the worst simply wrong, as it could not explain certain observations, most noteably the microwave background. Faced with this new evidence, most cosmologists abandoned the Steady-State model in favor of the Big Bang model, which was able to explain those observations, until the present time, when Hoyle is pretty much the only supporter left for the theory. His support is generally considered to not be due to any evidence, but rather to an overdeveloped ego and a desire to be right, qualities which are very detrimental to a scientist, regardless of other qualifications. He still has his job, due to tenure, but you can believe that he’s not likely to advance much farther in his career. It’s quite possible (although again, I’m not sure in his case) that Arp was dismissed for this same attitude.
I don’t have any evidence on hand relating to his theory, but I’ll ask some of my professors tomorrow, and let you know then.
As to the difference between cosmological and Doppler redshifts: Imagine a static Universe containing two objects, a star an a planet with observers. At a certain time, the star emits a pulse of light. While the light is travelling from the star to the planet, the Universe expands significantly, and then stops again before the light reaches the planet. In this case, there would be no Doppler shift observed, as both objects were at rest relative to each other when the pulse was emitted and received, but there would still be a cosmological redshift from the expansion. Of course, so far as we know, the universal expansion doesn’t do things like stop and start up again, but this serves to illustrate the difference.
In regards (again) our ability to determine things about the early/distant Universe, we do have to make some assumptions. Most notably, we assume that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the Universe. We have no proof of this, but we are able to form self-consistent theories by assuming it, and if we do not assume that, then we can’t say anything about other parts of the Universe. Given that assumption, we can confidently draw the conclusions we have.
One other note, about the speed of light: Compared to just about anything with which we are familiar, it is, of course, almost instantaneous. It’s not quite completely instantaneous, however, and it can be measured by a large number of methods-- I’ve done a few of them myself. All measurements agree, to within their limits of precision, and that value is reasonably close to the value that Roemer determined. If, in fact, there were factors preventing him from making the measurements, such as clouds, and he had to fudge his data, he was remarkably lucky to guess at an answer that was so close to the truth.
Hi Chronos,
Thanks for your interesting post. This is like an adventure for me as I see that you are open to hearing things contrary to what you believe, yet you seem to believe that the “heretics” are so very wrong. But since you have not engaged in any personal attacks, which are so common with people against Arp and Hoyle etc…, I feel perhaps we can gain something here. So let’s do some deeper analysis together and perhaps both of us can learn something new.
I’m curious, apparently you are a student? Of astronomy or physics or something else?
Now onto your points:
>>One clarification about Hoyle and the Steady-State model, AnotherHeretic (I’m going to focus on Hoyle here, because I’m not as familiar with Arp. I imagine that much of the same applies, but I can’t be sure).<<
Yes, that is fair, but before we ignore Arp, may I ask you something respectfully? You did make a very strong statement to the effect that in each and every case in the catalog of Arp’s peculiar galaxies, the connecting matter was proven to be unconnected, or optical illusions (I know it’s not exact quote, but I think the thrust is correct).
In fairness to someone who has risked his career to espouse a theory, would you mind sharing where you got the info? I assume you heard it from a professor or in some discussions? Would it at all be possible to dig out the reference or ask the person? And please, do look at the evidence yourself. To really learn these things properly, it’s best to look at the original evidence and counter arguments. You may be surprised at what you find. I’m saying this from personal experience. In cases where I trusted the “experts” and later did the research myself, I was astonished at how ill informed the experts were.
>>Currently, yes, the Steady-State model is ridiculed. However, this was not always so. When the model was first proposed, in fact, it was very popular, and was considered a serious, realistic theory (this was before the discovery of the microwave background radiation).<<
This statement is very telling. Why does a once serious model later get ridiculed? Why can’t it be treated with respect? Even if it’s wrong? Newton wasn’t right about everything? But no need for ridicule in science.
BTW, I’m aware that it was considered a very serious model. I’m not aware that the cause of the change was the microwave background radiation, but will check into it. Do you happen to know what year the background radiation was discovered?
>>At that time, a paper on the steady-state model was just as likely to be published as one on the Big Bang, all other things being equal, and I’m sure that you could find a number of scholarly, well-received papers on the topic, from that time. As new evidence came out, however, it became clear that the Steady-State model was at the best badly incomplete,<<
My question is how much was politics and how much was evidence?
>>and at the worst simply wrong, as it could not explain certain observations, most noteably the microwave background.<<
Have you read Tom Van Flandern? He brings up a lot of observations that the Big Bang theory can only explain in very ad hoc way. Any theory can come up with ad hoc explanations. Be it big bang or steady state. If the scientists with the power choose to believe big bang’s ad hoc theories, it will become popular. If they choose to believe steady state’s ad hoc theories, it will become popular. Don’t take my word for it. All I say is it’s worth looking at the alternates because their voice has been taken away from them.
>>Faced with this new evidence, most cosmologists abandoned the Steady-State model in favor of the Big Bang model, which was able to explain those observations, until the present time, when Hoyle is pretty much the only supporter left for the theory.<<
Don’t be so sure of that. Do you really think in today’s environment any astronomer can loudly proclaim they agree with Hoyle and keep their job? From what I’ve seen and read, what typically happens, is that when working scientists retire, that is when they show their support for the heretics, and still, in a quiet way. But they don’t dare do this while they are working. I know personally of 2 such instances, and before you ask, no I won’t name names.
>> His support is generally considered to not be due to any evidence, but rather to an overdeveloped ego and a desire to be right, qualities which are very detrimental to a scientist, regardless of other qualifications.<<
You are absolutely right. I couldn’t agree with you more. Except that you are pointing the accusation at the wrong person. Although I could conceivably believe it’s true, I tend to doubt that Hoyle has an overdeveloped ego due to the stories I’ve heard, but more on that later.
>>He still has his job, due to tenure, but you can believe that he’s not likely to advance much farther in his career.<<
Tenure’s not the reason he has his job. I don’t know where you got your information on Hoyle, but I can tell you that it’s all one sided. You do not have his side of the story at all. My Dad grew up with all these stories happening before him and has been sharing his perspective with me all the years. My Dad has a great dislike for Hoyle because Hoyle didn’t have the guts to stand up to the establishment. Now I still want to research this, and say upfront that this is just what I’ve heard and is hearsay, but here’s the other side of the story as told to me:
Hoyle came up with his steady state theory. The astronomers in power did not agree with his theory. (perhaps it was after the cosmic background radiation, perhaps not). They demanded that he recant his theory. He refused. He got fired and could not get work anywhere in his field. Do you understand the enormity of this statement! This is a theory that you yourself said was considered science before the cosmic background radiation. Then it became unpopular. Even if the guy clung to a theory which didn’t work, which is understandable human nature for big bangers as much as steady staters, that is no reason to fire him. That’s not science.
So Wolfson, a rich jew, non-astronomer, offered him a job at his company paying him well enough to continue his research, apalled at his treatment by the astronomers. This was out of pure philanthropy and science. Wolfson had nothing to gain from the research (maybe the publicity was good though).
In those days, it was quite a stink that a Jew should be bankrolling a famous guy like Hoyle, and Oxford approached Hoyle again, offering him work, but asking him to recant, which eventually Hoyle did. My father heard him (in disgust), speak, with no dignity, claiming he didn’t believe his own theory anymore. A broken man who obviously caved into the pressure.
A pompous guy would never recant. Recanting shows someone with no backbone. I suspect that Hoyle’s new book came about because Arp’s work gives him the support and confidence that it’s a good time to try again.
Perhaps he’s holding on to his theory because he has good reasons to? Please please please, I beg you, do not trust your colleagues and professors. You seem like a nice guy who is open. Don’t take my word for it. You are obviously in a position to research this yourself. Please do so and draw your own conclusions. Don’t read the works written about Hoyle and Arp, read their own words. And then read the criticisms.
As to Arp, it is worth reading him. He is no fool. And ask yourself if those pictures do present some serious questions to the big bang. But if you are an astronomer, be ready to play a political game and wait for the right time to show what you believe…
I’ve heard privately that there are astronomers who believe the big bang is dead within a couple of years, and that Arp is on the money. They speak to Arp privately but won’t allow their names to be used for fear of reprisals. This is serious politics, not science.
>>It’s quite possible (although again, I’m not sure in his case) that Arp was dismissed for this same attitude.
I don’t have any evidence on hand relating to his theory, but I’ll ask some of my professors tomorrow, and let you know then.<<
That should be very interesting. Thanks for doing so.
>>As to the difference between cosmological and Doppler redshifts: <snip> but this serves to illustrate the difference. <<
OK, thanks, makes sense.
>>In regards (again) our ability to determine things about the early/distant Universe, we do have to make some assumptions. Most notably, we assume that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the Universe.<<
Yup, that’s a huge one to me. I wouldn’t make this assumption. But I’m not against building a tentative theory with humility on this assumption because we have nothing else to go on.
>>One other note, about the speed of light: Compared to just about anything with which we are familiar, it is, of course, almost instantaneous. It’s not quite completely instantaneous, however,<<
Of course. And to those that are blind sound is also. Where you can really see the difference is a thunderstorm.
>>If, in fact, there were factors preventing him from making the measurements, such as clouds, and he had to fudge his data, he was remarkably lucky to guess at an answer that was so close to the truth<<
Actually, this is your answer to Sansbury. His theory is more complicated than that and I don’t want to do him injustice by butchering his theory with my explanation. Roemer’s observation under the cloud wasn’t done frivilously. He assumed that as long as the sky was free from clouds around the time that the light was supposed to arrive to be measured, it was ok. Somehow Sansbury felt that the clouds may have blocked a near instantaneous measurement (by his definition), but I don’t really know enough to explain. I am not personally attacking Roemer’s measurements. These experiments and experiments themselves are quite brilliant.
What I find more satisfying about technology than theory is that either technology works or it doesn’t. Theories can be wrong and accepted or right and not accepted. What interests me with Sansbury is that he is performing experiments which should be pretty easy to test if he could get someone to look at it.
It’s like flying. When the wright brothers were building their planes, they were ridiculed. A physicist got his paper published proving that heavier than air flight was impossible. Although there were literally thousands of witnesses, Scientific American, I believe, took 5 years before they showed an airplane in their magazine. It was considered pseudo science. That’s why I implore you as a young scientist to always question everyone and be open to the opinions of others.
In reference to the steady-state model, AnotherHeretic wrote
I’m not sure Chronos meant that the CMB was the killer for the steady-state model, but just pulled it up as a quick and easy example of something that is readily explained by the Big Bang model, but not steady-state (it’s my favorite, personally).
The CMB, incidentally, was discovered in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson. What was remarkable was that it was one of those nice cases where something seemingly pretty strange was postulated before it was found…I think it was Gamow who first postulated its existence in the 1940’s, and it pointed out to Penzias and Wilson by Peebles and Dicke. (don’t have my various references with me this summer, so I may be a bit off)
While I seem to recall Hoyle coming up with a way that the CMB could fit into his more recent Quasi-Steady State model, I don’t think that it explained the actual large-scale structure of the CMB to the satisfaction of most astronomers.
I don’t think that the problem is necessarily with a theory simply being proven wrong (or, in Newton’s case, limited). It’s more a problem of people who cling to beliefs even after massive amounts of evidence are piled against them. I admit that perhaps I should be kind, understanding, and patient with someone who still believes that the sun revolves around the earth, but past a point my tolerance will expire.
Of course the steady-state vs. Big Bang situation is not nearly so cut and dried, but it’s understandable that many scientists will get fed up with someone who refuses all evidence that contradicts their position.
In all truth, the steady-state model has gotten a lot of time and published space, more than most astronomers probably would give it. As recently as 1991 (long after the Big Bang model gained majority acceptance) there was an exchange of articles in Nature debating the merits and disadvantages of the theories; searching in the last few years turns up several articles in various major journals discussing steady-state cosmology, and not just by Hoyle.
I’m not quite sure what to say about this. Obviously you have more access to secondary sources that I do; however, Hoyle first co-published his steady-state theories in the 1940s. He has been churning out publications regularly since then; searching in the last ten years I’ve found multiple articles by him in the Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Physics Today, and Nature. He is promoting QSST in most of them. That’s not the mark of someone who can’t work in his field, or who has recanted his beliefs to keep a job. Yes, you can certainly argue that maybe he was treated unfairly for holding on to his theories in the face of what was becoming the establishment, but casting him as a broken, persecuted man is excessive
I certainly agree in principle that politics should not enter science. Unfortunately, scientists are human, and politics will play a role no matter what. The role of human nature also means, however, that there will be those who cling dogmatically to their own beliefs, talking up the small problems of their rivals that are present in all scientific theories, while ignoring the gaping flaws in their own.
I’ll leave Chronos to deal with the rest, but I felt like dipping a toe in. 
Thanks for your insights, philbuck. From the 1940s to the 1990s is a long time, so the story of Hoyle before Arp starting taking his pictures may look different than the 90s.
BTW, What is your take on Arp?
Hmm, no one took on my question about peer review…any takers?
Whew! Busy these days…
DrMatrix said:
Sorry, that was not my point. I guess I didn’t express myself that well. My point was that supersymetry predicts that in the earliest seconds after the big bang the universe experienced as many as 11 dimensions. My point is that, while we have a reasonable understanding of how gravity warps space-time in 4 dimensions, we don’t really know how it might have warped “space-time plus seven”.
On the question of mass versus energy. I must appologize for my little faux pas, I should have refered to the initial mass of the universe as mass-energy. I think the question has already been answered, but just to echo - yes, mass-energy warps space-time exactly the same, no matter what state it’s in…
Chronos wrote:
Do I detect a not of skepticism regarding an inflationary universe? Just curious…
Then AnotherHeretic asked:
Then Chronos wrote:
I don’t really get what Chronos is trying to say (which doesn’t mean his point is invalid). As far as I know, the only difference between Doppler shift and red shift is the kind of wave involved. With Doppler shift, it’s sound waves - with red shift, it’s light waves. The principles are the same, as objects move away from each other, the effective wavelengths appear longer. In fact, the red shift phenomenon is sometimes refered to as “Doppler Effect Red Shift”. Chronos seems to be trying to differentiate between the red shift observed within a solar system and the red shift observed between galaxies… Maybe Chronos would grace us with a clearer explanation of the distinction he’s trying to make???
Cosmic Background Radiation AKA Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was first measured by radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey in 1965. Edwin Hubble first theorized that it should be present well before that (not sure of the date).
Hey!!! You wouldn’t be trying to hijack my thread, would you? [wink]
Nope. Just subjecting it to peer review 
I guess I’ll try to clarify Chronos’ gedanken experiment for you. What he’s showing is that a red shift due to Doppler effects (which can be observed in any wave, it is not limited to sound) is caused by movement of the source or the observer. In his two-body expanding universe, there is no movement, so there can’t be any Doppler effect. But the expansion would still cause a non-Doppler red shift in this situation.
I hope that was enough. If not, I’m sure Chronos will take it up next time he drops by.
Gee, I feel so popular. Roughly in order: AnotherHeretic, I am indeed a physics grad student. Most of my information on Arp’s theories does, indeed, come from conversations with a professor. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to catch that professor today, I’ll try again tomorrow. I have seen some of the “evidence” for the galaxy-quasar links, and the ones I saw were pretty tenuous ground to hang a theory on. One was a clear example of pixel bleed, and another was a perfectly ordinary spiral arm. I’ll admit, however, that these images were presented to me by people skeptical of the theory, and it’s possible that they chose the least-convincing images as their examples. If you have any references for good examples, let me know, and I’ll see if I can look into them.
I have no problem with heretics, just with irrational heretics. So far as I can tell, you’re about as rational as the rest of us, so there’s no problem there.
The steady-state model itself is perfectly well-respected, I misspoke a bit on that point. It’s completely self-consistent, and makes for an interesting hypothetical case. Folks who say that it accurately describes the Universe that we live in, however, get a bit less respect.
On to Philbuck: As I understood it, the CMB was the primary observation which discredited the Steady-State model. I’m sure there were others, but I just thought that was the biggie.
Saltire and JoeyBlades: Yeah, Saltire sums up that gedanken experiment pretty well. Any further questions?
Finally, for JoeyBlades: Much as I’m enjoying the current topic, I’d also enjoy discussing your original question. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that this thread is so thoroughly hijacked by now that there’s no chance anymore of actually addressing it. Maybe you ought to consider starting another thread about it, for the sake of keeping the discussions straight? And no, I’m not trying to point fingers… I’m as much to blame for the hijack as anyone else.