Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member empovsun
    Adepto 'er perfectu
    27 Sep '13 15:04
    Here is a video about ancient galaxies that are (seemingly via redshift) 11.5 billion years old. Which would mean that they were created 2.5 billion years after the big bang. This obviously contradicts the standard model, and touches on an electrical universe instead of the standard mass/gravity model:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeIHTCdOGWs

    Now, don't get mad at me, but this is just a plausible theory, and I am not saying the standard model is wrong. It is just interesting to contemplate the possibilities of how the universe works.
  2. 27 Sep '13 15:10
    I didn't watch the video, but alternative theories would need to come up with an alternative plausible explanation for the cosmic background radiation, which is extraordinarily difficult.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Sep '13 15:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by empovsun
    Here is a video about ancient galaxies that are (seemingly via redshift) 11.5 billion years old. Which would mean that they were created 2.5 billion years after the big bang. This obviously contradicts the standard model, and touches on an electrical universe instead of the standard mass/gravity model:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeIHTCdOGWs

    Now, ...[text shortened]... is wrong. It is just interesting to contemplate the possibilities of how the universe works.
    Galaxies don't come from the big bang itself. It was almost 400,000 years before light could even penetrate the early universe, galaxies came a bit later and are just giant clouds of gas, mainly hydrogen, that collapses and starts spinning, making stars along the way and so forth. I don't know if galaxies are being made today but 2 billion years after the BB is not unreasonable for galaxy formation. At least that's how I have it.

    Here is a link that talks about recent galaxy formation, one as recent as a half billion years ago:

    http://www.astronomynotes.com/galaxy/s10.htm
  4. 27 Sep '13 16:41 / 1 edit
    Little known fact: The big bang was actually first theorized by a Catholic monk, Hubble only verified it some years later. The church claimed that it was proof for creationism.
  5. 27 Sep '13 16:53
    Originally posted by empovsun
    This obviously contradicts the standard model, and touches on an electrical universe instead of the standard mass/gravity model:
    I watched the first half of the video. Lots of waffling and vagueness and no real substance.
    You say it 'touches on an electrical universe'. Do you mean the video does, or that the age of the galaxies somehow imply an electrical universe? And what is an 'electrical universe' anyway?

    In the video the speaker says electromagnetism is stronger than gravity. But doesn't explain what he means by this. Would you know what he means? In what context is it stronger?
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Sep '13 23:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I watched the first half of the video. Lots of waffling and vagueness and no real substance.
    You say it 'touches on an electrical universe'. Do you mean the video does, or that the age of the galaxies somehow imply an electrical universe? And what is an 'electrical universe' anyway?

    In the video the speaker says electromagnetism is stronger than gravi ...[text shortened]... n't explain what he means by this. Would you know what he means? In what context is it stronger?
    There has been a homegrown 'science' industry touting electric fields as the driving force of the universe, it's been around for probably 50 years or more. It resurfaces every now and again when some crack appears in the prevailing theories.

    As the dude says, 'it's not even wrong'. They just need more evidence than the dudes come up with on you tube.
  7. 29 Sep '13 03:07
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I didn't watch the video, but alternative theories would need to come up with an alternative plausible explanation for the cosmic background radiation, which is extraordinarily difficult.
    Lets see here. The big bang happened and 400000 years later light can pass through the universe. A couple of billion years later galaxies form. Unless we are expanding as a universe at about the speed of light ( which we aren't) the radiation of the big bang should have long passed us. I have read that one of the big pieces of evidence supporting the big bang theory is the background radiation. Amazingly the background radiation is extremely uniform any direction we look yet we have a clumpy universe. Also there is the problem of there being more matter than antimatter. Of course the big bang proponents can easily say that whatever caused the big bang and or the energies/particles were not symmetrical from the start. One could also say that the big bang probably never happened and what we see in our universe is a cross section of a higher dimension we can not fathom. Big bang is to science as god is to religion.
  8. 29 Sep '13 06:20
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Unless we are expanding as a universe at about the speed of light ( which we aren't)
    I thought we were. Can you give a reference for your claim?
  9. 29 Sep '13 07:33
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    Lets see here. The big bang happened and 400000 years later light can pass through the universe. A couple of billion years later galaxies form. Unless we are expanding as a universe at about the speed of light ( which we aren't) the radiation of the big bang should have long passed us. I have read that one of the big pieces of evidence supporting the big ...[text shortened]... s section of a higher dimension we can not fathom. Big bang is to science as god is to religion.
    Unless we are expanding as a universe at about the speed of light ( which we aren't) the radiation of the big bang should have long passed us.

    Nope. I suggest you read more about the geometry of space and the cosmic background radiation.

    Amazingly the background radiation is extremely uniform any direction we look yet we have a clumpy universe.

    There is a solid theoretical explanation for this, actually. Again, you can find plenty on it on the Wikipedia article about the Big Bang/cosmic background radiation.

    Also there is the problem of there being more matter than antimatter.

    There is! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation

    One could also say that the big bang probably never happened and what we see in our universe is a cross section of a higher dimension we can not fathom.

    Or one could say that the universe was created by a fairy using her magic wand. Alas, that theory does not fit with our empirical observations as well as the Big Bang theory does.
  10. 29 Sep '13 09:56
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    [b]Unless we are expanding as a universe at about the speed of light ( which we aren't) the radiation of the big bang should have long passed us.

    Nope. I suggest you read more about the geometry of space and the cosmic background radiation.

    Amazingly the background radiation is extremely uniform any direction we look yet we have a clumpy un ...[text shortened]... s, that theory does not fit with our empirical observations as well as the Big Bang theory does.
    It was long assumed the universe was closed and there would ultimately be a big crunch. New evidence however indicates an open universe. The background radiation has failed the shadow test and it appears that the radiation is from sources such as galaxies more recently. Oddly it is still very uniform. The article on CP violation basically is saying that theoretically the laws of physics was different for matter than antimatter. I have no problem with that, but it is no more plausible than there being some sort of imbalance to begin with. After all the same folks are saying that everything that exists came from a tiny dot but then makes assumptions of the dot itself. Very laughable!! I believe that there can be a big bang and the electrical force was more at play than gravity early on. The fairy with her magic wand may wish to tell us one day but in the meantime so much bs in science must be endured as we can not test much of what we think we know. I lean toward there not have been a big bang, or at least not the current theory. The early galaxies would not have had time to form gravitationally. The OP link throws a life bouy out to the big bang theory. You should be grateful for that as one of the pet theories of science will still be around so long as they can keep patching it up.
  11. 29 Sep '13 10:11
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I thought we were. Can you give a reference for your claim?
    I should have said the visible universe from our location is not expanding faster than light. There is a prediction that over time as the universe expands faster with time that distant galaxies can be moving away from one another at relative light speed, but before that they will be invisible to each other as the light will be redshifted so far as to make them invisible to each other. I do not need a reference as I can see distant stars and the fact they are visible tells me that we are not expanding at light speed or even half light speed.
  12. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    29 Sep '13 11:17
    Originally posted by empovsun
    Here is a video about ancient galaxies that are (seemingly via redshift) 11.5 billion years old. Which would mean that they were created 2.5 billion years after the big bang. This obviously contradicts the standard model, and touches on an electrical universe instead of the standard mass/gravity model:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeIHTCdOGWs

    Now, ...[text shortened]... is wrong. It is just interesting to contemplate the possibilities of how the universe works.
    In my opinion the Big Bang Theory is just about as stupid as the Evilution Theory.

    The Instructor
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    29 Sep '13 11:32
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    In my opinion the Big Bang Theory is just about as stupid as the Evilution Theory.

    The Instructor
    Fortunately for the world, your opinion counts for less than zero. The thing about the BB is it answers most of the questions about what was going on back then. For you to believe it nonsense you have to reject the idea that the universe is expanding and therefore in the past was contracting. Take that back far enough and the universe becomes smaller than the dot at the end of a sentence. So you think the universe is not expanding which also goes against the results of cosmology.

    To you the universe is a very simple place while in reality there is subtlety buried in subtlety.

    There is WAY more going on in the universe than can be described in your simplistic view.

    Multiple dimensions, galaxies without number, in all likelihood intelligent life on millions of planets or even billions of planets and that is just our known universe.

    Multiple dimensions multiplies that by trillions.

    But your little world is dominated by your foul low life egocentric god who WANTS humans to fear it.

    Why should we have to fear a god? We don't, because if it was real, it would be far above the man made attributes put in your intelligently designed god, designed totally by man.
  14. 29 Sep '13 12:50
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    It was long assumed the universe was closed and there would ultimately be a big crunch. New evidence however indicates an open universe. The background radiation has failed the shadow test and it appears that the radiation is from sources such as galaxies more recently. Oddly it is still very uniform. The article on CP violation basically is saying that t ...[text shortened]... one of the pet theories of science will still be around so long as they can keep patching it up.
    It was long assumed the universe was closed and there would ultimately be a big crunch. New evidence however indicates an open universe.

    From what I understand (cosmology is not my field) the issue of whether the universe's expansion is constant, accelerating or decelerating (and whether said acceleration is constant in time) hasn't been conclusively settled. I don't think it is accurate to say that the decelerating universe was ever the dominant hypothesis, although the static universe theory was in the early 20th Century.

    The background radiation has failed the shadow test and it appears that the radiation is from sources such as galaxies more recently.

    What's the "shadow test"?

    The article on CP violation basically is saying that theoretically the laws of physics was different for matter than antimatter. I have no problem with that, but it is no more plausible than there being some sort of imbalance to begin with.

    It is plausible in the sense that there is empirical evidence for CP violation, but it's hard to find empirical evidence relating to the universe's "initial" (if there is such a thing) state.

    I lean toward there not have been a big bang, or at least not the current theory.

    What alternative hypothesis describes the empirical data better?
  15. 29 Sep '13 13:42
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    I should have said the visible universe from our location is not expanding faster than light.
    But that would not tie in with the reason you brought it up, would it?

    There is a prediction that over time as the universe expands faster with time that distant galaxies can be moving away from one another at relative light speed,
    And I have seen claims that that is already the case. Hence my request for references to the contrary.

    but before that they will be invisible to each other as the light will be redshifted so far as to make them invisible to each other. I do not need a reference as I can see distant stars and the fact they are visible tells me that we are not expanding at light speed or even half light speed.
    You do not seem to understand the issue of the speed of light. The galaxies and stars you are seeing are where they were when the light left them, not where they are now.
    If you can see a galaxy that is 11.5 billion years old as suggested in the OP, then the light left that galaxy 11.5 billion years ago. The OP also says this was only 2.5 billion years after the big bang. So you are currently looking 11.5 billion light years away, and if you look 2.5 billion light years further, you will either see the big bang (contradicting your claim) or if there was no big bang, maybe you will see something else. More universe perhaps? The edge of the universe ?
    Think about it, what do you think you will see?