The Big Bang is actually the Big Crunch

[Land Mammal]

In order to explain the acceleration of galaxies, an observation which is the opposite of what Big Bang theory predicted, cosmologists have invoked the existence of a mysterious 'dark energy' which is drawing all the matter in the universe towards it. No explanation is given to explain what this newly postulated force of nature is, or how it exerts its effects. It is simply yet another 'fudge factor' that has been introduced to keep the Big Bang show on the road. However, an alternative explanation might be that the galaxies are under the influence of the only known force of nature capable of causing such acceleration - gravity. This would require the existence of a super-massive, non-luminous body in space (presumably a black hole) to which all the galaxies in the observable universe were being drawn.

If such a body existed, it seems unlikely that it would be the only such body in the universe, just as the Milky Way is not the only galaxy. There might be billions of such supermassive bodies, each drawing billions of galaxies towards them. This would mean that that which we call 'the observable universe' is merely a finite system of galaxies among many such finite systems in the 'universe at large'. The galaxies in our own observable universe might be under the influence of more than one 'Great Body', but their movments might equally well be caused by a single Great Body. So, in deference to Occam's Razor, I would propose a single Great Body.

If such a model could explain other observations such as the fact that the galaxies all seemed to be moving away from each other, then would it not deserve to replace the increasingly baroque and untenable Big Bang theory which requires us to believe so many unorthodox and unproven assumptions about the universe? I believe it should.

A simple 'thought experiment' reveals how the 'Gravity Model' would result in almost all the observable galaxies being redshifted. In 1994, comet Shoemaker-Levy was broken up by Jupiter's gravity into 22 discernible fragments up to 2km in diameter. The fragments were described as being like a 'string of pearls'. Imagine five of those 'pearls' in a line numbered 1 to 5 with 1 closest to Jupiter and 5 farthest away, with equal spacing between them. You, as the observer, are on number 3, the middle fragment. You have at your disposal, the most exquisitely sensitive scientific instruments capable of detecting minute differences in redshift, velocity and acceleration. You would see that the other four fragments were all redshifted. Fragments 2 and 4 would have the same redshift value. Fragments 1 and 5 would also have the same redshift value but their redshift would be higher than that of 2 and 4. In other words, the farther away a fragment is, the greater its redshift. This is not because the space between them is expanding, but because of the differential influence of Jupiter's gravitational pull with regard to the proximity of the fragments. Increasing redshift with increasing distance - exactly what we see when we look at the galaxies. Your instruments would also tell you that the fragments were accelerating.

However, it could be argued that the galaxies are not a two dimensional string of pearls. This is true. But, in whatever direction you look, the galaxies you see would either be closer to or farther away from the Great Body than yourself, and so would be redshifted. Nevertheless, this presents the Gravity Model with its most serious challenge. Big Bang theorists claim that the universe is isotropic. This means that galaxies at a given distance from the observer would be moving at the same velocity away from the observer in every direction. However, this idea that the universe is isotropic is simply not true. Various research groups have found that the recessional velocity of galaxies with similar intrinsic luminosities varies according to the direction in the sky in which the galaxy is to be found. One study adjudged minimum values to be around two thirds of the maximum. One might have expected a greater discrepancy. It may be that galaxies which lie in the direction of the Milky Way's galactic plane, and are therefore not seen, would provide more extreme values.

Another observation which Big Bang theory cannot explain is the 'peculiar' motion of galaxies. Galaxies are not simply moving away from the observer, they are also moving across the sky. This transverse component of their motion is called 'peculiar motion'. The gravity of huge superclusters of galaxies has been suggested as an explanation for peculiar motion, but no such superclusters have ever been found. In the Gravity Model, the galaxies will not simply be travelling towards the Great Body in a straight line. Instead, they will be spiralling towards it, and the 'peculiar' motion is the transverse component of their spiral path.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is explained as relic radiation from the Big Bang. I have read that the 2.7K temperature of the CMBR could be caused by hydrogen clouds, but that astronomers have not been able to detect enough clouds to account for it. If the observable universe is a finite system, as it must be in the Gravity Model, then the question arises as to what lies beyond it. The answer must be that it is a hydrogen field, since galaxies cannot condense out of nothingness. This hydrogen field would envelop the observable universe and presumably radiates at 2.7K. It is the source of galaxies and astronomers have observed giant highly flattened 'pancakes' of hydrogen containing up to 10 to the power of 14 solar masses. It seems likely that these are the precursors of large clusters of galaxies, and they are being drawn into the observable universe by the gravity of the Great Body. Thus, galaxies are being continously created.

The Gravity Model creates a cosmos with two regions - the region closer to the Great Body than the observer, and the region farther away from it than the observer. For brevity's sake, I will call these regions 'inside' and 'outside'. One might expect that the galaxies in either region would exhibit subtle differences, either individually or collectively. Galaxies old and young coexist in the same regions in space, but it is tempting to think that there would be a statistically significant excess of old ellipticals 'inside', and younger galaxies 'outside', although I am not aware of any research that indicates this.

Galaxies 'inside' would be travelling at greater velocity, and would be pulling away from their neighbours to a greater degree than galaxies 'outside'. This might result in their being fewer galaxies per square degree 'inside' than 'outside'. At the same time, galaxies 'inside' would be converging towards the Great Body and this could produce the opposite effect. The Great Body will have an enormous influence on galaxy formation, but this influence will be weaker 'outside', and this, too, could result in subtle differences between the two regions.

It has been a long standing puzzle that there is a statistically significant difference in the number of galaxies which can be seen in each square degree of the northern and southern skies. This cannot be accommodated within the Big Bang model, and is something of an embarrassment, so little is heard about it. A possible explanation for it might be the differences between the two regions.

Orbiting systems, such as the rings of Saturn, or a spiral galaxy, often exhibit striation effects. The galaxies are not orbiting the Great Body, but their spiral path towards it could be described as 'quasi-orbital' and would exhibit similar striation effects. The large scale structure of the observable universe seems to consist of very long filamentary galactic superclusters and enormous voids. It is hard to envisage how this could come about in a Big Bang universe, but is consistent with the idea that striation effects would be evident in the Gravity Model.

Big Bang theory also creates difficulties for itself with regard to the 'age of the universe paradox' and the 'light horizon' problem. To solve the latter, inflation theory was born. This tells us that when the universe was between 10 to the -35 and 10 to the -32 seconds old, it underwent a faster than light 10 to the power of 50 expansion - to the size of a grapefruit. The Gravity Model does not create these problems.


SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS AND EXPLANATIONS

CMBR (BB) Relic radiation from the Big Bang (GM) Hydrogen field.

EXISTENCE OF GALAXIES (BB) Big Bang density fluctuations (GM) Condensate from hydrogen field.

REDSHIFT OF GALAXIES (BB) Expansion of space (GM) Gravity of Great Body.

INCREASING REDSHIFT WITH INCREASING DISTANCE (BB) Expansion of space (GM) Gravity of Great Body.

ACCELERATION OF GALAXIES (BB) Dark energy (GM) Gravity of Great Body.

REDSHIFT ANISOTROPY (BB) Not explained (GM) Galaxies at the same distance from the observer in different directions are at different distances from the Great Body.

DIFFERENCE IN NUMBER OF GALAXIES BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN HEMISPHERES (BB) Not explained (GM) Observable universe in the direction of the Great Body is older than in the opposite direction.

'PECULIAR' MOTION (BB) Undiscovered 'Great Wall' of galaxies (GM) Transverse component of the spiral path of the galaxies towards the Great Body.

AGE OF UNIVERSE PARADOX (BB) Not explained (GM) No explanation necessary.

LIGHT HORIZON PROBLEM (BB) Inflation theory (GM) No explanation necessary.

[Moontanman]

In order to explain the acceleration of galaxies, an observation which is the opposite of what Big Bang theory predicted, cosmologists have invoked the existence of a mysterious 'dark energy' which is drawing all the matter in the universe towards it. No explanation is given to explain what this newly postulated force of nature is, or how it exerts its effects. It is simply yet another 'fudge factor' that has been introduced to keep the Big Bang show on the road. However, an alternative explanation might be that the galaxies are under the influence of the only known force of nature capable of causing such acceleration - gravity. This would require the existence of a super-massive, non-luminous body in space (presumably a black hole) to which all the galaxies in the observable universe were being drawn.

 

 

 

Dark Energy is not pulling the universe towards it... Dark Energy is pushing the universe apart...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

[Land Mammal]

Dark Energy is not pulling the universe towards it... Dark Energy is pushing the universe apart...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

 

 

So they say. And causing the galaxies to accelerate, too. Gravity is the only known force of nature to cause acceleration. Why invoke the existence of a completely new force of nature about which absolutely nothing is known to explain galactic acceleration, when it can be explained by the gravitational pull of a huge body in space?

 

Answer: because the gravity explanation would be the final nail in the coffin of Big Bang theory, which must be preserved at all costs.

[Moontanman]

So they say. And causing the galaxies to accelerate, too. Gravity is the only known force of nature to cause acceleration. Why invoke the existence of a completely new force of nature about which absolutely nothing is known to explain galactic acceleration, when it can be explained by the gravitational pull of a huge body in space?

 

Answer: because the gravity explanation would be the final nail in the coffin of Big Bang theory, which must be preserved at all costs.

 

 

No, gravity would pull everything in one direction, in fact everything can be shown to be moving away from everything else in all directions...

[Land Mammal]

No, gravity would pull everything in one direction, in fact everything can be shown to be moving away from everything else in all directions...

 

I explained how gravity increases the distance between galaxies in the opening post. Galaxies closer to the Great Body than the observer are moving towards it at greater velocity, so are receding. Galaxies further away from the Great Body than the observer are moving towards it more slowly, so they also are receding. Redshifts everywhere.

[ACG52]

So they say. And causing the galaxies to accelerate, too. Gravity is the only known force of nature to cause acceleration. Why invoke the existence of a completely new force of nature about which absolutely nothing is known to explain galactic acceleration, when it can be explained by the gravitational pull of a huge body in space?

 

Because it can't be explained by a huge body in space. If that were the case, everything would be moving in the direction of the body. Instead, we see everything moving away from everything else.

 

Given that your initial premise defies observations, your entire thesis is bupkis.

[Land Mammal]

Because it can't be explained by a huge body in space. If that were the case, everything would be moving in the direction of the body. Instead, we see everything moving away from everything else.

 

Given that your initial premise defies observations, your entire thesis is bupkis.

 

Quite wrong. Everything is moving in the direction of the Great Body, but this causes everything to be redshifted, as I've already explained twice. This may give the impression that galaxies are all moving directly away from each other, but this is a false impression.

[Moontanman]

Quite wrong. Everything is moving in the direction of the Great Body, but this causes everything to be redshifted, as I've already explained twice. This may give the impression that galaxies are all moving directly away from each other, but this is a false impression.

 

 

I don't think you understand what red shift means, given your strings on a pearl analogy you would not see any of the fragments as red shifted, from your perspective on the third fragment the others would be traveling the same speed as you and not be red shifted...

[Land Mammal]

I don't think you understand what red shift means, given your strings on a pearl analogy you would not see any of the fragments as red shifted, from your perspective on the third fragment the others would be traveling the same speed as you and not be red shifted...

 

I understand very well what red shift means. It's a Doppler effect. The wavelength of light is stretched as objects recede from the observer. In the 'string of pearls' example, the effect would be miniscule, but evident,. nonetheless. Fragments closer to Jupiter would be moving towards it more quickly, due to its stronger gravitational pull on them, so their light wavelength would be stretched, creating a redshift. Strictly speaking, objects whose light is reflected, rather than intrinsic, don't show a red shift, but that's an irrelevant, academic point.

[Moontanman]

I understand very well what red shift means. It's a Doppler effect. The wavelength of light is stretched as objects recede from the observer. In the 'string of pearls' example, the effect would be miniscule, but evident,. nonetheless. Fragments closer to Jupiter would be moving towards it more quickly, due to its stronger gravitational pull on them, so their light wavelength would be stretched, creating a redshift. Strictly speaking, objects whose light is reflected, rather than intrinsic, don't show a red shift, but that's an irrelevant, academic point.

 

 

Even if I grant you the inner fragments would be red shifted the outer ones would be blue shifted from your perspective...

[michel123456]

Even if I grant you the inner fragments would be red shifted the outer ones would be blue shifted from your perspective...

If all the fragments are in (the same) acceleration, then Land Mammal is correct.

 

-----------------

(edit) ONLY the fragments that are parallel to you at the same time would look ....parallel. All the others would look like going away.

Edited March 13, 2013 by michel123456

[Land Mammal]

Even if I grant you the inner fragments would be red shifted the outer ones would be blue shifted from your perspective...

 

No, they'd only be blue shifted if they were 'catching up' with the observer. As the effect of Jupiter's gravitational pull on them is weaker than on the observer's fragment, they'd be receding from the observer. When the recession is due to the observer travelling with greater velocity than the observed object, this also creates a red shift, although it's maybe a little harder to visualize.

[michel123456]

Quoting myself

You are sitting in your car at a red light. You are
the second in a line.

The light turns green, and the car in front of you starts.

After one second of delay, you are starting too.

After 2 seconds of delay, the car behind you starts.



The first car accelerates.

You are accelerating .

The third car behind you accelerates too.

The 3 cars are in accelerating motion with a delay of
1 sec between them.

What are you observing?

IF all 3 cars have the same constant acceleration:

you are observing the car in front of you moving away from you, and looking in
the mirror, you are also observing the car behind you moving away.

In other words, all the cars are receding from you.

The effect is caused by acceleration and delay.

And Land Mammal is correct for his analogy because:

 

1. gravity corresponds to an acceleration

2. delay is caused by the finite rate of C.

On the other hand the effect cannot explain recessing velocities over C.

[Moontanman]

Can the effect explain why acceleration of galaxies away from each other is increasing as the distance increases?

[Land Mammal]

Can the effect explain why acceleration of galaxies away from each other is increasing as the distance increases?

 

In the Gravity Model, the greater the distance between galaxies (those in a straight line going through the observer's galaxy, from the Great Body), the greater the red shift. Galaxies at a distance of 'X' in front of the observer, should have about the same red shift as those at a distance of 'X' behind the observer.

 

However, the universe is not a straight line. Galaxies at a distance of 'X' to the left or right, or 'up' and 'down' of the observer would have a smaller red shift. Big Bang theory states that the red shift is isotropic, which means that galaxies at a distance of 'X' in any direction, should have the same red shift. However, this is not borne out by observations, which show that galaxies at the same distance (judged by their intrinsic luminosities) in different directions have different red shifts. This is incompatible with Big Bang theory, but is what would be expected in the Gravity Model.

[michel123456]

Can the effect explain why acceleration of galaxies away from each other is increasing as the distance increases?

It explains why VELOCITY increases as the distance increases. Acceleration should be the same everywhere.

 

----------------------------

And also (in order to support the speculation) if the "great body" is realy HUGE (that is many times larger than the observable universe) then one could consider that all galaxies roughly travel in a parallel course to each other. The same way we consider that all the rays of light coming from the sun are parallel to each other when reaching the Earth.

 

But, again (in order to destroy the speculation) the model does not explain recessing velocities faster than light.

[pwagen]

I'm an artist at heart, trust me. But take a look at this picture and answer something, if you don't mind.

 

 

 

The green is this big thing that the universe is headed for. White dots are other galaxies. Yellow is Earth, while the orange blobs A, B, C and D are all galaxies at about the same distance away from us.

 

Now, according to your theory, unless I'm getting you wrong, A and C would have the same redshift (for reasons you posted above, regardless of whether they're actually accurate). But what about B and D? They are moving towards the green Universe eater at exactly the same speed. So that means, they wouldn't be redshifted.

 

In reality though, they are. Why?

 

Edit: Sorry, messed up the image link. Should work now.

Edited March 13, 2013 by pwagen

[Land Mammal]

It explains why VELOCITY increases as the distance increases. Acceleration should be the same everywhere.

 

----------------------------

And also (in order to support the speculation) if the "great body" is realy HUGE (that is many times larger than the observable universe) then one could consider that all galaxies roughly travel in a parallel course to each other. The same way we consider that all the rays of light coming from the sun are parallel to each other when reaching the Earth.

 

But, again (in order to destroy the speculation) the model does not explain recessing velocities faster than light.

 

My view is that the Great Body would be far more massive than all the galaxies in the observable universe. It would also be far more ancient, and would be travelling through space at very high velocity, probably influenced by the gravity of other Great Bodies.

 

I'm an artist at heart, trust me. But take a look at this picture and answer something, if you don't mind.

 

 

 

The green is this big thing that the universe is headed for. White dots are other galaxies. Yellow is Earth, while the orange blobs A, B, C and D are all galaxies at about the same distance away from us.

 

Now, according to your theory, unless I'm getting you wrong, A and C would have the same redshift (for reasons you posted above, regardless of whether they're actually accurate). But what about B and D? They are moving towards the green Universe eater at exactly the same speed. So that means, they wouldn't be redshifted.

 

In reality though, they are. Why?

 

Edit: Sorry, messed up the image link. Should work now.

 

You are absolutely correct, pwagen. This is the Gravity Model's greatest challenge. But, they would have to be at exactly the same distance from the Great Body to show no red shift. In reality, they'd be slightly ahead, or slightly behind us, so would have a small red shift.

 

Galaxy surveys are usually conducted in regions where viewing conditions are optimal. They're not conducted in regions where viewing is most obscured by the Milky Way. Let's suppose that the 'attitude' of the Milky Way in space is such that the disc faces the Great Body. Galaxy surveys would be conducted in directions where there was least obscuration. Those directions would be towards, or directly away from, the Great Body. They wouldn't be conducted in regions B and D in your illustration, but those are the directions where you'd find anomalously small redshifts.

 

Nevertheless, astronomers have detected galaxies with anomalously small red shifts, dependent on the direction in space. The discrepancies are not great, up to 33% less than their distances (judged by intrinsic luminosities) would suggest, but this is supportive of the Gravity Model. I believe much greater discrepancies await to be discovered

[ACG52]

The pearls on a string analogy only works directly along the line of movement. When looking in ANY direction, along the entire sphere of the observable universe, we see the same degree of redshift, correlated with the distance.

 

Your model just doesn't match observation. Not to mention the CMBR, or the ratio of the primordial elements.

 

You seem to have read of the Great Attractor and how the local group is moving in the direction of Virgo, and somehow managed to coflate that with cosmic expansion.

[Land Mammal]

The pearls on a string analogy only works directly along the line of movement. When looking in ANY direction, along the entire sphere of the observable universe, we see the same degree of redshift, correlated with the distance.

 

Your model just doesn't match observation. Not to mention the CMBR, or the ratio of the primordial elements.

 

You seem to have read of the Great Attractor and how the local group is moving in the direction of Virgo, and somehow managed to coflate that with cosmic expansion.

 

 

No, galactic red shifts vary according to the direction in the sky. Red shift isotropy is a myth.

 

The model matches observations better than the Big Bang model, as can be seen in 'Summary of observations and explanations', in the opening post. The ratio of elements is irrelevant.

 

Despite much searching, scientists have been unable to find a 'Great Attractor' to account for 'peculiar motion'. It is another myth.

[ACG52]

No, galactic red shifts vary according to the direction in the sky. Red shift isotropy is a myth.

 

Citation please.

[Land Mammal]

Citation please.

 

I'm sure you could google it for yourself. Here's one paper. It's very technical, and I don't pretend to understand most of it, but you'll get the drift. Starts off with quasars, then Seyferts, and then superclusters. I think you'd be better off just taking my word for it. Red shift isotropy is a myth.

 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512276.pdf

[ACG52]

I think you'd be better off just taking my word for it

.

That's one of the more humorous pieces of silliness I've seen posted here lately.

 

 

 

Red shift isotropy is a myth

.

Can't show it by that paper. The author is a particle physicst working almost exclusively for the last 20 years with cosmic ray interactions with the atmosphere. His paper on arxiv was apparently rejected by Physics of Atomic Nuclei.

 

I'm sure you could google it for yourself.

 

But since I don't accept your premise, why would I try to find evidence to support it? You made the extraordinary claim, you supply the evidence. And the paper you submitted certainly isn't sufficient.

 

Take your word for it? You must be joking.

Edited March 14, 2013 by ACG52

[michel123456]

I'm an artist at heart, trust me. But take a look at this picture and answer something, if you don't mind.

 

 

 

The green is this big thing that the universe is headed for. White dots are other galaxies. Yellow is Earth, while the orange blobs A, B, C and D are all galaxies at about the same distance away from us.

 

Now, according to your theory, unless I'm getting you wrong, A and C would have the same redshift (for reasons you posted above, regardless of whether they're actually accurate). But what about B and D? They are moving towards the green Universe eater at exactly the same speed. So that means, they wouldn't be redshifted.

 

In reality though, they are. Why?

 

Edit: Sorry, messed up the image link. Should work now.

Interesting question.

Here below your splendid diagram stolen by me, with a slight addition:

 

You must remember that the effect is based on 2 things:

1. acceleration

2. delay

 

In our case, the delay is NOT caused by a difference of the starting time, it is supposed that we all started at the same instant, call it the Big Bang or the Big Crunch.

The delay is caused by Speed Of Light.

In the diagram above, when objects B and D are where they are, an observer on the Earth observes them as they were in the past, at points B' and D'.

Points B' and D' represent objects that had a smaller velocity than Earth, and thus are receding.

 

 

All the objects that are seen from the Earth are seen as they were in the past, IOW they are all delayed (they are all "behind"), thus they all have a different velocity with the Earth. We cannot observe objects that are in the future, so we cannot observe objects that "departed before us" as in the accelerating cars analogy.

Edited March 14, 2013 by michel123456