Da big bang

[Faust|]

My chronology pertained to a relatively unrelated field. If you are still interested I can PM you more information. I used it as an example of how the process works. Actually, near universal acceptance of this chronology occurred very quickly, as the data was very clear and my argument very convincing, but it took several years to amass the data and write. Now, to address the other points, as this is a numbers game and to remove any doubt, I've been collecting data for the last 11 yrs, and have just started the write-ups.

Returning to why I don't buy the BBT, given the nature of the event, why do some interior structures appear much older than the construct as a whole? The estimated date of the event is also not supported by the general morphologies of distant galaxies.

*edit* I'm thinking it has something to do with either the speed of light or our measurement of (or estimates of) big distances using light... You're saying that we are incorrectly assuming that all light reaching us travelled an average speed of c in getting to us?

[cmacq]

*edit*You're saying that we are incorrectly assuming that all light reaching us travelled an average speed of c in getting to us?

No, what I'm saying is; based on the entire math (including that involving morphological formation), the projected relative date of the theoretical Big Bang Event is much more recent than the projected age of the galactic structures found within the result of said event. This is not a mater of simply revising the date of the theoretical event to fit the evidence. This is because the BB Event's relationship to the result is largely exacted by the math (distance).

You see the BBT was designed to mathematically explain only the relative distance between distant galactic structures hypostasized to be moving away from a common starting point. Of course within that context the age of individual galactic structures was not important. For the BBT to work mathematically in relation to individual galactic structures one would only have to rearrange the physical order of the universe to fit the theory. Or, one could physically restructure many of the galactic structures that we can perceive to a much earlier state. And, that may have an impact on our little take of the Copernican Principle.

Then again it might be a tad easier, that if the math does not fit, one must acquit this BBT to the dust bin of Turtle Back Theories. I’m not real sure if the fact that we are viewing these structures at different chronological stages is taken into account, which would throw the BBT even more out of wack. Faust, the assumption surrounding the light thing is an entirely different topic of why the BBT is a dead end. Initially, I had hoped to move more via the breadcrumb in a direction to explain rather than to disprove. This rather stenotic colloquy seems to dictate that this shall not be the way we proceed.

To view this topic in a light, other than the Doppler, please see the Compton effect.

CmacQ

[Faust|]

I see... very interesting. Thanks very much!

[cmacq]

To explain a bit more.

The cosmological red shift, explained as a result of the Doppler Effect (DE), is often used as a proof of the BBT. However, given all the known variables this observation is most likely a direct result of the Compton Effect. Briefly, the Compton Scattering (CS) or Compton Effect (CE) is represented by a decrease in energy, which is congruent with an increase in the wavelength of X-ray or gamma ray photons, when they interacts with matter. The extent of the wavelength increase is called the Compton Shift (CSt). Although Nuclear Compton Scattering (NCS) exists, CS typically refers only to the interaction of electrons within a given atom. The CE was observed by Arthur Holly Compton in 1923 and later verified by his graduate student Y. H. Woo. Arthur Compton earned the 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics for documenting this observation.

Inverse Compton Scattering (ICS) has also been observed, whereas photons gain energy, and correspondingly decrease wavelength upon interaction with matter. Overall, the CE is important because it demonstrates that light cannot be explained as only a wave phenomenon. The alternative Thomson Scattering theory of an electromagnetic wave scattered by charged particles, doesn’t explain the observed change in wavelength. In contrast, Compton's experiment convinced physicists that light behaves as a stream of particles, whose energy is proportional to a given frequency.

Herein, the physical mechanics of the CE represent an interaction between electrons and high energy photons that result in the transference of energy, realized as the retraction of the electrons and a directional change of the photons that remain charged, so that the overall momentum is conserved. If the photon retains enough energy, the process may repeat, as in this scenario, the electron is viewed as either free or loosely bound. If the photon has less, yet sufficient energy, in general only a few electronvolts comparable to that of visible light, it can eject an electron from its host atom completely, a process known as the Photoelectric Effect, rather than the CE.

The CE has been used to explain the red shift observations of bright very long wavelength extragalactic radio waves. It has also provided an explanation for the red shift emission of quasars and our own sun. Interestingly, quasars may actually be much closer than their red shift may suggest due to being surrounded by a gaseous atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This produces the unusual red shift as light transverses an atmosphere composed of concentrated electrons and loses energy to these electrons as per the CE.

Our sun’s red shift is obviously not due to the Doppler Effect, as it’s not moving away from us. This phonon demonstrates a variation in magnitude that corresponds to the number of electrons that lay directly along a given line of sight. Visually, these are fewest at the solar center and reach a maximum at the extremity where we view the thickest part of the sun's atmosphere. Solar electrons are concentrated by gravity with the greatest density near the sun's photosphere to produce the sun's intrinsic red shift. Similarly, the quasar red shift and other bright, hot young stars' "K effect" intrinsic red shift seem to represent concentrated atmospheric electrons at or very near the surface, again inspired by the CE.

Now to attribute the cosmological red shift to the CE, intergalactic space must have a given density of free electrons and/or positrons. Thus, the further light travels through this seemingly transparent medium, the greater the red shift, as Hubble's Law provides. The presence of electrons and positrons in intergalactic space was demonstrated by observations of electron-positron annihilation gamma rays coming from above our galactic plane. This was observed from the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory which is in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere. Although intergalactic space was once thought to be a vacuum, now we understand it’s actually filled with clouds of high velocity gas that contain molecular hydrogen. This gas is thought to come from the condensation of hydrogen atoms made up of free electrons and protons. When light hits these free electrons, as per the CE, it produces the red shift.

Thus, because of the variables the CE convincingly removes the DE as an explanation of the observed red shift phenomenon, as a proof of the BBT.

I hope this helps.


CmacQ