Electric Universe

[Biblewriter]

I just ran across the "electric universe" theory, and its proponents seem to have a significant amount of data to back up their theory. I am very interested in their claim that if their theories are correct, then the entire "Big Bang" theory has zero basis.

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

 

[metherion]

I would respectfully say that

I am very interested in their claim that if their theories are correct, then the entire "Big Bang" theory has zero basis.

is incorrect.

And I say this not as a TE, but as a scientist.

If it is correct, then the Big Bang might be wrong, but that doesn't mean it has zero basis.

For instance, take phlogiston. We now know it to be wrong, but the idea did have a basis: that things in certain atmospheres did not burn. The idea did have a basis, even if it turned out to be wrong.

Or take the Big Bang. There are things like cosmic redshift and the background microwave radiation that are reasons for thinking the Big Bang happened. If the BB is wrong, that does not mean these pieces of data vanish, it means they were misunderstood. They were still the basis for the BB, so the claim it has zero basis isn't correct. It means that it has a basis UNTIL a certain piece of evidence is looked at.

Maybe I'm being a bit too semantic, but since the idea was around and has some explanatory power, it must have had some basis in reality. That basis might be shown wrong later, but it does exist, and did exist before the new discovery showing it wrong, so saying it had zero basis would be wrong.

Note: For the purpose of this post, to try and be in fellowship, I am not saying that EU is right or wrong, or that BB is right/wrong, just that IF EU shows BB to be wrong, the claim that BB never had any basis is one I would disagree with. There must have been some idea, some basis, to come up with the BB theory, and that would render the claim that it has zero basis wrong.
Metherion

 

[Biblewriter]

I would respectfully say that

is incorrect.

And I say this not as a TE, but as a scientist.

If it is correct, then the Big Bang might be wrong, but that doesn't mean it has zero basis.

For instance, take phlogiston. We now know it to be wrong, but the idea did have a basis: that things in certain atmospheres did not burn. The idea did have a basis, even if it turned out to be wrong.

Or take the Big Bang. There are things like cosmic redshift and the background microwave radiation that are reasons for thinking the Big Bang happened. If the BB is wrong, that does not mean these pieces of data vanish, it means they were misunderstood. They were still the basis for the BB, so the claim it has zero basis isn't correct. It means that it has a basis UNTIL a certain piece of evidence is looked at.

Maybe I'm being a bit too semantic, but since the idea was around and has some explanatory power, it must have had some basis in reality. That basis might be shown wrong later, but it does exist, and did exist before the new discovery showing it wrong, so saying it had zero basis would be wrong.

Note: For the purpose of this post, to try and be in fellowship, I am not saying that EU is right or wrong, or that BB is right/wrong, just that IF EU shows BB to be wrong, the claim that BB never had any basis is one I would disagree with. There must have been some idea, some basis, to come up with the BB theory, and that would render the claim that it has zero basis wrong.
Metherion

They claim that they have solid data proving that red shift does not indicate distance. They claim numerous photographs show galaxies in close proximity with dramatically different red shifts, and at least one of a high red shift galaxy between us and a low red shift galaxy.

If this is true, and I am not saying it is, then red shift does not indicate distance and its "evidence" is not indeed evidence at all.

 

[miamited]

Hi Biblewriter,

Well, one day we will all know the truth about the creative event. Until then I'm sticking with what the Holy Spirit convicts to my spirit through the word.

All of this realm of creation - from one end of the universe to the other - about 6,000 years old. Start to finish - 6 days.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Biblewriter]

Hi Biblewriter,

Well, one day we will all know the truth about the creative event. Until then I'm sticking with what the Holy Spirit convicts to my spirit through the word.

All of this realm of creation - from one end of the universe to the other - about 6,000 years old. Start to finish - 6 days.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. (1 Timothy 6:20-21)

 

[natsys]

Dear Biblewriter ...

I joined this forum when my Electric Universe (EU) search tools on the net threw up your question and the responses to it you have so far received. With respect to the opinions already expressed, I can assure you that the EU theories are substantially correct, so I encourage you to continue asking questions.

The redshift aspect you refer to arises from the work on Dr Halton Arp. He used to be a student of Edwin Hubble during that man's major astro-research period in the 30s at the Mount Palomar Observatory in the US. That was the time when Hubble came up with the original redshift theory inferring the "distance and acceleration" interpretation. By the way, Hubble eventually disagreed with his original assessment of redshift, but it was too late, the "conveniently suitable" interpretation of redshift had already been adopted completely by astro-science and religion. During that same time, Halton Arp determined through his rigorously documented study of "strange galaxies" that the previously supposed deep-space objects we refer to as "quasars", they having a high redshift (z) factor associated with them, could actually be observed as being physically joined to certain low z factor fully formed galaxies - the low z factor identifying those structures as being very much closer to us - if, of course, the adopted interpretation of redshift was correct!

When Arp tried to publish these findings and due to the potential impact they would have he lost his position at Mount Palomar, found that he couldn't get his papers published in scientific journals, was denied time on any other US telescopes and was therefore rendered ineffective in the eyes of the establishment of the day. This is an injustice well known in astro-science. The result of this was that he moved to work at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin. He still lives today, and I personally had the honour of attending the presentation of the SAGNAC Award to him (actually to his representative) in Maryland University last week at the 18th annual Natural Philosophy Alliance conference. This award is considered as the "maverick scientists" equivalent to the Nobel Prize.

So, Biblewriter, I can tell you that you are not wrong in doubting the efficacy of the redshift interpretation that infers the actuality of a Big Bang event. There was no such thing and intelligent minds must find other answers. Forget what is said about the big bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, neutron and radio stars, pulsars, magnetars and all the other inventions that the mainstream maths-led astro-scientists have concocted to support the standard model. I can either answer questions around this and the Electric Universe theories that anyone wishes to fire at me or point people in the best direction for them to find these things out for themselves. All you need is an open-minded approach backed up with common sense and a bit of logical thinking capability.

Just so as you know, redshift consists of two components - one is "recessional" redshift, this relates to motion and is very much the minor component, and the other major one is "intrinsic", which relates to the age of the object. The reason that age creeps in is to do with the ionisation potential and levels of ionisation reached by the material involved in the body of the quasar, this mainly being a gaseous hydrogen and other heavier element plasma. The radiated energy produced by this plasma structure is at such a high level in its early life as to emit gamma and x-rays profusely. Quasars are in fact expelled in pairs from the nuclei of AGNs (active galaxies) because their own central plasmoids are being electrically over-stressed. Quasars are now observed located on both sides of galaxies as proof of this.

If you are really interested to pursue this I suggest you look at the thunderbolts.info and holoscinece.com websites for your answers. It is early days in the EU camp but the standard model of the universe is doomed to failure, it actually has been for a very long time but it just won't lie down, there has been too much invested in it, and so it is only the self-interest of many keeps the cadaver propped up.

I will leave you with this ... there are four fundamental forces generally talked about - the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity. Keeping in mind that gravity is and has always been hailed to be responsible for everything that has form in the universe, it might shock you to be aware that the electromagnetic force is fundamentally, one thousand, billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravity ... yes, that is a one with thirty nine zeros after it. How on earth could this be ignored by astro-science you might ask! Well, they set their original course early in the 1900s (that's another story) and they have the ears of the public to whom they have always said that charge separated plasma cannot exist in space. If they admitted to this being true, which it is, it would prove electrical activity does take place in space and would blow any notion of "powerful and dominant gravity" out of the water. This is their position despite the cascade of evidence to the contrary that has existed for many decades and which began with the work of people such as Irving Langmuir. I'll leave things at that for now and wish you, and those others who may be interested, good studying

 

[2thePoint]

Natsys, thanks for posting. I've come across those sites in the past as well as the Cosmology Statement that rejects the BB and leans toward the plasma model. Have you seen the site Common Sense Science? If so, I'd be interested in your opinion and how their theories mesh with EU.

 

[natsys]

Hi 2TP ...

Yes, I am aware of the commonsensescience.org website but I have not trawled through it as yet. The reason for that is quite straightforward, so I'll give you the potted version ...

With a technical background in electrical engineering, electronics and radio I had for many years studied the gravity-centric standard model of the universe. This effort left me rather dissatisfied because of its patchwork complexity and apparent constant reliance on "inspired ideas", "assumptions" and "unproven mathematical proofs". I left these studies a couple of years ago with all that learning still in my head but also with great confusion around its overall coherent message and practicality.

18 months ago, purely by accident, I came across the "Thunderbolts of the Gods" video on YouTube. Given my background I assimilated the information it presented very quickly and intuitively saw that it could present a much more plausible set of answers as to how our universe works. In short, I had become solidly engaged with the pursuit of more knowledge in that area because it seemed to promise an answer to what the fundamental force is that rules everything - and apparently, that wasn't going to be gravity! It is also interesting to note that standard astronomy does not include the study of electrical or magnetic science, hence a great reason for today's astronomers NOT to see the relevance of these aspects.

Since then and through a lot of work I have become an ardent proponent of the Electric Universe (EU) model and theories because of what I have learned and would classify as common sense and logical theories and thinking processes. In the beginning when the broad EU picture became clear, I was so motivated to offer this information to others that I created and presented a rather large presentation for my local radio club, of which I am a member. My fellow radio hams got the message immediately due mainly to their ability to draw on their basic technical knowledge and experience of electrical and radio fundamentals, magnetic force theory and the electromagnetic spectrum. The presentation itself lasted 8 hours - this actually being 2 hour sessions over 4 evenings because I was constantly being asked back to say more about the overall subject area. And please believe me, the hobby of amateur radio is not populated by fools!

Experiencing the success of getting through so quickly to a group of interested technically-aware people made me think what more I could do, so I decided to write a book for the real layman about it all. I had previously read the main books available and many web articles, and also due to my independent activities becoming known to the main Electric Universe group, I was invited into a private forum where many scientists, authors and technical researchers sympathetic to EU theories are members. All this gave me a great grounding to write something truly intended for the layman, because what I had read to that point that claimed to be aimed at the layman, absolutely was not. Much of it assumed previous knowledge of physics, electrical and magnetic principles and mathematics. There was also a new lexicon of terms to engage with. This was why I started writing my book where I intended it to have none of this, and so should be understandable by the typical interested lay person. The book is now 80% complete.

What I have said so far is really the reason I have not had the time for exploring some of the other websites and forums etc. The long-term experts I am now in contact with have already engaged with and currently have presences on these websites and in various other forums, so they can answer much more detail than I can about EU theories. This is not to diminish what I can achieve myself in responding to first-line questions about EU theories.

The bottom line is that my task at present is to finish my book and so I must rely on other EU proponents to know about and engage with websites and forums, whether supportive of EU theories or not. This is a big story; it is in fact the biggest story if one chooses to follow it seriously. I now hold the view that it links plausible and proven science with the fact that something all-powerful exists for us to find, understand and follow.

One other clear piece of learning I have gone through has arisen from exposure to the arrogance and self-interest of today's mainstream astro-science establishment with their narrow-minded focus on maintaining the story that gravity is responsible for everything in our universe - it is not! Interestingly, these same human failings can also be seen in geology, anthropology, archaeology - in fact, all of the areas in which we have been presented with "evidence for our own interpretation". Unfortunately, we seem to have set the course in all these areas many years ago, and now appear reluctant to consider better paths. At the end of the 18th century what we know today as "science" with all its individual disciplines was referred to as "Natural Philosophy" because all the scientists talked to each other. Since then islands of self-interested and commercial activity have developed and communications have broken down between these disciplines. The Electric Universe group and the NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance) are opposed to this and call for a return to interdisciplinary science where there is no reason to have barriers to research and discovery and commercial and personal interests cannot steer the boat!

If you really want to get a grip on how the likes of the commonsensescience.org website meshes with EU theories I suggest you take a look at the Thunderbolts forum - you may even decide to join and ask some questions. I DO wish you great discoveries

(I see that being a newbie I am not allowed to post URLs yet so if interested, you'll need to copy, paste and remove the two spaces from this link.)

w w w.thunderbolts.info/thunderbolts_forum.htm

natsys

 

[2thePoint]

Again, thanks for that, natsys. Even with my humble AAS in Electronic Engineering back in the 80s it seemed to me that since everything is made of atoms, and every atom is something of an electromagnet, then the whole universe must be electromagnetic in nature. So when I came across the EU and CSS sites in the past year or so I immediately accepted them.

For convenience since I can do links, here is a clickable link to the thunderbolts forum.

 

[shernren]

Most alternative cosmologies to the Big Bang are steady state: that is, they posit that the universe has always existed and will always exist, without having any temporal starting point. As far as I know, the electric universe / plasma cosmology model is the same.

Now I happen to believe personally that the Big Bang theory is compatible with Scripture. But even if you don't agree with me on that, I hope you'll agree that at least the Big Bang allows us to say "In the beginning ... " along with Genesis 1:1. But in any steady state theory, the universe doesn't even have a beginning, and so you have to take your scissors to even the first three words of the Bible.

Whether that is better or worse than the Big Bang is up to you, but I will note that most large, established creationist groups (e.g. AiG / ICR) don't pay any attention to this type of non-standard cosmologies. What they tend to do is to accept the general framework of Big Bang theory (Einstein's general relativity, Hubble's law connecting redshift and distance, etc.) but then compress all those processes so they occur in under six thousand years.

 

[2thePoint]

Shernren, I don't see any steady-state theory as somehow incompatible with scripture. We observe that the physical universe exists and is running down, and logically understand that things cannot cause themselves, so it had to have been brought into existence by an external, non-physical, eternal, intelligent being. Even the BB's singularity had to come from somewhere.

 

[shernren]

Shernren, I don't see any steady-state theory as somehow incompatible with scripture. We observe that the physical universe exists and is running down, and logically understand that things cannot cause themselves, so it had to have been brought into existence by an external, non-physical, eternal, intelligent being. Even the BB's singularity had to come from somewhere.

Perhaps not incompatible with general Christian belief, but I think it is incompatible specifically with a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1:1. Would you agree?

 

[2thePoint]

Perhaps not incompatible with general Christian belief, but I think it is incompatible specifically with a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1:1. Would you agree?

Not really. To make something suddenly appear is not necessarily to explode a singularity of magically infinite density.

 

[shernren]

Not really. To make something suddenly appear is not necessarily to explode a singularity of magically infinite density.

What I was saying is that a steady-state universe (such as the electric universe, from what I understand) would be incompatible with Genesis 1:1's "in the beginning"; a steady-state universe simply wouldn't have a beginning, with there being (as far as the scientific model goes) an infinite past. Do you think that's true?

 

[2thePoint]

What I was saying is that a steady-state universe (such as the electric universe, from what I understand) would be incompatible with Genesis 1:1's "in the beginning"; a steady-state universe simply wouldn't have a beginning, with there being (as far as the scientific model goes) an infinite past. Do you think that's true?

Again, to create is the quintessential "beginning". But we do have statements to the effect that God "stretched out the heavens", which some have theorized might refer to a white hole model, and even a surface reading of Genesis shows a progression. But once completed it was in a steady state (God "rested").

If the specific meaning of "steady state" per the EU assumes the universe is eternally existent, then of course there is a conflict, but I don't know that it does so necessarily. We would need a precise definition from someone more expert on the theory. Yet as I said, the universe is running down so it cannot be eternal.

 

[Biblewriter]

Dear Biblewriter ...

I joined this forum when my Electric Universe (EU) search tools on the net threw up your question and the responses to it you have so far received. With respect to the opinions already expressed, I can assure you that the EU theories are substantially correct, so I encourage you to continue asking questions.

The redshift aspect you refer to arises from the work on Dr Halton Arp. He used to be a student of Edwin Hubble during that man's major astro-research period in the 30s at the Mount Palomar Observatory in the US. That was the time when Hubble came up with the original redshift theory inferring the "distance and acceleration" interpretation. By the way, Hubble eventually disagreed with his original assessment of redshift, but it was too late, the "conveniently suitable" interpretation of redshift had already been adopted completely by astro-science and religion. During that same time, Halton Arp determined through his rigorously documented study of "strange galaxies" that the previously supposed deep-space objects we refer to as "quasars", they having a high redshift (z) factor associated with them, could actually be observed as being physically joined to certain low z factor fully formed galaxies - the low z factor identifying those structures as being very much closer to us - if, of course, the adopted interpretation of redshift was correct!

When Arp tried to publish these findings and due to the potential impact they would have he lost his position at Mount Palomar, found that he couldn't get his papers published in scientific journals, was denied time on any other US telescopes and was therefore rendered ineffective in the eyes of the establishment of the day. This is an injustice well known in astro-science. The result of this was that he moved to work at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin. He still lives today, and I personally had the honour of attending the presentation of the SAGNAC Award to him (actually to his representative) in Maryland University last week at the 18th annual Natural Philosophy Alliance conference. This award is considered as the "maverick scientists" equivalent to the Nobel Prize.

So, Biblewriter, I can tell you that you are not wrong in doubting the efficacy of the redshift interpretation that infers the actuality of a Big Bang event. There was no such thing and intelligent minds must find other answers. Forget what is said about the big bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, neutron and radio stars, pulsars, magnetars and all the other inventions that the mainstream maths-led astro-scientists have concocted to support the standard model. I can either answer questions around this and the Electric Universe theories that anyone wishes to fire at me or point people in the best direction for them to find these things out for themselves. All you need is an open-minded approach backed up with common sense and a bit of logical thinking capability.

Just so as you know, redshift consists of two components - one is "recessional" redshift, this relates to motion and is very much the minor component, and the other major one is "intrinsic", which relates to the age of the object. The reason that age creeps in is to do with the ionisation potential and levels of ionisation reached by the material involved in the body of the quasar, this mainly being a gaseous hydrogen and other heavier element plasma. The radiated energy produced by this plasma structure is at such a high level in its early life as to emit gamma and x-rays profusely. Quasars are in fact expelled in pairs from the nuclei of AGNs (active galaxies) because their own central plasmoids are being electrically over-stressed. Quasars are now observed located on both sides of galaxies as proof of this.

If you are really interested to pursue this I suggest you look at the thunderbolts.info and holoscinece.com websites for your answers. It is early days in the EU camp but the standard model of the universe is doomed to failure, it actually has been for a very long time but it just won't lie down, there has been too much invested in it, and so it is only the self-interest of many keeps the cadaver propped up.

I will leave you with this ... there are four fundamental forces generally talked about - the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity. Keeping in mind that gravity is and has always been hailed to be responsible for everything that has form in the universe, it might shock you to be aware that the electromagnetic force is fundamentally, one thousand, billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravity ... yes, that is a one with thirty nine zeros after it. How on earth could this be ignored by astro-science you might ask! Well, they set their original course early in the 1900s (that's another story) and they have the ears of the public to whom they have always said that charge separated plasma cannot exist in space. If they admitted to this being true, which it is, it would prove electrical activity does take place in space and would blow any notion of "powerful and dominant gravity" out of the water. This is their position despite the cascade of evidence to the contrary that has existed for many decades and which began with the work of people such as Irving Langmuir. I'll leave things at that for now and wish you, and those others who may be interested, good studying

Please pardon my waiting so long to get back to you on this. I was unaware of the history you give of what happened to Arp. Unfortunately, this is the standard "scientific" reaction to any significant challenge to any of their "sacred cows."

And what makes a theory a sacred cow? If they think a theory successfully does away with the necessity of an all powerful creator, that theory very quickly becomes a sacred cow. after that, it is heresy to challenge it.

But consensus is not evidence. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, "scientific consensus" once insisted in phligoston.

 

[shernren]

Again, to create is the quintessential "beginning". But we do have statements to the effect that God "stretched out the heavens", which some have theorized might refer to a white hole model, and even a surface reading of Genesis shows a progression. But once completed it was in a steady state (God "rested").

If the specific meaning of "steady state" per the EU assumes the universe is eternally existent, then of course there is a conflict, but I don't know that it does so necessarily. We would need a precise definition from someone more expert on the theory. Yet as I said, the universe is running down so it cannot be eternal.

I did an undergraduate degree in physics, including an honors course in General Relativity, so let me give it a shot.

The basic datum that needs to be explained is the velocity-redshift-distance correlation. It comes in four easy steps:

1. We can measure the distance to certain astronomical objects.
2. We can measure the redshift in their spectra (essentially light from those objects appears Doppler-shifted - like how the pitch of a siren deepens when it moves away from you).
3. We can assume that these redshift are a result of recessional velocity (these objects are actually moving away from us).
4. We can show (on a graph) that the further a particular object is from us, the faster it is going.

(Bear in mind the italicized action words.)

Now, suppose you accept these four steps. Then it follows that, in every direction you look, there is stuff flying away from us. Wind that backwards in time and there are only two possible conclusions: either there was a singularity that blew up and sent stuff flying away from us some finite amount of time ago, or stuff has always been flying away from us for eternity past.

If you believe the former, then you believe in (some variant of) the Big Bang. If you believe the latter, then you believe in a steady state cosmology.

The whole point of steady state cosmologies is to allow there to be an eternal past. In particular, most steady state cosmologies reject or modify GR (because in standard GR the Big Bang is inescapable), but a white hole is a concept from standard GR, so you can't marry a steady state cosmology to a white hole cosmology. (The classic steady state explanation for the velocity-distance correlation was that matter with momentum was continually being created out of nowhere, very slowly, at every point in space and time, as opposed to a white hole where there is an actual space-time singularity from which matter spews forth.)

The other main line of attack on the Big Bang is to attack step number 3, where I have written "assume". Every time you see someone mention intrinsic redshift (such as Halton Arp) this is what they are trying to do: insist that there is some kind of source of redshift that has nothing to do with the actual motion of the object in question. But since the concept of velocity inducing redshift comes (at cosmological scales) from GR, you have to reject GR to make this move, and then you are left with very little theory to explain just about anything going on in the cosmos.

 

[Biblewriter]

I did an undergraduate degree in physics, including an honors course in General Relativity, so let me give it a shot.

The basic datum that needs to be explained is the velocity-redshift-distance correlation. It comes in four easy steps:

1. We can measure the distance to certain astronomical objects.
2. We can measure the redshift in their spectra (essentially light from those objects appears Doppler-shifted - like how the pitch of a siren deepens when it moves away from you).
3. We can assume that these redshift are a result of recessional velocity (these objects are actually moving away from us).
4. We can show (on a graph) that the further a particular object is from us, the faster it is going.

(Bear in mind the italicized action words.)

Now, suppose you accept these four steps. Then it follows that, in every direction you look, there is stuff flying away from us. Wind that backwards in time and there are only two possible conclusions: either there was a singularity that blew up and sent stuff flying away from us some finite amount of time ago, or stuff has always been flying away from us for eternity past.

If you believe the former, then you believe in (some variant of) the Big Bang. If you believe the latter, then you believe in a steady state cosmology.

The whole point of steady state cosmologies is to allow there to be an eternal past. In particular, most steady state cosmologies reject or modify GR (because in standard GR the Big Bang is inescapable), but a white hole is a concept from standard GR, so you can't marry a steady state cosmology to a white hole cosmology. (The classic steady state explanation for the velocity-distance correlation was that matter with momentum was continually being created out of nowhere, very slowly, at every point in space and time, as opposed to a white hole where there is an actual space-time singularity from which matter spews forth.)

The other main line of attack on the Big Bang is to attack step number 3, where I have written "assume". Every time you see someone mention intrinsic redshift (such as Halton Arp) this is what they are trying to do: insist that there is some kind of source of redshift that has nothing to do with the actual motion of the object in question. But since the concept of velocity inducing redshift comes (at cosmological scales) from GR, you have to reject GR to make this move, and then you are left with very little theory to explain just about anything going on in the cosmos.

Except, of course, some completely different theory, such as that an eternal God created it at some discrete point in time.

 

[2thePoint]

I did an undergraduate degree in physics, including an honors course in General Relativity, so let me give it a shot.

Thank you for this kind offer.

The basic datum that needs to be explained is the velocity-redshift-distance correlation. It comes in four easy steps:

Red-shift is the key weakness. From various explanations and documents I've seen in recent years, there are too many observations that defy the presumption that red-shift indicates distance. Objects that are very close together may have very different values, and in some cases the "farther" object is nearer than the "nearer" object.

1. We can measure the distance to certain astronomical objects.
2. We can measure the redshift in their spectra (essentially light from those objects appears Doppler-shifted - like how the pitch of a siren deepens when it moves away from you).
3. We can assume that these redshift are a result of recessional velocity (these objects are actually moving away from us).
4. We can show (on a graph) that the further a particular object is from us, the faster it is going.

The bolded words are where I see red flags (pardon the pun) raising, and not verified facts.

either there was a singularity that blew up and sent stuff flying away from us some finite amount of time ago, or stuff has always been flying away from us for eternity past.

Thank you for this clarification on steady-state. But it too depends upon the presumption, not proof, that red-shift indicates a Doppler-type effect. If it doesn't, both of these choices are wrong, and thus it amounts to a false dilemma. So I remain unconvinced that stuff is flying away at all.

But steady-state according to your statement raises another question: If it has always been flying apart, how old can the universe be? To eternally be flying apart means it was once very tightly packed, and then we're back at the Big Bang because both theories are not steady at all but always in flux. In other words, I see a hopeless contradiction between "steady" and "always changing". So if this definition of steady-state is accurate, it is self-contradictory. Rather, it would seem reasonable to state that if the universe has always been "steady", it has always been where it is now instead of expanding.

The whole point of steady state cosmologies is to allow there to be an eternal past. In particular, most steady state cosmologies reject or modify GR (because in standard GR the Big Bang is inescapable), but a white hole is a concept from standard GR, so you can't marry a steady state cosmology to a white hole cosmology. (The classic steady state explanation for the velocity-distance correlation was that matter with momentum was continually being created out of nowhere, very slowly, at every point in space and time, as opposed to a white hole where there is an actual space-time singularity from which matter spews forth.)

Thank you for pointing out problems no matter whose theory it might be; I hope to have done the same with the theory that anything which is expanding can be called "steady state".

The other main line of attack on the Big Bang is to attack step number 3, where I have written "assume". Every time you see someone mention intrinsic redshift (such as Halton Arp) this is what they are trying to do: insist that there is some kind of source of redshift that has nothing to do with the actual motion of the object in question. But since the concept of velocity inducing redshift comes (at cosmological scales) from GR, you have to reject GR to make this move, and then you are left with very little theory to explain just about anything going on in the cosmos.

You raise a good point: is GR airtight, especially when we know that even astronomy has its "sacred cows" and will indeed cover up or marginalize any data that might throw careers into the trash bin? The fear of having to return to the drawing board certainly can result in scientists clinging desperately to theories that are being called into question due to further observations which don't fit and even disprove them. I rather welcome the prospect of admitting we really don't have cosmology all sown up, and should be led by the data instead of force-fitting it into theory.

The EU model shows good potential for being a much better predictor of observed astronomical phenomena, as well as working even at the subatomic level; this problem of scale is a very big thorn in the side of conventional physics, which (it's my understanding) requires two inherently conflicting theories to cover the very large and the very small. With EU, the cosmos can stay or move without a sweat.

But none of these theories deal with how anything at all came into existence. If we know (by observation) that physical things run down, we know that they cannot be eternal. Philosophically we know that nothing could possibly cause its own existence. And so I still must conclude that some non-physical and eternal entity is the First Cause. Thus there is no conflict with the Genesis account of creation, regardless of the span of time people assign to it.

 

[shernren]

Thank you for this kind offer.

Red-shift is the key weakness. From various explanations and documents I've seen in recent years, there are too many observations that defy the presumption that red-shift indicates distance. Objects that are very close together may have very different values, and in some cases the "farther" object is nearer than the "nearer" object.

The bolded words are where I see red flags (pardon the pun) raising, and not verified facts.

Sure, and I included the bolded words so that you can see exactly where in the process you might have doubts.

I need to clarify that, other than at extreme redshift values, redshift is not used to determine distance. Otherwise your own statement wouldn't make sense: "the object with higher redshift is nearer than the object with the lower redshift"? I hope you'll agree with me that you can't meaningfully say that unless you have some independent, non-redshift way of measuring the distance.

What happens, rather, is that astronomers measured the distance to celestial objects, and then independently measured the redshift, and found that in most cases they were linearly correlated - Hubble's Law. But if you have any evidence that shows that they aren't, such as those cases you're talking about with a high-z source in front of a low-z source, I'm very interested to look at them.

(It should also be noted that in recent years the importance of red-shift as evidence for the Big Bang has been overtaken by the cosmic microwave background, of which we now have very good measurements using satellite microwave telescopes. But we'll settle one thing at a time.)

Thank you for this clarification on steady-state. But it too depends upon the presumption, not proof, that red-shift indicates a Doppler-type effect. If it doesn't, both of these choices are wrong, and thus it amounts to a false dilemma. So I remain unconvinced that stuff is flying away at all.

Yes, that's right - if you believe in intrinsic redshift, then you can reject both standard Big Bang cosmology and standard steady state cosmology.

But steady-state according to your statement raises another question: If it has always been flying apart, how old can the universe be? To eternally be flying apart means it was once very tightly packed, and then we're back at the Big Bang because both theories are not steady at all but always in flux. In other words, I see a hopeless contradiction between "steady" and "always changing". So if this definition of steady-state is accurate, it is self-contradictory. Rather, it would seem reasonable to state that if the universe has always been "steady", it has always been where it is now instead of expanding.

Thank you for pointing out problems no matter whose theory it might be; I hope to have done the same with the theory that anything which is expanding can be called "steady state".

As I've said, the standard (Hoyle's) steady state model imagines a universe where new matter is continually being created throughout empty space. This resolves the problem since you can get both stuff flying outwards continually, and the density of matter remaining constant - meaning to say that density doesn't decrease running forwards in time, and also that it doesn't increase running backwards in time, and therefore there is no singularity and so no Big Bang.

Note that Halton Arp's cosmology has continuous matter creation, which puts it squarely in this family of cosmologies (which, you must remember, were originally thought up by astronomers with an a priori bias against any kind of beginning in time for the universe, which would imply a creation). Also note that the Electric Universe, if I recall correctly, does not have continuous matter creation - and so you can't have both at the same time.

Again, I think we have a false dilemma here, but can you explain why a redshift source that has nothing to do with motion depends upon GR?

Simply because GR gives you the mathematics that tells you, given a certain redshift, how fast this redshifted object is going. If that relationship is wrong, then GR is wrong.

I have never seen any kind of intrinsic redshift theory that was content to let GR be, and it makes sense: if you were happy with GR, you'd be happy with the Big Bang, and you wouldn't have any reason to introduce an intrinsic redshift.

And you raise a good point: is GR airtight, especially when we know that even astronomy has its "sacred cows" and will indeed cover up or marginalize any data that might throw careers into the trash bin? The fear of having to return to the drawing board certainly can result in scientists clinging desperately to theories that are being called into question due to further observations which don't fit and even disprove them. I rather welcome the prospect of admitting we really don't have cosmology all sown up, and should be led by the data instead of force-fitting it into theory.

Let me ask you two questions. Firstly, when have we ever seen any other science behave like this? The case of Newtonian physics vs quantum physics comes to mind. When evidence began to show that the old physics wasn't good enough, physicists were floundering around for a better explanation. Einstein told God not to play dice. Schrodinger (if I recall) spent long nights walking around parks wondering how the universe could be so cruel. Bohr said if you're not deeply disturbed, you don't get it. But not once did any of the scientists decide "Let's make sure nobody ever sees a blackbody spectrum again." Plenty of evidence nobody could understand: none of it was covered up.

Indeed, Bohr subsequently fought hard to champion the new physics, and Einstein fought hard against it. We remember them both as legendary physicists: which only goes to show that your career won't get thrown into the trash bin just because you support new science, or don't support new science. (Einstein's lesser-known colleagues Podolsky and Rosen also became well-known for working together on the EPR paradox, too, so this doesn't just apply to people who had strong reputations to start with.)

Don't confuse this with the well-known (and unfortunate) fact that non-standard cosmologies don't get enough telescope time. People like Halton Arp keep complaining about being shut out of major institutes: they conveniently forget that about 80% of experimental proposals from standard cosmology are also rejected. We simply don't have enough telescopes to go around, and we'll have even less telescopes if after five years of free rein with the Hubble telescope Arp decides "I was completely off-base after all, sorry folks, now who was next in line?". But this could all be solved in a very simple way: get the creationist folks with the deep pockets to just build a telescope complex for non-standard cosmology. Then they'd get all the telescope time they wanted. (The fact that they'd rather build a dino museum and a faux ark tells you where their true priorities lie, by the way.)

But from a theoretical point of view, there's no problem with believing that the universe is made of plasma, or rubber duckies all the way down for that matter. You just need the evidence for it. Of course, if you don't have evidence, you can invoke the invisible cabal of evil scientists somewhere in the dark destroying any data that goes against their theories. But think about that for a second: couldn't we invoke that cabal anywhere? (That's my second question.)

So let's say I believe that GM corn is secretly being doused with hallucinogens to make the American populace docile enough for a socialist takeover. Why don't I have any evidence for it? Blame the invisible evidence-destroying cabal! Or let's say I believe that the early church deliberately suppressed gnostic interpretations of Jesus' life in producing the New Testament we have today. Why don't I have any evidence for it? Blame the invisible evidence-destroying cabal! The Holocaust never happened, the Holocaust really happened, the CIA caused 9-11, Al-Qaeda caused 9-11, we walked on the Moon, we never walked on the Moon, the Earth is round, the Earth is flat, the Moon is billions of years old, the Moon is made out of green cheese - all I need to do is to attach the invisible evidence-destroying cabal, and I instantly have a position which is obviously correct and couldn't possibly be wrong.

Now I happen to believe both that GR has worked really well and that we really don't have cosmology all sown up. And if you're interested, I'll present you all the evidence we have on hand that demonstrates just that. But let's get the invisible evidence-destroying cabal out of the way first.

The EU model shows good potential for being a much better predictor of observed astronomical phenomena, as well as working even at the subatomic level; this problem of scale is a very big thorn in the side of conventional physics, which (it's my understanding) requires two inherently conflicting theories to cover the very large and the very small. With EU, the cosmos can stay or move without a sweat.

That gets us into the evidence, and as I've said above, I'd like to be able to deal with the evidence without the specter of an invisible evidence-destroying cabal in the background.

But none of these theories deal with how anything at all came into existence. If we know (by observation) that physical things run down, we know that they cannot be eternal. Philosophically we know that nothing could possibly cause its own existence. And so I still must conclude that some non-physical and eternal entity is the First Cause. Thus there is no conflict with the Genesis account of creation, regardless of the span of time people assign to it.

But Genesis 1 doesn't go "A First Cause caused the universe"; it says "In the beginning", which clearly implies a temporal beginning for the universe, not simply some nebulous causal relation to God. Now if you want to make even the first three words of the Bible non-literal, be my guest; but then why not go the whole way and understand the rest of Genesis 1-11 non-literally as well?