The Big Bang theory dominates cosmological theories

the-big-bang-theory-dominates-cosmological-theories

A recent press release announced that astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope and the twin, 10-meter Keck telescopes, have found an object 13.1 billion light-years from Earth, making it “…officially the most distant object ever detected.”

Casey Papovich, an astronomer at Texas A&M University, said: “Light from this baby galaxy began its journey when the universe was about 700 million years old and just emerging from the cosmic mist left over from its birth.”

Papovich (indeed, virtually every astronomer) bases his understanding on the major premise of the Big Bang theory: that there was no matter, no space, and no time in “the beginning”, and that for some reason, an irruption of energy from another version of existence, a “primordial egg”, replaced that emptiness with matter and energy, which began to expand and then “inflate”.

The Big Bang theory was developed when the astronomer Edwin Hubble, using the 100-inch telescope at Mt. Wilson observatory, believed that he had observed galaxies receding from the Milky Way at vast distances. The most surprising aspect to his data was not recession, itself, but what appeared to be high velocities associated with the galaxies. According to Hubble, some galaxies were flying away at thousands of kilometers per second.

Adapting the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler’s observations to the spectra of various galaxies, Hubble thought that the change in location of particular elemental signatures called Fraunhofer lines (for the German physicist Joseph von Fraunhofer) indicated that the light had been shifted toward the red end of the spectrum by an apparent recessional velocity.

Fraunhofer lines are supposed to occur at specific frequencies identified in the spectrum by the kind of element that is absorbing the light. As the theory states, if they are in a different location, then they have been Doppler-shifted because of the element’s acceleration, either towards the observer (blue-shifted) or away (red-shifted). This idea is the basis on which galactic-scale distance calculations and the supposed speed of recession are founded. Using this system of redshift, some galaxies are thought to be moving away from Earth at an unbelievable 90 percent of light-speed.

Since the theoretical distances and the recessional velocities of objects are correlated with a time-scale, a galaxy that is 10 billion light-years away is also thought to be as it was 10 billion years ago. Astronomers believe that they are seeing ancient light that has been traveling through space for 10 billion years.

Astrophysicists of the recent past were perplexed when their observations indicated greater complexity in the early Universe than they thought should exist. As the principle of inflation states, though, it is not merely the expansion (re: acceleration) of the Universe that is affecting the Doppler-shifting of spectra from remote galaxies, but that the “space” in which they are embedded is expanding.

If it requires a certain amount of time for a galaxy to form and the Universe is thus-and-such years old, then a galaxy should not exist at time-distances more than a certain redshift. When such formations were seen, as far as the relevant theories were concerned, “inflation” had to be added to the Big Bang theory to account for them.

So, objects that appear to be redshifted at extreme distances may not be as old as their spectra suggest: they are moving along with the expansion of space. As the inflationary theory proposes, they are not as old as they appear to be, they are simply “farther away.” This dichotomy seems to demand that the early Universe was expanding faster than the speed of light.

Edwin Hubble’s observations of galactic distances versus speed of recession led to another quandary: galaxies that are far enough away would move so fast that, as mentioned, their velocities would exceed the speed of light. This is known as the universal horizon, or the Hubble radius. It is the point beyond which observations can never be made, because the light from beyond that horizon can never catch up to the greater-than-light-speed inflation of space.

How did these twists and turns in ideas, as well as the warping of time and space come about? They are the direct result of the assumption that redshift correlates with distance. Modern cosmological systems are all built, without exception, on that assumption. What if Hubble’s original premise was flawed? What if redshift is really a red herring?

Redshift and inflation have become something of a dogma among the astronomical community, and even though many observations contradict the consensus view, and have been doing so for 40 years or more, those data are ignored or marginalized. High redshift quasars, for example, are found in axial alignment with galaxies that possess substantially lower redshift.

Astronomer Halton Arp speculates that the redshift measurement of quasars is composed not of a velocity value alone, but also depends on what he calls “intrinsic redshift.” Intrinsic redshift is a property of matter, like mass or charge, and can change over time. According to his theory, when quasars are ejected from a parent galaxy they possess a high intrinsic redshift, z = 2 or greater.

As the quasars move away from their origin within a galactic nucleus, their redshift properties begin to decrease until they reach somewhere near z = 0.3. At that point, the quasar resembles a galaxy, albeit a small one. The inertial moment of ejection is eventually overcome and the mass of the quasar increases, while the speed of ejection decreases, until it may become a companion galaxy. It is in that way that galaxies form and age, evolving from highly redshifted quasars, to small irregular galaxies, and then into larger barred spirals.

There is nothing conclusive in mainstream scientific journals about Arp’s data. His telescope time in the United States was cut off many years ago by decision-makers who allot that time to various research groups. His revelations concerning problems with consensus dogma were considered intolerable, so he was summarily censured by his peers. However, the evidence he continues to gather and promote ought to make us stop and think: is the Big Bang dead? How big and how old is the Universe if redshift readings are not reliable indicators of distance?

Just how “far away” is z8_GND_5296?

Written by Stephen Smith – Thunderbolts.info

If you value what we do here, open your ad-free account and support our journalism.

Share:

Producing content you read on this website takes a lot of time, effort, and hard work. If you value what we do here, select the level of your support and register your account.

Your support makes this project fully self-sustainable and keeps us independent and focused on the content we love to create and share.

All our supporters can browse the website without ads, allowing much faster speeds and a clean interface. Your comments will be instantly approved and you’ll have a direct line of communication with us from within your account dashboard. You can suggest new features and apps and you’ll be able to use them before they go live.

You can choose the level of your support.

Stay kind, vigilant and ready!

$5 /month

  • Ad-free account
  • Instant comments
  • Direct communication
  • New features and apps suggestions
  • Early access to new apps and features

$50 /year

$10 /month

  • Ad-free account
  • Instant comments
  • Direct communication
  • New features and apps suggestions
  • Early access to new apps and features

$100 /year

$25 /month

  • Ad-free account
  • Instant comments
  • Direct communication
  • New features and apps suggestions
  • Early access to new apps and features

$200 /year

You can also support us by sending us a one-off payment using PayPal:

5 Comments

  1. Big Bang paradigm has been proved as incorrect through following published papers 1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe
    2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (Revised version on World Science Database, General Science Journal, Vixra and Academia.edu in my profile)
    3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment
    4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (Revised version on World Science Database, General Science Journal, Vixra and Academia.edu in my profile)
    5. 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (www.elixirjournal.org Feb.2012)
    6. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology

    These publications are available at http://www.indjst.org (March 2012,oct 2010, oct 2011,Aug 2010) http://www.gsjournal.net, http://www.worldsci.org, viXra, Intellectual Archives & Academia.edu in my profile.and openly challenged. The standing open challenge as on date could be seen at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2

    On the basis of above-mentioned papers published in peer-reviewed journals there is standing open challenge as on date which you could see at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2

  2. You are zeroing on the only ONE thing that matters: the origin or the beginning. If we do not know where we come from, then the timespacetime is broken. Then shit begins to pile up…

    How to obtain such knowledge? I can tell you how to NOT obtain the false knowledge, then the rest is up to each one of us, one by one.

    In all the ancient records that are made discernible to the most barbaric men, the modern men, there is ONE thing that is DIFFERENTLY common: The change does not happen in the center of the dominant. You can see Buddha, Muhammad, Moses, Lao Tzu, Jesus et al. started from very very very humble beginning, ONE tiny dot INSIDE the dominant. But that is where the truth is.
    This is an efficient way to judge if a thing is shit or not.

    Let's apply. Isaac Newton, the dominant, shit;
    Albert Einstein, the dominant, shit;
    Big Bang, the dominant, shit;
    Nuclear fission, the dominant, shit;
    The table of elements, the dominant, shit;
    Earth Quakes caused by the tectonic plate movements, the dominant, shit;
    String Theory, getting dominant, becoming shit;
    Landing on a rock with the firecrackers aka rockets, spewing pollution all the way to a rock, the dominant, shit;

    Radar, radio and etc. the dominant, shit;
    Ancient Aliens, WHo are the Aliens? the dominant, shit;
    The misinterpretation of 12212012 by Jenkins, the dominant, shit.

    All these have made a lot of fiat shit-rrencies for the sellers.

    In the end, Jesus summed up nicely and completely: It is Caesar's money, it belongs to Caesar.

    Fiat shit-rrencies is the center of all these. Leave it alone, I say. Follow the truth tellers. Train your senses…

    Do you think these people armed with the non-existent gravity shit can land on the Moon or Mars? If so, show the images frame by frame, one after another, no "radio" blackout shit. Silence…

    Please try to include all shallow EQs such as the ones that struck China, Pakistan for each one of us. I will tell you why later… The magnitude is shit made up. 3 and higher is enough for your senses. The senses on the ground by the people is what ONLY matters because we are already the instrument, the best ever made.

    TSIPMAECE

  3. Jamal, Good point but until evolution raises the conceptual capability of the human mind to think or process information on a level of ininfite possibilities we will have to bear with the Alpha-Omega concepts for a little while longer.

  4. The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is an insult to human intelligence. At beginning there was nothing and then there was a bang. I would like to know what was that thing which banged and what caused it to bang. To start with BBT does not respect the most basic physics principle of no creation from nothing. But beside that the BBTcontradicts all cosmological observations. In fact there should be no planets, no stars and no galaxies if the basic notions of this theory are correct.
    However, cosmologists are relying on the discovery of Hubble (redshift/Luminosity relationship) as prove for the BBT. But Hubble did not discover the expansion of the universe. In fact until the last day of his life Hubble never claimed that the apparent redshift/distance relationship was due to an expanding universe. But at the same time the observed red shift is not caused by the increase of mass in the universe as Professor Christof Wetterich has recently announced, but rather according to my analysis is due to the rotation of the cosmos around a central axis.
    It is high time to remove the crackpot theories from the king of science "cosmology" Jamal Shrair Helical Universe
    https://www.facebook.com/Helicaluniverse

  5. Halton Arp is the best cosmological scientist on the planet today, sad that guys like Kaku get so much face time spewing there dogma that makes no sense on paper or even the imagination. All hail the Electric Universe scientists, for they will lead us to the level headed thinking land:)

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.