Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00635)

8/27/2006 5:22 AM

Lenny:



Have you seen this?

Have you any comments for our readers ?

Thanks,

Dallas

=======================

-----Original Message-----

From: Odin [mailto:otownley@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 11:44 PM
To: Bryant Fraser
Subject: Re:   BIG BANG     Great website


Yes, great site. Good to have it, 

thanks Brian. 

---------------------------------------------------------
 
Odin:

Below is the SD quote on the big bang. (And let's not forget to look again
at "The Great Breath").  We can take up the subject at the Monday Class
again and compare the "change of condition" of the SD with what is said on
the Meta Research site. 
 
www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp 
 
Odin

---------------------------------------------------
 
		S D 	STANZA III.  
 
 	COMMENTARY.   
 
    I.  THE LAST VIBRATION OF THE SEVENTH ETERNITY THRILLS THROUGH
INFINITUDE .  THE MOTHER SWELLS, EXPANDING FROM WITHIN WITHOUT LIKE THE BUD
OF THE LOTUS 
 	SD 1:62 
 
….the "last vibration of the Seventh Eternity" was "foreordained"—by no God
in particular, but occurred in virtue of the eternal and changeless LAW
which causes the great periods of Activity and Rest, called so graphically,
and at the same time so poetically, the "Days and Nights of Brahmâ ." The
expansion "from within without" of the Mother, called elsewhere the "Waters
of Space," "Universal Matrix," etc ., does not allude to an expansion from a
small centre or focus, but, without reference to size or limitation or area,
means the development of limitless subjectivity into as limitless
objectivity .  "The ever (to us) invisible and immaterial Substance present
in eternity, threw its periodical shadow from its own plane into the lap of
Maya ." 	SD 1:62
     
===========================
     
COMMENTARY


                           THE UNIVERSE, A FLITTING SHADOW.    
                           
It implies that this expansion, not being an increase in size —for infinite
extension admits of no enlargement—was a change of condition .  It "expanded
like the bud of the Lotus"; for the Lotus plant exists not only as a
miniature embryo in its seed (a physical characteristic), but its prototype
is present in an ideal form in the Astral Light from "Dawn" to "Night"
during the Manvantaric period, like everything else, as a matter of fact, in
this objective Universe; from man down to mite, from giant trees down to the
tiniest blades of grass .  
 
All this, teaches the hidden Science, is but the temporary reflection , the
shadow of the eternal ideal prototype in Divine Thought ; the word
"Eternal," note well again, standing here only in the sense of "Æon," as
lasting throughout the seemingly interminable, but still limited cycle of
activity , called by us Manvantara.  For what is the real esoteric meaning
of Manvantara, or rather a Manu-Antara?   It means, esoterically, "between
two Manus," of whom there are fourteen in every "Day of Brahmâ," such a
"Day" consisting of 1,000 aggregates of four ages, or 1,000 "Great Ages,"
Mahayugas
 
On 8/26/06, Bryant Fraser <frazerflav@earthlink.net > wrote: 
 
Dear ODIN:	this guy knows his stuff...B

www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp 
=====================================================





		BIG BANG   GREAT BREATH   MANVANTARA 


Below is the SD quote on the big bang. (And let's not forget to look again
at "The Great Breath").  We can take up the subject at the Monday Class
again and compare the "change of condition" of the SD with what is said on
the Meta Research site. 
 
www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp 
 
Odin

 
		THE TOP 30 PROBLEMS WITH THE BIG BANG


'Cosmologists are often in error, but never in doubt.' -- Lev Landau /// 'I
am certain that it is time to retire Landau’s quote.' -- cosmologist Michael
Turner [Physics Today 2001/12, 10-11]


		[reprinted from Meta Research Bulletin 11, 6-13 (2002)]


Abstract. Earlier, we presented a simple list of the top ten problems with
the Big Bang. [[1]] Since that publication, we have had many requests for
citations and additional details, which we provide here. We also respond to
a few rebuttal arguments to the earlier list. Then we supplement the list
based on the last four years of developments – with another 20 problems for
the theory. 
 
(1)  Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding
universe models.
            Static universe models match most observations with no
adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical
observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic
deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match
different tests. [[2],[3]] Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone
falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained, Occam’s
razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters – the static
universe model.
 
(2)  The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature
of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

            The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of
chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, [[4]] Eddington
calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given
that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no
adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K [[5]]),
essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A
similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the
limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of
galaxy light. [[6]] So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would
therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation,
including its blackbody-shaped spectrum.
 
      Such a fog also explains the otherwise troublesome ratio of infrared
to radio intensities of radio galaxies. [[7]] The amount of radiation
emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected
if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For
example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio
wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption.
Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed
by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between
the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no
chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform
while doing so. It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from
the intergalactic medium. This argument alone implies that the microwaves
could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies,
and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct.
 
      None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big
Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s
upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961, just two years before the
actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the
Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball” becomes indistinguishable from the
natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space. But none of the
predictions, which ranged between 5°K and 50°K, matched observations. [[8]]
And the Big Bang offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations
with wavelength seen in radio galaxies.
 
(3)  Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many
adjustable parameters to make them work.

            The universal abundances of most elements were predicted
correctly by Hoyle in the context of the original Steady State cosmological
model. This worked for all elements heavier than lithium. The Big Bang
co-opted those results and concentrated on predicting the abundances of the
light elements. Each such prediction requires at least one adjustable
parameter unique to that element prediction. Often, it’s a question of
figuring out why the element was either created or destroyed or both to some
degree following the Big Bang. When you take away these degrees of freedom,
no genuine prediction remains. The best the Big Bang can claim is
consistency with observations using the various ad hoc models to explain the
data for each light element. Examples: [[9],[10]] for helium-3; [[11]] for
lithium-7; [[12]] for deuterium; [[13]] for beryllium; and [[14],[15]] for
overviews. For a full discussion of an alternative origin of the light
elements, see [[16]].
 
(4)  The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls”
and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

            The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured
quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of the
universe to assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and walls)
we see in space [[17]], and to clear all the voids between galaxy walls. But
this assumes that the initial directions of motion are special, e.g.,
directed away from the centers of voids. To get around this problem, one
must propose that galaxy speeds were initially much higher and have slowed
due to some sort of “viscosity” of space. To form these structures by
building up the needed motions through gravitational acceleration alone
would take in excess of 100 billion years. [[18]]
 
(5)  The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the
right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all
redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

            According to the Big Bang theory, a quasar at a redshift of 1 is
roughly ten times as far away as one at a redshift of 0.1. (The
redshift-distance relation is not quite linear, but this is a fair
approximation.) If the two quasars were intrinsically similar, the high
redshift one would be about 100 times fainter because of the inverse square
law. But it is, on average, of comparable apparent brightness. This must be
explained as quasars “evolving” their intrinsic properties so that they get
smaller and fainter as the universe evolves. That way, the quasar at
redshift 1 can be intrinsically 100 times brighter than the one at 0.1,
explaining why they appear (on average) to be comparably bright. It isn’t as
if the Big Bang has a reason why quasars should evolve in just this magical
way. But that is required to explain the observations using the Big Bang
interpretation of the redshift of quasars as a measure of cosmological
distance. See [[19],[20]].
 
      By contrast, the relation between apparent magnitude and distance for
quasars is a simple, inverse-square law in alternative cosmologies. In [20],
Arp shows great quantities of evidence that large quasar redshifts are a
combination of a cosmological factor and an intrinsic factor, with the
latter dominant in most cases. Most large quasar redshifts (e.g., z > 1)
therefore have little correlation with distance. A grouping of 11 quasars
close to NGC 1068, having nominal ejection patterns correlated with galaxy
rotation, provides further strong evidence that quasar redshifts are
intrinsic. [[21]]
 
(6)  The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

            Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward
resolving this since the “top ten” list first appeared, the error bars on
the Hubble age of the universe (12 2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap the
error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16o2 Gyr). Astronomers have
studied this for the past decade, but resist the “observational error”
explanation because that would almost certainly push the Hubble age older
(as Sandage has been arguing for years), which creates several new problems
for the Big Bang. In other words, the cure is worse than the illness for the
theory. In fact, a new, relatively bias-free observational technique has
gone the opposite way, lowering the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making
the discrepancy worse again. [[22],[23]]
 
(7)  The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite
universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

            In the early 1990s, we learned that the average redshift for
galaxies of a given brightness differs on opposite sides of the sky. The Big
Bang interprets this as the existence of a puzzling group flow of galaxies
relative to the microwave radiation on scales of at least 130 Mpc. Earlier,
the existence of this flow led to the hypothesis of a "Great Attractor"
pulling all these galaxies in its direction. But in newer studies, no
backside infall was found on the other side of the hypothetical feature.
Instead, there is streaming on both sides of us out to 60-70 Mpc in a
consistent direction relative to the microwave "background". The only Big
Bang alternative to the apparent result of large-scale streaming of galaxies
is that the microwave radiation is in motion relative to us. Either way,
this result is trouble for the Big Bang. [[24],[25],[26],[27],[28]]
 
(8)  Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the
dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

            The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters,
superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this
invisible, not-yet-detected “dark matter” to keep the theory viable.
Overall, over 90% of the universe must be made of something we have never
detected. By contrast, Milgrom’s model (the alternative to “dark matter”)
provides a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales and requires
no “dark matter” to exist at any scale. (I exclude the additional 50%-100%
of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO studies.)
Some physicists don’t like modifying the law of gravity in this way, but a
finite range for natural forces is a logical necessity (not just theory)
spoken of since the 17th century. [[29],[30]]

 
      Milgrom’s model requires nothing more than that. Milgrom’s is an
operational model rather than one based on fundamentals. But it is
consistent with more complete models invoking a finite range for gravity. So
Milgrom’s model provides a basis to eliminate the need for “dark matter” in
the universe at any scale. This represents one more Big Bang “fudge factor”
no longer needed.
 
(9)  The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient
evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7)
than the highest-redshift quasars.

            The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the
early universe be “primitive”, meaning mostly metal-free, because it
requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars.
But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and
galaxies. [[31],[32],[33]] Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous
ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age” of
evolution of the universe, when the light of the few primitive galaxies in
existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds. [[34]]
 
(10)    If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the
beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the
critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger
deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already
dissipated.

            Inflation failed to achieve its goal when many observations went
against it. To maintain consistency and salvage inflation, the Big Bang has
now introduced two new adjustable parameters: (1) the cosmological constant,
which has a major fine-tuning problem of its own because theory suggests it
ought to be of order 10120, and observations suggest a value less than 1;
and (2) “quintessence” or “dark energy”. [[35],[36]] This latter theoretical
substance solves the fine-tuning problem by introducing invisible,
undetectable energy sprinkled at will as needed throughout the universe to
keep consistency between theory and observations. It can therefore be
accurately described as “the ultimate fudge factor”.
 
 
      Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most
astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one
recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily
defend such a position. This is a fundamentally different matter than
proving the Big Bang did not happen, which would be proving a negative –
something that is normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa
Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis,
no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure
would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to
account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists
now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never
taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that
differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new
things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from
the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not
from add-on bits of new theory.
 
            Of course, the literature also contains the occasional review
paper in support of the Big Bang. [[37]] But these generally don’t count any
of the prediction failures or surprises as theory failures as long as some
ad hoc theory might explain them. And the “prediction successes” in almost
every case do not distinguish the Big Bang from any of the four leading
competitor models: Quasi-Steady-State [16,[38]], Plasma Cosmology [18], Meta
Model [3], and Variable-Mass Cosmology [20].
 
      For the most part, these four alternative cosmologies are ignored by
astronomers. However, one web site by Ned Wright does try to advance
counterarguments in defense of the Big Bang. [[39]] But his counterarguments
are mostly old objections long since defeated. For example:

(1)  In “Eddington did not predict the CMB”:

a.      Wright argues that Eddington’s argument for the “temperature of
space” applies at most to our Galaxy. But Eddington’s reasoning applies also
to the temperature of intergalactic space, for which a minimum is set by the
radiation of galaxy and quasar light. The original calculations
half-a-century ago showed this limit probably fell in the range 1-6°K. [6]
And that was before quasars were discovered and before we knew the modern
space density of galaxies.

b.     Wright also argues that dust grains cannot be the source of the
blackbody microwave radiation because there are not enough of them to be
opaque, as needed to produce a blackbody spectrum. However, opaqueness is
required only in a finite universe. An infinite universe can achieve
thermodynamic equilibrium (the actual requirement for a blackbody spectrum)
even if transparent out to very large distances because the thermal mixing
can occur on a much smaller scale than quantum particles – e.g., in the
light-carrying medium itself.

c.      Wright argues that dust grains do not radiate efficiently at
millimeter wavelengths. 
However, efficient or not, if the equilibrium temperature they reach is
2.8°K, they must radiate away the energy they absorb from distant galaxy and
quasar light at millimeter wavelengths. Temperature and wavelength are
correlated for any bodies in thermal equilibrium.

(2)  About Lerner’s argument against the Big Bang:

a.      Lerner calculated that the Big Bang universe has not had enough time
to form superclusters. Wright calculates that all the voids could be vacated
and superclusters formed in less than 11-14 billion years (barely). But that
assumes that almost all matter has initial speeds headed directly out of
voids and toward matter concentrations. Lerner, on the other hand, assumed
that the speeds had to be built up by gravitational attraction, which takes
many times longer. Lerner’s point is more reasonable because doing it
Wright’s way requires fine-tuning of initial conditions.

b.     Wright argues that “there is certainly lots of evidence for dark
matter.” The reality is that there is no credible observational detection of
dark matter, so all the “evidence” is a matter of interpretation, depending
on theoretical assumptions. For example, Milgrom’s Model explains all the
same evidence without any need for dark matter.

(3)  Regarding arguments against “tired light cosmology”:

a.      Wright argues: “There is no known interaction that can degrade a
photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a
blurring of distant objects which is not observed.” While it is technically
true that no such interaction has yet been discovered, reasonable
non-Big-Bang cosmologies require the existence of entities many orders of
magnitude smaller than photons. For example, the entity responsible for
gravitational interactions has not yet been discovered. So the “fuzzy image”
argument does not apply to realistic physical models in which all substance
is infinitely divisible. By contrast, physical models lacking infinite
divisibility have great difficulties explaining Zeno’s paradoxes –
especially the extended paradox for matter. [3]

b.     Wright argues that the stretching of supernovae light curves is not
predicted by “tired light”. However, one cannot measure the stretching
effect directly because the time under the lightcurve depends on the
intrinsic brightness of the supernovae, which can vary considerably. So one
must use indirect indicators, such as rise time only. And in that case, the
data does not unambiguously favor either tired light or Big Bang models.

c.      Wright argued that tired light does not produce a blackbody
spectrum. But this is untrue if the entities producing the energy loss are
many orders of magnitude smaller and more numerous than quantum particles.

d.     Wright argues that tired light models fail the Tolman surface
brightness test. This ignores that realistic tired light models must lose
energy in the transverse direction, not just the longitudinal one, because
light is a transverse wave. When this effect is considered, the predicted
loss of light intensity goes with (1+z)-2, which is in good agreement with
most observations without any adjustable parameters. [ NOTE  REF _Ref4051228
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT 2,[40]] The Big Bang, by contrast, predicts a (1+z)-4
dependence, and must therefore invoke special ad hoc evolution (different
from that applicable to quasars) to close the gap between theory and
observations.
 
      By no means is this “top ten” list of Big Bang problems exhaustive –
far from it. In fact, it is easy to argue that several of these additional
20 points should be among the “top ten”:

•       "Pencil-beam surveys" show large-scale structure out to distances of
more than 1 Gpc in both of two opposite directions from us. This appears as
a succession of wall-like galaxy features at fairly regular intervals, the
first of which, at about 130 Mpc distance, is called "The Great Wall". To
date, 13 such evenly-spaced "walls" of galaxies have been found! [[41]] The
Big Bang theory requires fairly uniform mixing on scales of distance larger
than about 20 Mpc, so there apparently is far more large-scale structure in
the universe than the Big Bang can explain.

•       Many particles are seen with energies over 60x1018 eV. But that is
the theoretical energy limit for anything traveling more than 20-50 Mpc
because of interaction with microwave background photons. [[42]] However,
this objection assumes the microwave radiation is as the Big Bang expects,
instead of a relatively sparse, local phenomenon.

•       The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter
were created in the initial explosion. Matter dominates the present universe
apparently because of some form of asymmetry, such as CP violation
asymmetry, that caused most anti-matter to annihilate with matter, but left
much matter. Experiments are searching for evidence of this asymmetry, so
far without success. Other galaxies can’t be antimatter because that would
create a matter-antimatter boundary with the intergalactic medium that would
create gamma rays, which are not seen. [[43],[44]]

•       Even a small amount of diffuse neutral hydrogen would produce a
smooth absorbing trough shortward of a QSO’s Lyman-alpha emission line. This
is called the Gunn-Peterson effect, and is rarely seen, implying that most
hydrogen in the universe has been re-ionized. A hydrogen Gunn-Peterson
trough is now predicted to be present at a redshift z d 6.1. [[45]]
Observations of high-redshift quasars near z = 6 briefly appeared to confirm
this prediction. However, a galaxy lensed by a foreground cluster has now
been observed at z = 6.56, prior to the supposed reionization epoch and at a
time when the Big Bang expects no galaxies to be visible yet. Moreover, if
only a few galaxies had turned on by this early point, their emission would
have been absorbed by the surrounding hydrogen gas, making these early
galaxies invisible. [34] So the lensed galaxy observation falsifies this
prediction and the theory it was based on. Another problem example: Quasar
PG 0052+251 is at the core of a normal spiral galaxy. The host galaxy
appears undisturbed by the quasar radiation, which, in the Big Bang, is
supposed to be strong enough to ionize the intergalactic medium. [[46]]

•       An excess of QSOs is observed around foreground clusters. Lensing
amplification caused by foreground galaxies or clusters is too weak to
explain this association between high- and low-redshift objects. This
apparent contradiction has no solution under Big Bang premises that does not
create some other problem. It particular, dark matter solutions would have
to be centrally concentrated, contrary to observations that imply that dark
matter increases away from galaxy centers. The high-redshift and
low-redshift objects are probably actually at comparable distances, as Arp
has maintained for 30 years. [[47]]

•       The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy
cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new space filled
with “zero-point energy” be continually created between the galaxies. [[48]]

•       In the Las Campanas redshift survey, statistical differences from
homogenous distribution were found out to a scale of at least 200 Mpc.
[[49]] This is consistent with other galaxy catalog analyses that show no
trends toward homogeneity even on scales up to 1000 Mpc. [[50]] The Big
Bang, of course, requires large-scale homogeneity. The Meta Model and other
infinite-universe models expect fractal behavior at all scales. Observations
remain in agreement with that.

	SNIP      [ SEE ORIGINAL FOR   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS   REFERENCES ]