Is there a legit challenge to the Big Bang Theory in this?

[Tero]

It's just anxiety. Once you hear the Euclidian-Newtonian world does not exist, people want to grasp concrete, definite explanations. The Jesus people are like that. "This is how I'm going to keep it, don't bug me."

[Svartalf]

I think the funding could be better spent, say, working on a cure for Miley Cyrus.

the cure for miley cyrus, we already have : molybdotherapy in 215 grain doses

[PsychoSerenity]

Who is it that is specifically asking for funding, and for what research exactly? The list of scientists that have signed to support this, - are they specifically involved in plasma cosmology or did they just sign something in favour of reducing bias without looking too carefully into the details?

It's dated 2004 and I imagine cosmology has continued to move rapidity in the last decade. If it was a really meaningful challenge to standard cosmology you might have expected to have heard more about it. Obviously they claim that bias has hindered research etc. but EarthTech International seems to be all about only the most unconventional ideas, - cold fusion, zero-point power sources, anti-gravity, faster than light travel, etc.

I'm skeptical about there being significant bias, - if they put forward a credible hypothesis I suspect they could get funding from most major science bodies, - but claiming that there is bias is a good way to encourage further funding from private individuals that like to fund novel research, which presumably they have been able to obtain to some degree since the company is still going and they have a shiny website.

As for the specifics of plasma cosmology, I haven't the faintest, and I think you'd have to do a lot of reading of mostly obscure science to really get into what it is they're actually claiming. Wiki seems to suggest the concept of it fell further and further out of favour in the light of better evidence, - but can a bad idea ever be completely killed off if there are still people willing to hold on to it?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

There are planned experiments at CERN and elsewhere that are hoping to detect dark matter. It could not be detected before due to the energies required (the same was true of the Higgs Boson - and similar groups of scientists constantly slammed the Standard Model and the Higgs Mechanism up until it was found.) Let's wait until we see what these reveal (or don't) before throwing open the door to the Farsights of this world.

[Tero]

As for the specifics of plasma cosmology, I haven't the faintest, and I think you'd have to do a lot of reading of mostly obscure science to really get into what it is they're actually claiming.

So some guy with a book will not be appearing on Oprah? Darn, I was going to go that route.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

Plasma cosmology is a mostly rejected non-standard cosmological model, whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important roles in the physics of the universe beyond the Solar System.[2][3][4]

Consensus by cosmologists and astrophysicists strongly support that astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics, to explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales. Presently, plasma cosmology is openly rejected by the vast majority of researchers because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomenae or accepted cosmological theory.

[mistermack]

I like the big bang theory, because it explains why stuff is still happening.
If the Universe has ALWAYS existed, then entropy would have reached maximum an infinite time ago, and nothing would be happening now.
All of the stars and gas clouds would have burnt up their fuel an infinity ago. How can you have a Universe of infinite age, and still have energy and fuel for Stars?

BUT, I have often wondered if light can actually travel gigantic distances, without being affected?
What if the wavelength was affected just the tiniest bit, every thousand light years? Maybe that could give the false impression of a red-shift due to velocity.
We look at distant galaxies, see the red-shift, and assume it's because they are moving away from us, but maybe it isn't.
It could be the vast distance of ''empty'' space that causes the red shift.

I'm nor saying that I believe that. But I've often wondered if it's possible.

But all in all, I still prefer the big bang, for the reasons above.

[Jason]

The spectrum of distant light is certainly warped by the space-time curvature of who knows how many gravity wells before it reaches teh earth. But for this to effect a redshift in every distant observable star, and with increasing effect correlated to increasing distance, you would have to show that passing through a curve in space-time increases time in the space-time ratio of a gravity well. If this was true, then the speed of light would actually be slowed the farther it travels - thus the 'redshift' in frequency and the speed of light would not be a constant - at least not in a Euclidean conception. In any case, light travelling from point A to point B would appear to lose energy. Something to do with the entropic nature of the universe perhaps.

Wait.. isn't all that shit already known?

[Jason]

There are planned experiments at CERN and elsewhere that are hoping to detect dark matter. It could not be detected before due to the energies required (the same was true of the Higgs Boson - and similar groups of scientists constantly slammed the Standard Model and the Higgs Mechanism up until it was found.) Let's wait until we see what these reveal (or don't) before throwing open the door to the Farsights of this world.

Thank Boson that the gravity well at the zero point of the super collider did not collect neutrinos after all hmm? Of course, they'd have to be able to calculate the zero point for every dimension (are they still only working with 4?). Then again, even if they could calculate it (not model it), it would be something like a pinched gravity well. I like to think of it as a binary black hole system in that space-time acceleration at zero point would be in constant flux (+/-). Sort of like a ball on an elastic 'string' in perpetual motion from the perspective of zero point and with no loss of energy. In Newtonian terms, the 'ball' remains in motion as it is acted upon by the fluctuation in external force of the the binary system at zero point dependent upon its position, energy, and vector. Such a system could exist in theory, but in practice the initial entry vector would have to be absolutely correct - models won't cut it. See asymptotes.

That's just highschool Sci-Fi stuff though.

[MiM]

Oh do I hate lines like "despite 20 years of experiments"... just like we should be able to dismantle the real big mysteries of life, the universe and everything in no time at all, AND without the mice governing us. BLAH.

[mistermack]

The spectrum of distant light is certainly warped by the space-time curvature of who knows how many gravity wells before it reaches teh earth. But for this to effect a redshift in every distant observable star, and with increasing effect correlated to increasing distance, you would have to show that passing through a curve in space-time increases time in the space-time ratio of a gravity well. If this was true, then the speed of light would actually be slowed the farther it travels - thus the 'redshift' in frequency and the speed of light would not be a constant - at least not in a Euclidean conception. In any case, light travelling from point A to point B would appear to lose energy. Something to do with the entropic nature of the universe perhaps.

Wait.. isn't all that shit already known?

I expect it's all been thrashed out. I wouldn't know, that's for sure.
But light has wave properties, and other waves can lose energy as they travel. It wouldn't be measurable here on Earth, if it was such a tiny change, over such a vast distance. We don't know exactly what empty space is, so we can't be sure that it doesn't absorb a miniscule amount of energy from light. Not by slowing it, but by a tiny effect on it's wavelength.

I'm sure that physicists could give a definitive answer to that, I'm not sure where I'd need to look to find it.

[Jason]

That sounds probable. I recall a lecture about the non-existence of 'empty space', but not the details. Basically the professor postulated and argued that 'empty space' does not exist. Which is kind of funny when you think about it.

[JimC]

Well, I'd like to know something more substantial about this part:

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Emphasis added.

I read a NewScientist article a fair while ago which discussed alternative theories to explain the red-shift, which is the basis to the expanding Universe model. Without remembering the details, the alternatives seemed to involve a lot of hand-waving, clutching at straws and fudge factors.

To me, the original observations by Hubble of the red-shift and its relation to distance, the space-time models of Einstein, and the cosmic microwave background radiation are pretty damn solid evidence for some form of big bang...

[Jason]

The CMBR could be caused by the particle/wave agitation of 'empty space' by light. What say you?

[mistermack]

I read a NewScientist article a fair while ago which discussed alternative theories to explain the red-shift, which is the basis to the expanding Universe model. Without remembering the details, the alternatives seemed to involve a lot of hand-waving, clutching at straws and fudge factors.

To me, the original observations by Hubble of the red-shift and its relation to distance, the space-time models of Einstein, and the cosmic microwave background radiation are pretty damn solid evidence for some form of big bang...

If there are galaxies who's velocities you can determine by techniques independent of red shift, then I guess it would be easy enough to cross check that the red shift was an accurate measure of velocity.
Or stars. Maybe you can calibrate it by looking at a galaxy that's end on to us, and see a different red shift on one side than the other. Measure the difference, calculate the speed of rotation, and calibrate the red shift that way.

Anyway, I still like the big bang. It answers more questions than it poses.