Did the bing bang actually happen?

[MigL]

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

So, an all-knowing scientist/prophet has written the holy text of the big bang theory and we should all believe, because those who do not believe in the exact wording shall be punished.

You, and Joe, are free to believe whatever you want.
But this is a science forum, so when you, and Joe, want to discuss the available observational evidence, and the conclusions that can possibly be drawn from it, I will participate.

Until then, I will bitch and complain that you, and HijackJoe, are wasting everyone's time.

[JustJoe]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

You, and Joe, are free to believe whatever you want.
But this is a science forum, so when you, and Joe, want to discuss the available observational evidence, and the conclusions that can possibly be drawn from it, I will participate.

Until then, I will bitch and complain that you, and HijackJoe, are wasting everyone's time.

Ok, let us discuss the alledged evidence that space itself is expanding . Please provide evidence for this ? 

Space cannot be observed because it does not emit or reflect light , Hubble does not observe space , it observes observable matter and the light from this matter . 

 

 

[Eise]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

 

[JustJoe]

6 minutes ago, Eise said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

 

''Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted:'' 

Observations of space isn't possible so how can anyone conclude an expansion of space ? 

If redshift is deemed to be a Doppler like effect , then the observations show receding galaxies rather than an expansion of space . 

The measure between distant galaxies can expand but in no way does this imply an actual expansion of space itself . 

Also what do you mean by redshift exactly ? Does science observe 750nm or there about ? 

 

[Eise]

Read the chapter as a whole and follow some of the links. You are asking basic questions about cosmology, which you can easily find in the internet. Wikipedia is always a good start. Or you could use Chat GPT...

Edited December 16, 2022 by Eise

[MigL]

Thanks Eise, but the information you provided is lost on Joe, who doesn't realize that space doesn't expand ( into anything else ), separation between large scale features of the universe is increasing.

It would be great if people had a basic understanding of the topics whren they choose to participate in a discussion; something as simple as reading the Wiki page on that particular subject.
Otherwise stick to asking questions, rather than making assertions.

[Eise]

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Thanks Eise, but the information you provided is lost on Joe

I know, therefore I just provided the link. I will not spend my time writing essays for people who refuse to understand what it is all about. But Chat PGT is of course funny, so here it is:

Quote

 

There are several pieces of evidence that support the existence of cosmological red shift and the expansion of the universe, rather than the red shift being caused by the motion of galaxies through space.

One of the main pieces of evidence is the observation of red shift in the light emitted by distant galaxies. Doppler red shift can cause a shift in the frequency or wavelength of light when the source of the light is moving relative to the observer. However, the observed red shift in the light emitted by distant galaxies is much greater than what can be explained by the motion of those galaxies alone. In other words, the observed red shift is too large to be caused by the relative motion of the galaxies and the observer.

Another piece of evidence is the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is electromagnetic radiation that fills the entire universe. The cosmic microwave background radiation has a specific pattern of intensity and polarization that is consistent with the predictions of the big bang theory, which proposes that the universe began as a singularity and has been expanding ever since.

Another piece of evidence is the observation of galaxy clusters. Galaxy clusters are groups of galaxies that are bound together by gravity and are separated by vast regions of empty space. The distances between galaxy clusters are increasing over time, which is consistent with the expansion of the universe.

The cosmic distance ladder is another method used to measure the distances to objects in the universe. The cosmic distance ladder is based on the observation of objects that have well-known properties, such as supernovae or Cepheid variables, and the use of those observations to calibrate other distance measurement techniques. The cosmic distance ladder has been used to measure the distances to objects in the universe, and the results of those measurements are consistent with the expansion of the universe.

In summary, the observed red shift in the light emitted by distant galaxies, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the observation of galaxy clusters, and the cosmic distance ladder all provide evidence for the expansion of the universe and the existence of cosmological red shift, rather than the red shift being caused by the motion of galaxies through space.

 

It seems Chat PGT and Wikipedia pretty agree.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Eise

[Lorentz Jr]

There are also Big Bounce models, where the universe was large before 14 billion years ago, undergoing some kind of Big Crunch, and some as-yet-unknown (elastic) source of internal support prevented it from collapsing any further. I believe it provides an explanation for the uniformity of the universe's current state without requiring an inflationary phase, because the bounce prevented the quantum chaos from getting too extreme in the first place.

There's also Roger Penrose's Conformal cyclic cosmology, where each "aeon" of the universe somehow emerges from what was perceived as an infinite (or very long) amount of time in the previous aeon.

The main fact is that red-shifting of light from distant galaxies clearly suggests expansion of ... something ... regardless of whether it's "space itself" or whether there's some other explanation. The idea that other galaxies are red-shifted because they're at lower gravitational potentials than the Milky Way implies that our perspective is special. That's considered an unscientific hypothesis, because we haven't seen any evidence that the Milky is fundamentally different from other galaxies.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, JustJoe said:

Observations of space isn't possible so how can anyone conclude an expansion of space ? 

!

Moderator Note

From now on, if your post contains one of these famously ignorant assertions that force the rest of the members to correct you, or wonder why you aren't reading the supporting material, I'm tossing it to the Trash Can. We tried to give you some leeway, but you really are wasting everyone's time. 

 

[Mordred]

For those that want to better understand expansion and redshift including the three types of redshift.

Doppler

Gravitational redshift

Cosmological redshift

Read this article I wrote years ago

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

[swansont]

3 hours ago, JustJoe said:

From what I have read there is no evidence that space is expanding or has ever expanded in any way

!

Moderator Note

Then do more reading.

Posting to question mainstream science is speculation (which requires one to provide evidence and engage in technical discussion), and doing it here is thread hijacking (rule 2.5), and also runs afoul of our rule on good-faith posting (2.12)

 

 

4 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

So, an all-knowing scientist/prophet has written the holy text of the big bang theory and we should all believe, because those who do not believe in the exact wording shall be punished. Intepretations of the holy words are not allowed, nor any type of criticism, especially, if you are not familiar with the higher spheres of cosmology and do not hold a certain title granted by exclusive members of this high society. Is this the science we deserve after paying our taxes? Lol (common, this is a little joke, please laugh)

!

Moderator Note

This is also a violation of 2.12 (emphasis added)

Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

 

 

[tmdarkmatter]

2 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

The idea that other galaxies are red-shifted because they're at lower gravitational potentials than the Milky Way implies that our perspective is special. That's considered an unscientific hypothesis, because we haven't seen any evidence that the Milky is fundamentally different from other galaxies.

This is a part I am interested in. I wanted to ask you the following question:

We suppose that light coming from distant galaxies leaves these galaxies, has to travel up the well of these galaxies and when it arrives at our milky way, it recovers its original frequency going back down, because the well of our galaxy should be similar to the original one, so there is no red shifting because of gravity, it is all because of speed of the galaxies. That is what you are suggesting?

Ok, but what happens if during these 13 billions of years while this light is traveling, the universe changes from a huge bunch of galaxies with a high mass density to a similar huge bunch of galaxies with a slightly lower mass density. What I mean is that maybe the wells of all galaxies change from time to time and therefore the oldest light is more red shifted than the newer light, because it cannot enter a well of a similar size then when it left its own galaxy. Hubble created a link between speed of galaxies and red shift. What if this link is actually between time and red shift? We should not forget that in 13 billions of years the universe might change. For example, it might be possible that the black hole contained in each galaxy was smaller back then than it is now, so the well might have modified from a very flat but extended one to a more concentrated one in the middle. But don´t forget that we are not in the middle of our galaxy, so we might have "ascended" a little in our well during all this time. What you consider a special perspective might also be happening in all other galaxies, the well changes from time to time. On the other hand there is this massive amount of light leaving each galaxy, making all the stars losing some of their mass. This should also "ascend" us. Wasn´t the sun a little heavier a couple of billions of years ago than it is now?

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

what happens if during these 13 billions of years while this light is traveling, the universe changes from a huge bunch of galaxies with a high mass density to a similar huge bunch of galaxies with a slightly lower mass density.

So your theory is that mass has been disappearing from galaxies all this time? I don't think there's any variation in sizes or rotational speeds of galaxies, so that would be a counterargument. If mass had been "evaporating" from galaxies, younger ones (farther away) would have been larger or rotating faster than older ones (nearer) are now, and that hasn't been observed.

People occasionally hypothesize that maybe current theory inverts what's really happening, so things like the speed of light and the gravitational "constant" have been changing instead of space expanding. But that's not mainstream theory, and no one has presented any compelling arguments for preferring those ideas, so you should post questions like this in the Speculations area.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[Mordred]

+1 on that reply. To add to it though we can account for the redshifts though the procedure is somewhat complex as it involves additional data and surveys.

 In truth the redshift formulas commonly shown are the rudimentary forms. They can get rather complex depending on the circumstances.

We also don't depend on strictly redshift the cosmic distance ladder has different methods to cross check distance measures such as intergalactic parralax

Edited December 16, 2022 by Mordred

[MigL]

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

What if this link is actually between time and red shift? We should not forget that in 13 billions of years the universe might change.

So many misconceptions, so little time to explain.

Light has a maximum speed limit.
When you look far-away , you are looking into the past.
When you look at the Sun, you are seeing lght that left its surface 8.5 min ago; when you look at the nearest star, that light left it over 4 years ago.
We know what the universe looks like 10 billion light years away, so we know what it looked like 10 billion years ago.

Edited December 16, 2022 by MigL

[swansont]

7 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

if you compare the speed of our galaxy with the speed of the Andromeda galaxy towards us, there must certainly be some kind of observable red shifting, but this was not reported anywhere. But the blue shifting of Andromeda is being reported everywhere.

On the other hand, Pound-Rebka could measure the red-shifting caused by some 20 meters of gravity well in the Harvard tower?

!

Moderator Note

A key in discussing this is in quantifying the results. Something you continue to avoid doing, and has been pointed out as a requirement for you to discuss this topic.

 

[Lorentz Jr]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

When you look at the Sun, you are seeing lght that left its surface 8.5 min ago

8.3 😋

[JustJoe]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

From now on, if your post contains one of these famously ignorant assertions that force the rest of the members to correct you, or wonder why you aren't reading the supporting material, I'm tossing it to the Trash Can. We tried to give you some leeway, but you really are wasting everyone's time. 

 

Might as well ban me if on here you are going to ignore the actual physics and make up a load of rubbish . You know very well how we see and how we observe visible matter . You know very well that space does not emit or reflect light . 

I don't want to be part of a forum that is going to directly lie to people just to keep a theory ''alive'' . 

No offense but you are making this forum come across as ''religious'' rather than scientific . 

I also suggest other members quit this forum because it is nothing more than an American power trip ! 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

A key in discussing this is in quantifying the results. Something you continue to avoid doing, and has been pointed out as a requirement for you to discuss this topic.

 

Again , another moderator who wants to preach instead of discussing . Tm is right what he said about scientists

23 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

8.3 😋

Not true 

[Lorentz Jr]

5 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

No offense but you are making this forum come across as ''religious'' rather than scientific .

No offense, buddy, but you're talking about yourself. 😉

[JustJoe]

3 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

No offense, buddy, but you're talking about yourself. 😉

I talk about real physics not made up stuff , why are you defending outright lies ? 

 

Space cannot reflect or emit light , humans percieve space , they can't observe it . If there was no visible matter we'd see nothing but darkness . 

 

 

[MigL]

6 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

You know very well how we see and how we observe visible matter . You know very well that space does not emit or reflect light . 

OMFG !
Can you see air ????
Yet we are able to build planes that use properties of air to stay aloft and fly.
What the hell are you talking about

 

11 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

Might as well ban me if on here you are going to ignore the actual physics and make up a load of rubbish .

Phi probably has more Physics knowledge in the nail of his left pinky finger than you have in your head.
About the only good thought you've had since you joined is that we might as well ban you.

[JustJoe]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

OMFG !
Can you see air ????
Yet we are able to build planes that use properties of air to stay aloft and fly.
What the hell are you talking about

 

Phi probably has more Physics knowledge in the nail of his left pinky finger than you have in your head.
About the only good thought you've had since you joined is that we might as well ban you.

You can't see space for crying out loud , look up how we see if you don't beleive me . You can't see air for the same reason , air does not reflect or emit visible light . 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by JustJoe

[Lorentz Jr]

9 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

Not true 

I talk about real physics not made up stuff

You say the dumbest things sometimes, Joe. If two light beams leave Earth and the sun at the same time, observers on the sun and Earth will see those beams at the same time. That's what you said. But it's obvious, and it has nothing to do with the transit time, except that it's the same (except for a tiny gravitational correction) in both directions.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, JustJoe said:

Might as well ban me

!

Moderator Note

Thanks, it would be my pleasure! Merry Christmas, everybody else!

 

[JustJoe]

1 minute ago, Lorentz Jr said:

You say the dumbest things sometimes, Joe. If two light beams leave Earth and the sun at the same time, observers on the sun and Earth will see those beams at the same time. That's what you said. But it's obvious, and it has nothing to do with the transit time, except that it's the same (except for a tiny gravitational correction) in both directions.

I say correct things , my diagram shows exactly what you mentioned .