[QUOTE=cheesehead;246186](* sigh *)

Did you actually read my posting #196?

Big Bang does [U]NOT[/U] require a beginning of the universe.

Are you continuing to confuse (a) the very dense, very small state that is a conclusion, not assumption, in the Big Bang theory, with (b) beginning of the universe? Some folks may casually refer to (a) as though it were (b), but that's just sloppiness. Whether or not the "Big Bang" [I]event[/I] (beginning of expansion from very small, very dense state) was the "beginning of the universe" is not something answered, assumed, or concluded by the Big Bang theory.

Do you have that clear now, so that you will stop making a false statement about Big Bang theory? Big Bang theory [U]IS[/U] compatible with the idea that there was no beginning of the universe!

I'm not saying your theory is false.

I'm saying that your characterization of Big Bang theory with regard to beginning of the universe is false.

Whatever other objections to the Big Bang theory you may have, please stop making a false, straw-man objection on the false grounds that Big Bang theory assumes, requires, or states that there was a beginning of the universe.[/QUOTE]

If you think the initiating "singularity" or "very small dense state" once
existed, and that its "explosion" or "expansion" initiated the generation
of our current Universe, some large finite time ago, how do you resolve
the issue that there is no reason to consider that event the "beginning"
of anything? And if you accept that the initiation of that event was
preceded by any amount of time, that in fact time goes back forever,
of what special significance is the bang (if it really occurred)?

I stand by my monograph (draft 2 is in the works) with rejection of the BBT
as an unnecessary hypothesis used to scientifically cloak a Creationism
viewpoint. The Universe has always existed. There are no singularities.

[QUOTE=davar55;261887]If you think the initiating "singularity" or "very small dense state" once
existed, and that its "explosion" or "expansion" initiated the generation
of our current Universe, some large finite time ago, how do you resolve
the issue that there is no reason to consider that event the "beginning"
of anything? And if you accept that the initiation of that event was
preceded by any amount of time, that in fact time goes back forever,
of what special significance is the bang (if it really occurred)?

I stand by my monograph (draft 2 is in the works) with rejection of the BBT
as an unnecessary hypothesis used to scientifically cloak a Creationism
viewpoint. The Universe has always existed. There are no singularities.[/QUOTE]Read Penrose's [i]Cycles of Time[/i] for a cosmology which has recurrent Big Bangs in which the infinite limit of exponential expansion of one aeon is identified with the infinitesimal limit of its successor aeon.

If you wish to dive into the literature, where some suggestive observational support has been presented, the phrase "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" will prove helpful.


Paul

Yes indeed an infinite repetition of small singularity through expansion to
infinite dispersion, regressed backwards through time and unfolding again
through the future, does satisfy the infinity of time in the Universe, and
automatically removes the word "the" from "the Big Bang", since there were
infinitely many in the past and will be again.

But there can not ever be any observable evidence to support this concept,
all evidence of previous Bangs would be wiped out by necessity and the
definition of a singularity.

I agree that there is a cyclic galactic generation process within the Universe,
but not for the Universe as a whole.

[QUOTE=davar55;261941]But there can not ever be any observable evidence to support this concept, all evidence of previous Bangs would be wiped out by necessity and the definition of a singularity.[/QUOTE]That's a rather dogmatic statement.

Whether evidence can or can not be observable is something which can be tested by observation. CCC makes a clear prediction of effects which can in principle be observed.

Paul

[QUOTE=davar55;261887]If you think the initiating "singularity" or "very small dense state" once existed, and that its "explosion" or "expansion" initiated the generation of our current Universe, some large finite time ago, how do you resolve the issue that there is no reason to consider that event the "beginning" of anything?[/quote]"The Big Bang" is always taken to mean the most recent one, in contexts where multiples are discussed. Thus, "The Big Bang" is the beginning of the most recent era/cycle/whatever.

[quote]And if you accept that the initiation of that event was preceded by any amount of time, that in fact time goes back forever, of what special significance is the bang (if it really occurred)?
[/QUOTE]It's the most recent one.

[QUOTE=lavalamp;246849]When you look at a star, the further away you are, the dimmer the star looks since the light has spread out more and therefore less energy reaches you. But the star is still the same colour, providing you are stationary relative to it. Why does this fourth dimension somehow cause a drop in frequency (aka redshift) rather than just a dimming of the light?
...
In fact, the problem is made worse for you, since you say that higher frequencies are redshifted more than lower frequencies. That means that the distant objects must be even more distant than currently thought for the light to have been redshifted as much as it has been.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;246915]Quick answer:
Think diffraction grating. More of the small wavelength light
gets through the pinholes in the skin, so what's left is
proportionally more large wavelength light, i.e. we see it
as redder (red shifted).
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=lavalamp;246946]That's not what redshift is, it isn't simply a dulling in intensity of the higher frequencies. The high frequencies are actually moved down to become lower frequencies, and the lower frequencies are moved down to become even lower frequencies again. We can tell this because of the absorbtion lines present in the spectra of the received light.
...
Although the universe is thought to be 13.7 billion years old, the most distant objects we can see are thought to be 46 - 47 billion light years away. While light can only travel 13.7 billion light years in 13.7 billion years, the space between us and the distant objects has expanded considerably in that time. I am sure you will disagree with this though.[/QUOTE]

As I see it, light from the distant sources is "subtracted" into (through)
the fourth spatial dimension (skin) at every frequency, but moreso at
the lower wavelengths / higher frequencies because the pinholes in the
skin act "like" a diffraction grating and admit more EMR if the wavelength
is smaller, according to some distribution function, calculable from the
degree of shift. So the process both dims the received light and redshifts
the whole spectrum. No space expansion or spreading out of photons is
necessary.

If that explanation is insufficient, I'd be glad to hear the reason.

My monograph is, after all, a work in progress.

[QUOTE=davar55;262154]As I see it, light from the distant sources is "subtracted" into (through) the fourth spatial dimension (skin) at every frequency, but moreso at the lower wavelengths / higher frequencies because the pinholes in the skin act "like" a diffraction grating and admit more EMR if the wavelength is smaller, according to some distribution function, calculable from the degree of shift. So the process both dims the received light and redshifts the whole spectrum. No space expansion or spreading out of photons is necessary.

If that explanation is insufficient, I'd be glad to hear the reason.[/QUOTE]One simple reason is that it doesn't account for the frequency-shifting of emission and absorption lines.

Example, Part A

Suppose there's an absorption line at 6550 angstroms (from a source stationary with respect to the observer) and this results in the following reading from a digital spectroscope:

[code]
Wavelength Intensity of light at that wavelength

6545 0.99
6546 0.99
6547 0.99
6548 0.99
6549 0.97
6550 0.05
6551 0.97
6552 0.99
6553 0.99
6554 0.99
6555 0.99
[/code]Then, we look at an identical source, at the same distance but receding from the observer at a speed of 0.0003 c and again record the spectrum, getting:

[code]
Wavelength Intensity of light at that wavelength, in some unit

6545 0.99
6546 0.99
6547 0.99
6548 0.99
6549 0.99
6550 0.99
6551 0.97
6552 0.05
6553 0.97
6554 0.99
6555 0.99
[/code]How, in your theory, did the light at wavelength 6550 happen to brighten-up from 0.05 to 0.99 while the light at wavelength 6552 happened to dim from 0.99 to 0.05, between the first and second sources?

(Now, that is just the first part. Once you explain that, I'll present the next part.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;262182]One simple reason is that it doesn't account for the frequency-shifting of emission and absorption lines.

Example, Part A

Suppose there's an absorption line at 6550 angstroms (from a source stationary with respect to the observer) and this results in the following reading from a digital spectroscope:

[code]
Wavelength Intensity of light at that wavelength

6545 0.99
6546 0.99
6547 0.99
6548 0.99
6549 0.97
6550 0.05
6551 0.97
6552 0.99
6553 0.99
6554 0.99
6555 0.99
[/code]Then, we look at an identical source, at the same distance but receding from the observer at a speed of 0.0003 c and again record the spectrum, getting:

[code]
Wavelength Intensity of light at that wavelength, in some unit

6545 0.99
6546 0.99
6547 0.99
6548 0.99
6549 0.99
6550 0.99
6551 0.97
6552 0.05
6553 0.97
6554 0.99
6555 0.99
[/code]How, in your theory, did the light at wavelength 6550 happen to brighten-up from 0.05 to 0.99 while the light at wavelength 6552 happened to dim from 0.99 to 0.05, between the first and second sources?

(Now, that is just the first part. Once you explain that, I'll present the next part.)[/QUOTE]

Doesn't light from a star or galaxy cover the whole spectrum?

Shouldn't the 6550 spectral line be at HIGHEST intensity, not
lowest, e.g. 0.99 with the nearbys lower (like 6552 at 0.97 but not
nearly low like 0.05)?

Then a FURTHER star might see some of the 6550 diminished to 0.97,
and 6552 because its a higher wavelength diminished by a smaller
amount to 0.96, but still a local peak?

I'm not sure this is convincing, but consider my first point,
that spectral lines represent peaks.

[QUOTE=davar55;262196]Doesn't light from a star or galaxy cover the whole spectrum?[/quote]If stars or galaxies were perfect blackbody emitters, then they would have perfect black body spectra dictated only by their temperature. But they don't, because they aren't. Instead you get dips in the spectrum dictated by the absorption spectra of the various elements in the emitter, which for stars is overwhelmingly hydrogen, then helium, then increasingly trace amounts of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and so on.

[QUOTE=davar55;262196]Shouldn't the 6550 spectral line be at HIGHEST intensity, not
lowest, e.g. 0.99 with the nearbys lower (like 6552 at 0.97 but not
nearly low like 0.05)?

Then a FURTHER star might see some of the 6550 diminished to 0.97,
and 6552 because its a higher wavelength diminished by a smaller
amount to 0.96, but still a local peak?[/QUOTE]I have no idea what you are getting at here, but if you look at cheesehead's well presented post, you should see that the same dip in intensity has been moved, or shifted, to a longer wavelength (hence the name red shift). Of course it's actually the whole spectrum that has moved, not just that dip.

[QUOTE=davar55;262196]Doesn't light from a star or galaxy cover the whole spectrum?[/QUOTE]A) My example didn't specify a star or galaxy -- just "source".

I intend that the (idealized) source has a continuous blackbody emission spectrum overlaid by a discrete line from absorption by a cooler gas layer around the central continuous emitter.

B) My example doesn't deny the existence of spectrum outside of the 6545-6555 range. I'm just asking you for your theory's explanation of example observations in that range.

[quote]Shouldn't the 6550 spectral line be at HIGHEST intensity, not lowest, e.g. 0.99 with the nearbys lower (like 6552 at 0.97 but not nearly low like 0.05)?[/quote]I specified an absorption line, not an emission line.

[quote]I'm not sure this is convincing, but consider my first point, that spectral lines represent peaks.[/quote]A) Do you understand the difference between absorption lines and emission lines?

B) Your "first point" where? I don't see where your "first point, that spectral lines represent peaks" is.

It's certainly not first in cosmo1.txt, In fact, cosmo1.txt doesn't contain either of the words "spectral" or "peak", and the only occurrences of "line" are in the phrase "traveling in a straight line".

[QUOTE=xilman;261913]Read Penrose's [I]Cycles of Time[/I] for a cosmology which has recurrent Big Bangs in which the [B]infinite limit of exponential expansion[/B] of one aeon is identified with the infinitesimal limit of its successor aeon.

If you wish to dive into the literature, where some suggestive observational support has been presented, the phrase "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology" will prove helpful.
l[/QUOTE]

BTW I'm curious how infinite expansion of, say, the last to 'our' big bang
was accomplished in finite time. Or does his process allow actual infinities
of time and space?