joshgreen

Meant to respond to something else. Don't know how to delete this. I've gotten a chance to look over your stuff. Very interesting. You certainly sound like you know your stuff. As valid as all this looks, the only issue I have with it is that none of his was written Edwin Hubble. The issue (of first order) here is, is observation enough to present a theory? "Edwin Hubble discovers that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Edwin Hubble uses the new 100-inch telescope on Mt. Wilson in Southern California to discover that the farther away a galaxy is, the more its light is shifted to the red." See http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/tl18.html and many other sources. The key is "Edwin Hubble uses the new 100-inch telescope." It's observation that pretty much kicked off the theory of an expanding universe. Most, if not all, of the metrics came later. My theory is at the stage that the big bang was in 1929. And I do present well-known cosmological facts that seem to corroborate my theory. Will it stand up upon further scrutiny? I believe it will, but only time will tell. But I do appreciate your input. You sound like quite a scholarly person. I'll be moving on. It's been nice. I came here to have a scientifically intellectual discussion. And to a certain degree, I did get that from the scholarly sounding Mordred. He presented some interesting data to bolster his points. That's the way it should be. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for STARNGE. A discussion with him is like telling someone not to stay on the sun too long so he doesn't get a sunburn, and he comes back with something like "prove to me that the sun is hot." Really? If you can't get past obvious, self-evident facts without being confronted with "prove to me," aside from stifling a conversation, it degenerate the entire discussion into a childish, "wise guy" type of discussion. In a classroom, an individual like STRANGE would be called an instigator and a trouble maker. To the moderator: You state "who has to show the maths, it is you." I don't know what world you live in, but in the real world visual observation does count as substantiating a claim. It is so in court and it is so in science. My theory is backed up by many observations and is as testable as the big bang was in 1929; by observation and other established facts. Math is only one method of testing. You seem to be plagued with the same confusion as STRANGE. Or are you actually STRANGE? Doesn't matter. I'm outta here. You may trash this thread; it does not have the value I'd hoped it would have. I did start this thread with nothing but an honest presentation of a theory and my response were nothing but polite (and that is testable, just refer back to the beginning, no mathematics required). It is responses such as STRANGE's that turn an intellectual discussion confrontational and childish. Moderator, you have my blessing to trash this thread. Have a nice life, ya all.

This is absolutely meaningless. Show me the mathematics.

You buy two microwaves with the same specs from the same manufacturer that regulate the temps inside to be the same, and you put in the same size cups of the same material filled with water. Show me the mathematics that show the results will not be the same. If you even question whether the results will be the same, it shows not only faulty logic on your part but also you're being short on a simple connection to reality. Physics is not for you. The causal connection between the two systems that are heated does not exist, neither here nor in a universe where fluctuating particles come into the universe (as they do today) throughout the cosmos. The universe itself, that spews these particles, is like the microwaves in the example. They are the setup, not the objects being heated. The objects that get heated in both case, in the nuclear collisions in the universe and in the cups of water in the microwaves, are not in causal contact with each other. Yet the results will be the same in the separately heated cups or particles collisions. Show me mathematically how in both cases the results will not be the same. (This is a rhetorical request. I don't expect you are capable of proving your claims mathematically or otherwise.) I have this strange feeling you don't even comprehend this comparison, let alone give any sensible support for your views.

In other words, anything you don't comprehend is not logical but must only "makes sense" to the person explaining it. OK, I can understand that. You're right that logic is A BRANCH of science. But logic is not always necessarily connected to mathematics, and certainly doesn't always need to be backed up by mathematics. Many scientific discoveries came out of pure logic and the mathematics, if any, came later. Logic comes before mathematics. Mathematics often only comes in to verify what seems logical, and sometimes is only needed for those who don't comprehend the logic.

There is no communication between the fires. Whatever other communication your talking about has no bearing on the experiment. You being on the phone with someone is not the communication we're talking about. Communication between the "systems" that are producing the heat is the key -- there is no such communication here. Without logic there is no science. You're pretty much misstating and misinterpreting much of what I say, and I'm spending too much time trying to unravel what your saying and addressing things that I never said or very obviously did not intend to say. There really is not much point in this type of conversation. If you want to eliminate logic and things that are obvious to the senses, we only wind up talking complete nonsense. Logic MUST be part of science. I've never heard of anyone trying to eliminate logic from a conversation.

x There is no communication between the fires. Whatever other communication your talking about has no bearing the experiment. You being on the phone with someone is not the communication we're talking about. Communication between the "systems" that are producing the heat is the key -- there is no such communication here.

To STRANGE --- Strange: "The origin of the CMB is everywhere in the universe" Me: The CMB is everywhere. It's origin was everywhere during inflation. At 20 billion light years away, for example, that's not the origin of CMB. That's an area that it expanded to with the expansion of the universe. I'm surprise you don't grasp this simple concept. Strange: "The CMB didn't exist at that early stage" Me: Again, you're just plain wrong. "The cosmic background radiation is radiation left over from early development of the universe," See http://www.universetoday.com/79777/cosmic-background-radiation/ and many other sources. Strange: "...if that were a valid explanation, it would apply equally to the big bang model." Me: Wrong again. In the big bang, matter was carried out along with the expansion. In a scenario where matter is created in place throughout the universe, its course would not at all be equal to that of the big bang. Let's forget that you're not showing any metrics to substantiate your claim either, but your argument doesn't even hold up logically. Strange: "There is no reason for a black hole to form. A black hole requires mass to be concentrated in a small volume. The universe had the same density everywhere; in other words, matter was distributed evenly throughout all space, not concentrated at one point." Me: This makes no sense at all. It's common knowledge (or belief) that at the moment before expansion all the energy/matter in the universe was concentrated at one point. Evenly distributed or not, all that energy/matter so densely concentrated would have been the equivalent of a massive black hole. Your response doesn't even begin to address this.

xxx You answer your own question and seem to present all this as a response to my almost tongue-in-cheek example about a fire in Albania. If there are so many variables, as you yourself state, of course the fires would be different. I'm talking about controlled fires where you ensure the conditions are identical; this is totally different. I find it hard to believe you even presented this as a response to anything. But thanks for the laugh.

You're making a general statement about energy that's in contradiction to the NASA explanation that I already quoted: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html "prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today." Do you mind explaining what vacuum energy is and how it existed before "matter and radiation that fill the universe today." You can explain it with metrics or logically, I'll accept either. It's quite clear that a rudimentary form of energy that we're not familiar with existed in the past. I haven't heard any explanations or seen any mathematics or metrics on exactly how that energy came into being, what it is and how it decayed. While you're at it, show me the metrics on what caused our universe to expand in the first place. And with space between galaxies expanding but not the galaxies themselves, show me the mathematics on how the expansion is weaker than the galaxies' gravity. Aside from simple logic by some scientists (that, incidentally, make no sense whatsoever) I haven't seen anything coming close to a scientific or mathematical explanation on how galaxies are being held together despite the universe's expansion. I'd think that with all the requests I've gotten to prove with metrics what I'm saying, someone here would have shown me some metrics that prove I'm wrong. The big bang itself started with an observation. The metrics came later on. The v-bang is relatively new. I'm quite certain that once people sit and work out the metrics, a good part, if not all, of my theory will hold up. It certainly holds up in observation far better than anything I've seen with the big bang. And for the record, my theory does not include inflation; it has no need for it. I think we're playing with words when we say the CMB did not originate in one place. Inflation says that the CMB got smoothed out at that early stage. It couldn't get smoothed out at a point when the universe was already 50 billion light years in diameter; and that's precisely one of things inflation is supposed to solve. I'm wondering whether you're the ones who don't get this. So, in the v-bang, when you have the same occurrence happening simultaneously 50 billion light years away you do not need causal contact for the same results. You don't need metrics for this. It's simple physics. You can test this yourself. Call your cousin in Albania and tell him to start a fire under the exact same conditions you start one, and you should see both fires taking the exact same course. Why is this so complicated? As far as expansion goes, in my theory, the universe had enough energy to expand once, and it stopped once it exhausted all the energy that produced matter and energy as we know it. I have no more of an explanation or metrics for why it stopped than anyone has for why it started. But the logic for why it stopped makes more sense than the logic for why it started. (Actually, there is no logic for why it started.) You're making a general statement about energy that's in contradiction to the NASA explanation that I already quoted: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html "prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today." Do you mind explaining what vacuum energy is and how it existed before "matter and radiation that fill the universe today." You can explain it with metrics or logically, I'll accept either. It's quite clear that a rudimentary form of energy that we're not familiar with existed in the past. I haven't heard any explanations or seen any mathematics or metrics on exactly how that energy came into being, what it is and how it decayed. While you're at it, show me the metrics on what caused our universe to expand in the first place. And with space between galaxies expanding but not the galaxies themselves, show me the mathematics on how the expansion is weaker than the galaxies' gravity. Aside from simple logic by some scientists (that, incidentally, make no sense whatsoever) I haven't seen anything coming close to a scientific or mathematical explanation on how galaxies are being held together despite the universe's expansion. I'd think that with all the requests I've gotten to prove with metrics what I'm saying, someone here would have shown me some metrics that prove I'm wrong. The big bang itself started with an observation. The metrics came later on. The v-bang is relatively new. I'm quite certain that once people sit and work out the metrics, a good part, if not all, of my theory will hold up. It certainly holds up in observation far better than anything I've seen with the big bang. And for the record, my theory does not include inflation; it has no need for it. I think we're playing with words when we say the CMB did not originate in one place. Inflation says that the CMB got smoothed out at that early stage. It couldn't get smoothed out at a point when the universe was already 50 billion light years in diameter; and that's precisely one of things inflation is supposed to solve. I'm wondering whether you're the ones who don't get this. So, in the v-bang, when you have the same occurrence happening simultaneously 50 billion light years away you do not need causal contact for the same results. You don't need metrics for this. It's simple physics. You can test this yourself. Call your cousin in Albania and tell him to start a fire under the exact same conditions you start one, and you should see both fires taking the exact same course. Why is this so complicated? As far as expansion goes, in my theory, the universe had enough energy to expand once, and it stopped once it exhausted all the energy that produced matter and energy as we know it. I have no more of an explanation or metrics for why it stopped than anyone has for why it started. But the logic for why it stopped makes more sense than the logic for why it started. (Actually, there is no logic for why it started.) One question I've been asked here (don't remember exactly where) is do I have anything to show how the initial stage of the universe, before the big bang itself, would have been a black hole. I'd like anyone to explain how when all the matter in the universe was focused at one point, how, contrary to everything we know today, that would NOT have produced a black hole.

My model better explains why they're there. But the "breakthrough" is not in this one point. My model explains a whole host of observations relatively easily that the big bang has difficulty with. One thing I haven't even touched on here is the observations of a varying fine structure constant. I don't know of any explanation for this with the big bang. The v-bang does explain it -- in the book. I think if my v-bang theory explains only half of what I claim, it's a breakthrough. But I think it explains a lot more, including dark matter and dark energy (neither of which I believe exist). They're illusions based on factors I don't think I've touched much on in this forum.

-"Energy does not exist on its own." This is not so even with the big bang. Here's NASA's explanation of inflation: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html "prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today." Apparently, according to the big bang, it is believed that "vacuum energy" existed before "matter and radiation that fill the universe today." -"So please post the metrics on how the universe containing just energy, expands rapidly stops then forms particles. and sow how many efolds occur within the time constraints of your model " I don't have mathematics or metrics. The part of the universe expanding and having energy (not In a form we're familiar with) is the exact same is in the big bang. The main difference is that in the v-bang the universe stops expanding. For the halt to the expansion I present (here and in my book) observational and logical evidence as to why the halt of the expansion answers more than a universe that's still expanding. This requires no more proof than the "proof" of what caused our universe to start expanding in the first place. Aside from the fact that we're here, I don't know of any evidence of why or by what power our universe started expanding into a universe. Yes, I know, we have theories of multiverse and such. But all that is unverifiable conjecture. In short, the universe stooped for the same reason it started; we don't have the answers, short of observation that suggest it. How matter came into existence is explained in detail in my book and to some degree on this forum. I'd like to post my entire theory if I could get the admin's permission (it's almost 26,000 word).

Do not have any metrics yet.

Virtual particles may exist on borrowed time, but they can become real particles under certain conditions. -Can you show (quantitatively) that these conditions existed in the early universe described by your theory? The key behind virtual particle pairs becoming real particles is a strong force that separates the pair. Being near a black hole would be one such case. "Virtual particle pairs are constantly being created near the horizon of the black hole, as they are everywhere. Normally, they are created as a particle-antiparticle pair and they quickly annihilate each other. But near the horizon of a black hole, it's possible for one to fall in before the annihilation can happen, in which case the other one escapes as Hawking radiation. See: "http: //math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html --- The expansion of the universe would have been the strongest force ever to exist in the cosmos' history and would certainly qualify as being a strong enough to separate virtual particles and turn them into real particles. Even the secondary forces, the formation of the celestial bodies set into motion, would, I believe, still be strong enough to create real particles. --- I believe energy, in some primordial form, permeated space in the moment of creation, and it's this energy that manifested itself by giving birth to the massive amount of particles that filled the universe in the first moments. -How is that different from the big bang model? --- In the V-Bang, energy (as we know it) and matter were created in two stages. In the first stage virtual particles were simply carried out into the newly created cosmos with the expansion (similar to the big bang). In the second stage, new virtual particles that entered the universe after the universe stopped expanding collided with those particle still speeding outward as a result of being catapulted by the expansion. This resulted (as I've described) in the initation of the development of celestial objects more or less in their relative positions as we see them in the sky today. One implication of this is that the distance of a celestial object from us has nothing to do with its age or the age of the universe. Furthermore, the V-Bang's scenario of star and galaxy formation explains one of several things that are difficult to explain with the big bang: "The European Southern Observatory (ESO) recently reported a surprise while observing two extremely distant galaxies; at a very high redshift (z = 3.57); so far away that they are seen as they were a long time ago: only 1.8 billion years after Big Bang. "The surprise was to discover that the cool gas in these presumably young galaxies was very rich in heavy elements (all called metals), a chemical composition usually only seen in older galaxies because it takes so long to make heavy elements ... " ... the metallicity is almost ten times higher than the metallicity of objects measured at the same redshift. "... It is difficult to understand how such a high density of heavy elements could have been formed in such a short time [since the big bang]." See: http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/observation-of-two-early-mature-galaxies-rare-objects-or-is-big-bang-model-inaccurate/ in the V-Bang distance has nothing to do with age. --- In my "sphere" matter is not uniformly distributed. -Why not? The random collsions of particles that produce massive black holes may possibly form an almost perfect circle as they fly outward. However, the trajectory of such individual bodies will not necessarily be evenly spaced. The same distribution scenario is what we see in the universe today; the distribution of matter is not smooth in the deaitl level. So it was with the initial massive black holes, which would cause gravitational fields of different intensities throughout the universe. Quote With the big bang the CMBR and whatever other force or radiation was generated was done so in one central location and then spread throughout the universe. -This is totally wrong. It seems you do not understand the model you are criticising. I don't believe this is wrong. Perhaps my wording is confusing you. Berkeley Univesriy's description of the CBM: "The CMB is, in effect, the leftover heat of the Big Bang itself - it was released when the universe became cool enough to become transparent to light and other electromagnetic radiation, 100,000 years after its birth." See: http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/CosmologyEssays/The_Cosmic_Microwave_Background.html I think you'll admit that the universe is (according to the big bang) older than 100,000 years. So if the CMB was created at that time, that means the CMB radiation was spread out, stretched, whatever term you want to use, to all corners of the universe, billions of light years away, from that time and place. What is it that you misunderstand? Quote - quantify "clumpy": "When looking at the data collected by WMAP, scientists noticed that, in one distant region of space - toward the constellation of Eridanus (about ten billion light-years from Earth) -- the CMBR showed evidence of a large 'hole' in space ... where the temperature in the CMBR varies from the usual temperature of 2.7 above absolute zero. " Quote ... my book was written a couple of years ago. These figures [of the size of the universe] seem to change every now and then. -That figure has not changed for many years, as far as I know. Can you provide a source that supports your figure? Or is it another error in your book? You're right that it hasn't changed recently, but you're wrong about my figure being off. Although we believe the universe is probably around 92 billion light years in diameter, I'm referring to the observable universe. And my approximation is not off at all. The observable universe "...appears almost 28 billion light-years in diameter." See: http://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html "the size of the Universe that we can see is about 28 billion light years in diameter" See: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/237-How-big-is-the-Universe- "the size of the observable universe is nominally 13.798 billion light years [in each direction]" See: http://www.quora.com/How-big-is-the-observable-universe Furthermore, for my V-Bang theory the actual size of the universe is immaterial.

Strange, you ask some good questions. And I actually would like to answer them. It should give me an opportunity to add stuff that I hesitated to put into this article because I was afraid it was getting too long. But time constraints don't allow me to answer too quickly. I hope I can get to them soon. I'll just say one thing here. My explanation "it gives off a reddish color called a redshift" was meant to be "understood" in a simple way. Should I have taken the time to explain it more on scientific terms? Perhaps. Hope I can get to the others soon.

- I notice that in you book you mention "galaxies that appear to be older than the universe". Can you provide a reference to these, as there is no such thing, as far as I know. When my book was written a couple of years ago there were a few examples, but some have been explained since. Here's something more recent from NASA: "If the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars. This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given observed expansion rate" See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html - You also say that "the universe is now believed to be roughly 30 billion light years in diameter". Even allowing for the fact that you mean the observable universe not the universe, that figure is about a factor of three too small. Do you have a source for that number? Again, my book was written a couple of years ago. These figures seem to change every now and then. (Your description of redshift is ... well, embarrasing. "Not even wrong." I definitely won't be recommending this book to anyone.) I'm not sure what you find was incorrect. An example would help. I find that some of what I say is being misunderstood and some people are not that up to date on some nuances of astrophysics (and I am also perhaps sometimes guilty of this). Also, remember my book was written in the hopes it would be understandable to the laymen and some explanations are meant to be simple.

MigL, on 28 Oct 2014 - 11:57 PM, said: -Vacuum fluctuations prior to inflation account for large scale structures, and CMB we see in the universe today. The fit to the observations is very good. Inflation theory itself is not exactly on solid ground. Princeton University's Physics Department: "Cosmic inflation is so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact. The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt. But some of the theory’s creators , including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations. Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions. Scientists debate among (and within) themselves whether these troubles are teething pains or signs of a deeper rot. Various proposals are circulating for ways to fix inflation or replace it." See: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf Andreas Albrecht, Professor of Physics: "It is far from clear what the inflaton actually is and where its potential comes from. This is intimately connected with the question of why the perturbations have the amplitude and spectrum they do. Currently, there is much confusion about physics at the relevant energy scales, and thus there is much speculation about different possible classes of inflaton potentials." See: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Albrecht/Alb6.html -Virtual particles exist on borrowed time and are a byproduct of the vacuum energy that drives inflation and expansion ( otherwise known as 'dark energy' ). Why/how could virtual particles arise in an expanded universe devoid of energy as you claim ? Virtual particles may exist on borrowed time, but they can become real particles under certain conditions. Harvey Mudd College, Physics Department: "The quantum mechanical description of the vacuum allows for the creation of the particle/antiparticle pairs, and the electric field tends to separate the charges. If the field is strong enough, the particles tunnel through the quantum barrier and MATERIALIZE AS REAL PARTICLES." See: http://www.physics.hmc.edu/student_projects/astro62/hawking_radiation/radiation.html Scientific American article subtitled "Virtual particles can become real photons--under the right conditions:" "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, but its speed passing through any given material depends on a property of that substance known as its index of refraction. By varying a material's index of refraction, researchers can influence the speed at which both real and virtual photons travel within it. Lähteenmäki says one can think of this system as being much like a mirror, and if its thickness changes fast enough, VIRTUAL PHOTONS REFLECTING OFF IT CAN RECEIVE ENOUGH ENERGY FROM THE BOUNCE TO TURN INTO REAL PHOTONS." See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/ If you read my full theory (much of which I couldn't present here because of space) you would see that I do not believe the space that began our universe had no energy. I believe energy, in some primordial form, permeated space in the moment of creation, and it's this energy that manifested itself by giving birth to the massive amount of particles that filled the universe in the first moments. And while I'm on this topic, I believe that the virtual fluctuations we see today has not been happening at the same rate throughout history and throughout the cosmos. It's space vacuum, I believe, that regulates the amount of virtual particles entering the universe. Today, as the universe is not as vacuous as it was a moment after its birth, the entry of virtual particles has subsided to a great degree. Furthermore, I believe space itself has energy distribution properties. Virtual participles do not violate conservation principles because the energy used to create them are borrowed from the energy of other particles. As a result, the total energy in the universe always remains the same but the energy of matter in the universe weakens as more matter is created. -I don't believe you understand the shell theorem and are actually using Mach's theory for inertia. If there's an asymmetry as you claim, it would show up in the gravitational redshift which you are suggesting we have mistaken for recession. No, I'm not talking about Mach's theory. I am talking about shell theorem. Newton's shell theorem "states that the gravitational field of a mass UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED on a spherical surface ... generates a null gravitational field inside itself." See: http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/35/2/028003/article In my "sphere" matter is not uniformly distributed. The asymmetry does show up in the gravitational redshift. Researchers confuse differences in gravitational redshifts with recessional speed (and distance from earth). -If the universe expanded ( and stopped ) before there was anything in it, how was anything ever in causal contact to explain the present isotropy between areas no longer in causal contact ? Is it just coincidence that the universe of ten billion years ago looks the same to our left as it does to our right ? How would the information have gotten there ? You're confusing my theory with the big bang. With the big bang this is a problem. With the V-Bang it's not. Here why. With the big bang the CMBR and whatever other force or radiation was generated was done so in one central location and then spread throughout the universe. It is therefore necessary to explain isotropy between areas no longer in causal contact. With the V-Bang the expansion itself produced nothing but space. It's the appearance of space that allowed particles to enter the universe in every corner of the cosmos. The high-speed collisions that produced the CMBR happened, in the V-Bang, throughout the universe almost simultaneous -- not SPREAD out from one location. Isotropy here therefore does not need causal contact. This is like me starting a barn fire in my backyard and you starting a barn fire in your backyard 10 miles away. If all conditions of both fires are the same -- same fuel, same size, same weather, etc. -- both fires would take roughly the same course without the need for them to be in causal contact. Isotropy in the V-Bang is the result of the same process happening throughout the universe. "When looking at the data collected by WMAP, scientists noticed that, in one distant region of space — toward the constellation of Eridanus (about ten billion light-years from Earth) — the CMBR showed evidence of a large “hole” in space. They aren’t traditional holes, mind you, but spots where the temperature in the CMBR varies from the usual temperature of 2.7° above absolute zero. " See: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/4-anomalies-in-the-big-bang-afterglow/ "Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background" See: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html

Strange, on 28 Oct 2014 - 7:57 PM, said: If they have never been detected, why are they thought to exist? Are you suggesting that they have been "invented" for no reason? No, I don't believe they're invented. The redshifts are being misinterpreted as the result of recessional speed when most of it is gravitational redshift, with only a relatively small portion coming from recession. Can you show that this produces the observed spectrum? Not sure, at this moment. Can you show, in appropriate detail how it does this? This is difficult to explain in a few words (it's fully explained in my book), but I'll try. If you follow a proliferation of black holes of various sizes flying at great speeds outward in a cosmos that's awash with incoming particles, they would put these particles into a powerful swirling motion, similar to whirlpool, imitating star and galaxy formation. These star and galaxies, formed at the sides of the path carved out by the black holes, would then give the impression of forming a wall. Are you familiar with the work of Isaac Newton, specifically the Shell Theorem? Yes. I believe it speaks of a symmetrical circle. The black holes flying outward, being the result of billions of collisions and explosions, would not necessarily make a symmetrical circle as they fly outward to form a circle of black holes. Also, can your theory predict the quantities of hydrogen and helium in the universe? At this point, I;m not sure.

"strong in one place, weaker in another"

The big bang theory presents a number of serious contradictions to our observations of the cosmos. Although many attempts have been made to reconcile these differences, many questions remain unanswered. This new big bang theory offers explanations that better fit our observations and leaves us with more answers than questions. Before presenting a new big bang theory that seems to answer many questions that the current big bang theory does not, a brief review of some of the problems with the current big bang is in order. The big bang theory has several vexing problems. First, there is the big void, close to a billion light years across space, which lies at the edge of the universe. It's difficult to explain how such a great void could have formed so early in the universe's history. With the big bang model it is also difficult to explain why the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is so "clumpy," strong in one place, weaker in another, when the big bang "explosion" should have distributed it's telltale sign more evenly. It is also somewhat difficult to explain why there are galaxies altogether. How would the big bang's even distribution of matter have resulted in so much matter clumping together? Then there are the problems of dark energy and dark matter. Scientists speak of them as if they are a reality, yet their existence have never been detected, measured or satisfactorily explained. The full list of problems with the big bang and a more in depth explanation of the above problems is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that despite attempts to explain the above and other issues, many observations remain inexplicable with the big bang theory. I believe there is a solution to most of the puzzles plaguing the big bang. A slight modification to the big bang's very initial stage would result in the universe unfolding in a substantially different manner than what our current model predicts. This new trajectory, if followed through to its conclusion, does, I believe, answer many currently outstanding cosmological mysteries. Furthermore, this new big bang theory's approach has somewhat greater empirical support than the current big bang theory. This new theory begins with the same initial "explosion" as the current big bang. But with two major differences. One, the expansion in this new model contains no matter whatsoever. The only thing that expands is space itself. Two, the universe expands to its full length and breadth within a fraction of a second and stops. That is, the universe is no longer expanding. Now, lets rewind the expansion and describe the process in more detail. The moment the universe starts expanding, virtual particles flood the void in massive amounts and continue to do so even after the expansion ceases. (Why virtual particles flood the universe in far greater quantities than they do today is beyond the scope of this article and fully explained in my book.) If you follow this scenario through, you will find that this process will have created just about everything we observe in the sky today, with very little observational contradiction. The virtual particles that enter the universe at its moment of expansion would be pulled along with the expansion at terrific speeds. The particles that enter the universe once it has ceased to expand enter the universe in relatively stationary positions. The collision of the high-speed particles with the stationary ones cause cataclysmic explosions that result in massive black holes and perhaps fusion reactions of various degrees that set in motion the inial stages of some star and galaxy formation. This all happens in a matter of seconds. (This is actually an abbreviated explanation. Again, a more detailed explanation of this process appears in my book "The V-Bang: How The Universe Began.") At this point, this new big bang can already explain with ease some cosmological puzzles. First, the "horizon" problem. For two regions of space to have the same conditions, like temperature, they'd have to be close enough to each other for information to be exchanged so that they can equilibrate to a common state. If they're too far, they are said to be beyond their horizons because even at the speed of light no communication between them can exist. So how did they coordinate their similar conditions? With the new big bang theory this is not a problem. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation was produced by the massive particle collisions which occurred equally throughout the universe. No far-corner communications were necessary, since every region of the cosmos went through the same process. Then, as the new big bang theory unfolds, it solves a few additional puzzles. These massive black holes created in the new big bang theory would still be speeding outward at terrific speeds. Perhaps not as fast as the initial particles, but still quite fast. The outward thrust of these enormous black holes then cause secondary collisions with the massive amounts of virtual particles still entering the universe. It is these secondary collisions that instantly initiate a second round of star and galaxy formation. As these black holes absorb a substantial amount of particles in their path or very close to them, they leave behind huge swats of empty space or space with particles that never enter the process of star or galaxy formation. This explains regions in space devoid of matter and regions that have enough matter to form stars and galaxies but never do, with the latter being more inexplicable than the former with the current big bang theory. This also explains great "walls" of superclusters. It explains the lumpiness of matter. This also explains variations in CMB levels. The initial particle collisions that created the CMB radiation, although they occurred throughout the universe, would not necessarily have occurred evenly in every region. It even explains why there is a heavier population of celestial objects the farther out into space you look. As the initial black holes moved outward, they left behind more and more particles untouched by their star and galaxy formation process. Thus, the farthest regions in space would have been subjected to longer periods of star and galaxy formation and with greater amounts of particles. Furthermore, the collisions of these initial great black holes with more particles would have created secondary, fainter CMB radiations. Such secondary CMB radiations have been detected, but cannot be explained with the current big bang theory. This new big bang theory, which I named the V-Bang, sheds light on a several other phenomena, which cannot be explain in full here due to space limitations, but are fully explained in my book "The V-Bang: How The Universe Began." The V-Bang explains how the redshifts that give the appearance of a universe expanding at an increasing rate of speed (referred to as "dark energy") is due largely to gravitational redshifts caused by an increase in gravitational pull, from beyond the visible universe, the farther out into space you go. (My book explains what the source of this great gravitational pull is.) And it is this strong gravitational pull that gives the impression of an expanding universe, when in fact celestial objects are simply being pulled outward by gravity. This would explain why only intergalactic space is increasing, but celestial objects are not being ripped apart by an "expanding" universe. The V-Bang easily demonstrates why Omega is equal to one (the strange "coincidence" of the distribution of matter being so evenly spread throughout the universe). With the current big bang model this is just about impossible to explain. Even inflation theory, intended to explain it, requires a stretch of the imagination. The V-Bang explains it. The V-Bang explains how there can be mature galaxies at the outer edges of the universe when, according to the big bang, they hadn't had enough time to develop. With the V-Bang, the process that initiated star and galaxy formation happened almost simultaneously throughout the universe; all stars and galaxies had about the same time to evolve. Only time will tell if the V-Bang theory will hold upon new observations, but for now I believe it presents more answers than questions. "The V-Bang: How The Universe Began," available at Amazon, V-Bang.org and other outlets, describes the above material and more in far greater detail.