|
Gravity vs. Big Bang Theory?
quote:
JoeC wrote:The Big Bang theory does in fact specifically "remove the problem". I believe that the observation that we appear to be at the center of the universe is pretty strong evidence that something interesting, like the Big Bang, is going on.
Excellent point! Thank you! And very good reference, especially the link to "Homogeneity and Isotropy" http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm, which shows distance D in terms of 'now' as opposed to its 'redshifted' v=HD adjusted value for D. Remember that lightspeed is a special case, v=c, which is invariable and the only true measure of events in space-time. Thus, to keep it simple, all observations within the 'bubble' of an event going back to the universe's beginning, say approximately 13 billion years, is visible for every observer to be identical, which is 13 billion light years in every direction. All observers will have this same perspective from where they are, giving us the illusion of being at the center of the event, with distance then adjusted for the Hubble Constant. This I believe is an observational fact, which is as good here on Earth as it would be in a galaxy 3 billion light years away, though we would see different patterns of stars. The question that remains with me, and which I cannot shake off easily, is why do we need a Big Bang to validate this observational fact? Would it not stand on its own even without an original date of the universe's creation? Let me illustrate:
If I were a pre-Cambrian protozoan say, 3 billion years ago, and with my supersmart fellow protozoa we built a space telescope and launched it to observe distant stars and galaxies: What would we see? If the universe is let's say only 13 billion years old, would our field of view only take us out to about 10 billion light years, since before that there would be nothingness? Is this true? Or would our super precocious protozoa be surprised to find that they could see beyond the 10 billion light years, and see out to about where the light fuzzes out, say 13 billion light years, with stars and galaxies there? I realize this is a mental exercise, but I use it to illustrate the possibility that regardless of Big Bang or not, the view out to 13 billion light years would still be the same, true whether seen today, or 3 billion years ago, or 13 billion years ago. In effect, we created a Big Bang origin to the universe to explain our other physics in terms of General Relativity, and then measured everything accordingly by that template of understanding using space-time diagrams and equations, further accommodated by Doppler redshift of distant cosmic light. Now, what if... and this is truly the crux of the matter... what if distant cosmic lightshift is NOT due to Doppler motion, and what if there was NO Big Bang, would our observational results change? No, they would not, and we would still see exactly the same thing. What would change, instead, would be our understanding as to why light appears to redshift over great cosmic distances in a very predictable and measurable way. That, I think, is the real issue.
The reason I have difficulty buying into the Big Bang, in my opinion of one, is that I think Hubble's discovery of distant light redshift that sort of launched this whole thing, supported by Einstein's merging General Relativity with Doppler redshift, spawned an idea that is truly unnecessary to understand what we are seeing. Take cosmic light redshift as a given fact, one that cannot be explained away so easily as to say the universe is expanding, and accept it as a function of what light does over great distances (not the tired light theory either), and find the reason why light acts this way, and you will be on your way to understanding the universe's physics without having to create a Big Bang. We should stay true to what we observe and not see it through the prism of a theory that is both ignorant of what is gravity, other than in some geometrical space-time distortion sort of way, and not give our observations the bias this ignorance is forcing us to accept. If we have a better understanding of what gravity does to light over great cosmic distances (remember 'dark matter'?), we will have a better handle on what it is we are seeing, and why it looks redshifted to us. Mind you, this is only an opinion of one, and I expect no support for it, nor can I do it greater justice for now.
So if the universe is not expanding, what have we got? When we look towards the nearest star Alpha Centauri, will it be there a hundred years from now, or a thousand years from now, on its normal course and not moved because of space expansion? I suspect it will not have deviated by one inch. Our records go back how many centuries of telescopic observations? Have we actually measured position changes for galaxies in that time? And why is it that this space expansion does not apply to the stars within galaxies? If the quasi-explosion (which as you pointed out is a bad description) of the Big Bang shows that for all observers, regardless of where they are in the universe, the universe will look the same.. do we really need it? Is this not a superfluous theory that confuses more than it solves? Instead of Big Bang, I propose we get a real handle on Gravity, for that is where the Real Physic of our universe lie.
So in the end, we will not need to bring physics back to some Big Bang singularity, that point of nowhere and nothingness which truly begs credibility, in order to find a unifying theory of energy and gravity. I suggest that when we have a better understanding of how these two major universal forces interact, we will have discovered that our observations of the universe will not need to factor in a Big Bang. What we will then see is what it is, and cosmic light redshift will be understood as a function of gravity in space. When we finally succeed in doing that, then we can move away from the counter-intuitiveness of modern physics into a more real physics instead. Is the universal expansion accelerating or slowing down, or is exactly flat? None of the above...
Well, Gentlemen and Ladies, I think I have exhausted all I can offer for now, such as it is, only an opinion of one. To go from philosophy, which is what this is, to science will require a stronger frame of intellectual reference than I can offer here.
Thanks you all for your attention and time.
Coppernicus2
__________________
I have formally 'resigned' (tactical withdraw) from the Space-Talk boards; mine were many questions, ideas, but no real answers. Thanks. 04/10/04.
Disclaimer: Please note the ideas expressed here by me are cutting edge theory, very speculative in nature, and not physics as it is being currently taught. Caveat lector.
|
Thread 
04/04/04 01:53
!!
!!!
