Impossible Galaxy Debunk Conventional Cosmology

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, Fred Hoyle.

He was one of 3 (the others being Hermann Bondi & Thomas Gold), who were proponents of the Steady State model in 1948-1951, competing against the 1948 papers of George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman’s Big Bang model.

The Steady State model was debunked with the discovery of CMBR in 1964.

Then in 1993, he tried to revive SS with the Quasi-Steady State model, which was no more successful than the first one.

In Fred Hoyle’s defence, there were a lot more than three proponents of the Steady State model. A certain Albert Einstein being one of them.

Didn’t know Hoyle tried to revive a version in the 90s. Still, it was considered a good theory in that it made definite predictions which could be, and eventually were, falsified by observation.

Anyway, Fred had the last laugh; it’s him that coined the term Big Bang.

 

[Native]

Based on the fact we've been largely stuck for over a century my guess is that there are fundamental errors in our definitions.

Sure so. In addition to this century of cosmological darkness, we can add 2 1/2 centuries more of Newtonian gravitational occultism - which in fact has led to the last century of cosmological darkness and all kind of unnatural speculations of this and that.

To me it looks more and more as cosmological scientist have studied themselves dumber and dumber in Universities and forgot that nature itself is the greatest teacher.

 

[Native]

In Fred Hoyle’s defence, there were a lot more than three proponents of the Steady State model. A certain Albert Einstein being one of them.

I have it that the good old Albert were naturally sane before he got involved in his gravitational math. At least he opposed Newtons occult agency and logically rejected it as being a force at all.

 

[gnostic]

In Fred Hoyle’s defence, there were a lot more than three proponents of the Steady State model. A certain Albert Einstein being one of them.

Actually, his model was Static Universe model.

Einstein’s cosmology was a universe that don’t expand, don’t contract, don’t change at all, so no new galaxies & stars.

The Steady State is expanding universe, like the Big Bang, but like Einstein’s cosmology, no other changes, hence no new galaxies & stars.

 

[gnostic]

Anyway, Fred had the last laugh; it’s him that coined the term Big Bang.

Yes, he did, in 1949.

There were no name for the model in the 1920s by Friedmann, Robertson & Lemaître, it was just common referred to as the Expanding Universe model.

Hoyle did "coined" the Big Bang, but he was actually naming his competition's model, but the media used it that it became so popular that other scientists used it too, that became its name.

Didn’t know Hoyle tried to revive a version in the 90s. Still, it was considered a good theory in that it made definite predictions which could be, and eventually were, falsified by observation.

Since the Steady State allows for expansion, the redshift measurements apply to it as does for the Big Bang model.

But in 1948, Gamow and Alpher predicted the Primeval Nucleosynthesis or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), in which the formation of atomic nuclei formed around proton hydrogen atoms and around protons & neutrons, like deuterium, helium and lithium atoms, for the first time. Alpher and Herman predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). And Gamow have also the universe started in very hot state, hence the Hot Big Bang model, as opposed to Lemaître’s Cold Big Bang model 1927.

Of course Lemaître didn’t call it Big Bang, but Lemaître did predict cold beginning of the universe.

Anyway, these 3 predictions made by Gamow, Alpher & Herman were verified with the discovery of CMBR, in 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.

And these 3 predictions, also led to understanding of how the lightest elements formed when the universe was still young.

And their 3 predictions were still valid and remained in use in later models, eg the Inflationary model in early 1980s, and the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model (ΛCDM) in late 1990s.

The Inflationary and ΛCDM models were attempts at solutions that the 1948’s model didn’t have answers for. ΛCDM ties together the 1920s, 1948 & early 1980s models altogether.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In Fred Hoyle’s defence, there were a lot more than three proponents of the Steady State model. A certain Albert Einstein being one of them.

Didn’t know Hoyle tried to revive a version in the 90s. Still, it was considered a good theory in that it made definite predictions which could be, and eventually were, falsified by observation.

Anyway, Fred had the last laugh; it’s him that coined the term Big Bang.

Not really. The term "Big Bang" was adopted as a dig at, not as an honor towards Hoyle. And from my understanding Einstein eventually realized that his theory predicted an expanding universe. He tried to "fix" it by adding an unjustified quantity to his equation. He called his cosmological constant the greatest mistake that he ever made.

Yes, at one point Einstein supported a steady state. He eventually realized that was wrong and changed his mind.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, I forgot to include that the Steady State, like Einstein's Static Universe, don't allow for changes in temperature.

The Hot Big Bang model (1948), Inflationary cosmology (1980s) and ΛCDM - all three stated that universe started off "hot", then with inflation and expansion, the universe became cooler and cooler, cool enough for subatomic particles to form, then cool enough for atoms to form.

Hoyle's Steady State model also failed to account for space being homogeneous and isotropic.

Lastly.

Although Einstein originally didn't accept the 1920s' models, his field equations for General Relativity played a pinnacle role for the development of Alexander Friedmann's (1922), Howard Percy Robertson's (1924-25) and Georges Lemaître's (1927) models.

Einstein's equations were the framework that these astrophysicists used to construct their expanding universe cosmology; Friedmann was the first to adapt Einstein's equations, by using a metric added to the equation that provide exact solution.

Einstein's equations became Friedmann's equations, when used in context with cosmology principles, along with the metric. Robertson (with Arthur Geoffrey Walker in 1931) and Lemaître came up with the same metric as Friedmann did in 1922, so the metric was named after them - Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric or FLRW metric.

So in part, Einstein did play a role in the Big Bang theory.

 

[gnostic]

None of your comments are related to the posted specific video content, hence I must conclude you haven´t watched it.

No, I didn't watch it. I don't spend a lot of time around watching videos.

This is a forum for discussion and debate, watching videos are optional.

So I rather focus on your comments and your personal views.

 

[Native]

Actually, his model was Static Universe model.
Einstein’s cosmology was a universe that don’t expand, don’t contract, don’t change at all, so no new galaxies & stars.
The Steady State is expanding universe, like the Big Bang, but like Einstein’s cosmology, no other changes, hence no new galaxies & stars.

This is NOT a part of my OP - but I´ll make a short note:

The funny - and tragic - point is, that they could have got the natural model from several cultural ancient ancestors who had the Universe to be eternal of nature and having a cyclical and eternal process of formation, dissolution and re-formation.

Only in this logical way, can the Law of Energy Conservation be scientifically obeyed.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not really. The term "Big Bang" was adopted as a dig at, not as an honor towards Hoyle. And from my understanding Einstein eventually realized that his theory predicted an expanding universe. He tried to "fix" it by adding an unjustified quantity to his equation. He called his cosmological constant the greatest mistake that he ever made.

Yes, at one point Einstein supported a steady state. He eventually realized that was wrong and changed his mind.

Except that Einstein's cosmological constant which, according to Gamow, Einstein himself admitted was his 'greatest blunder', has since been revisited to account for the recently observed accelerating expansion of the universe. So not for the first time with Einstein, even when declared wrong (by himself and others), he was right.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
None of your comments are related to the posted specific video content, hence I must conclude you haven´t watched it.

No, I didn't watch it. I don't spend a lot of time around watching videos.
This is a forum for discussion and debate, watching videos are optional.

Nonsense!
If the OP-holder is presenting a for him important video, this IS a part of the discussion and debate! If you´re THAT intellectual lazy not to watch a 5: 40 minute video, just don´t participate in the debat and leave it alone.

So I rather focus on your comments and your personal views.

Nonsense again!
My views and remarks concerned the video titel: "Our Ignorance About Gravity", which deal with some inconsistencies of Newtons Universal gravity - and all I got from you was a general defense of Newton - and a lot of other irrelevant issues.

You even did 'nt comment directly to my own comments as you wrote you rather "would like to".

By NOT listening to the video, you in fact derailed the thread and it´s Sub OP in the video.

Hold your focus on the OP - or just get out of this thread!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that Einstein's cosmological constant which, according to Gamow, Einstein himself admitted was his 'greatest blunder', has since been revisited to account for the recently observed accelerating expansion of the universe. So not for the first time with Einstein, even when declared wrong (by himself and others), he was right.

Ask @Polymath257 but I do believe that the value of it is due to the expansion rate. In other words it does not explain the expansion rate, it is an artifact of it.

 

[gnostic]

Native said: ↑
None of your comments are related to the posted specific video content, hence I must conclude you haven´t watched it.

Nonsense!
If the OP-holder is presenting a for him important video, this IS a part of the discussion and debate! If you´re THAT intellectual lazy not to watch a 5: 40 minute video, just don´t participate in the debat and leave it alone.

Nonsense again!
My views and remarks concerned the video titel: "Our Ignorance About Gravity", which deal with some inconsistencies of Newtons Universal gravity - and all I got from you was a general defense of Newton - and a lot of other irrelevant issues.

You even did 'nt comment directly to my own comments as you wrote you rather "would like to".

By NOT listening to the video, you in fact derailed the thread and it´s Sub OP in the video.

Hold your focus on the OP - or just get out of this thread!

Actually, your OP has only a link to an article, not to a video.

 

[Native]

Except that Einstein's cosmological constant which, according to Gamow, Einstein himself admitted was his 'greatest blunder', has since been revisited to account for the recently observed accelerating expansion of the universe. So not for the first time with Einstein, even when declared wrong (by himself and others), he was right.

Please try to hold and reply to the posted OP.

 

[gnostic]

Except that Einstein's cosmological constant which, according to Gamow, Einstein himself admitted was his 'greatest blunder', has since been revisited to account for the recently observed accelerating expansion of the universe. So not for the first time with Einstein, even when declared wrong (by himself and others), he was right.

Yes, the constant do represent the acceleration of expansion, but the cosmological constant (lambda, Λ) represents the vacuum energy or Dark Energy.

 

[Native]

Actually, your OP has only a link to an article, not to a video.

As an early participant in this thread, you have NO excuses, as you´re noticed every time a reply is posted, included my Sub-OP video in question.

Gnostic, you´re on the brink of ending on my permanent ignore list! One more irrelevant reply and you´re out.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, his model was Static Universe model.

Einstein’s cosmology was a universe that don’t expand, don’t contract, don’t change at all, so no new galaxies & stars.

The Steady State is expanding universe, like the Big Bang, but like Einstein’s cosmology, no other changes, hence no new galaxies & stars.

Not true. Hoyle's view allowed for spontaneous creation of hydrogen atoms so that new stars and galaxies would form.

 

[Polymath257]

Not really. The term "Big Bang" was adopted as a dig at, not as an honor towards Hoyle. And from my understanding Einstein eventually realized that his theory predicted an expanding universe. He tried to "fix" it by adding an unjustified quantity to his equation. He called his cosmological constant the greatest mistake that he ever made.

Yes, at one point Einstein supported a steady state. He eventually realized that was wrong and changed his mind.

Einsteins original static model was very different than Hoyle's Steady State model.

Einstein introduced the cosmological constant *because* he philosophically didn't like the idea of an expanding or contracting universe. What he didn't realize at the time is that his static model was an unstable equilibrium and would have immediately started to expand or contract given any density fluctuation.

Hoyle's model was an expanding universe, but required spontaneous formation of matter on a continuing basis in order for things to be 'steady'. It also modeled a universe that is infinitely old.

Except that Einstein's cosmological constant which, according to Gamow, Einstein himself admitted was his 'greatest blunder', has since been revisited to account for the recently observed accelerating expansion of the universe. So not for the first time with Einstein, even when declared wrong (by himself and others), he was right.

The cosmological constant was an extra term in the equations for gravity that allowed for a static universe if the CC had a very specific value. Unfortunately, even with this value, the resulting stasis was unstable: any slight change and expansion or contraction would start.

Einstein saw it as his greatest blunder because he would have been able to predict the expansion of the universe from his original equations. After that discovery, most cosmologists stopped using the CC, thinking it was unnecessary.

But in the interim, there were still people who looked at it and explored its mathematical properties. So, when the accelerating expansion was discovered, it was very quickly realized to fit into the extended equations with CC, only with a different value of CC than in Einstein's original.

One way of looking at the extra term, depending on which side of the equation it is, is that it represents an energy density in a vacuum: as space expands, the energy density stays the same (as opposed to going down, which is what would happen with ordinary matter). In this guise, it is called dark energy.

Ask @Polymath257 but I do believe that the value of it is due to the expansion rate. In other words it does not explain the expansion rate, it is an artifact of it.

The value of the CC determines the rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe (along with mass and energy density overall).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Einsteins original static model was very different than Hoyle's Steady State model.

Einstein introduced the cosmological constant *because* he philosophically didn't like the idea of an expanding or contracting universe. What he didn't realize at the time is that his static model was an unstable equilibrium and would have immediately started to expand or contract given any density fluctuation.

Hoyle's model was an expanding universe, but required spontaneous formation of matter on a continuing basis in order for things to be 'steady'. It also modeled a universe that is infinitely old.



The cosmological constant was an extra term in the equations for gravity that allowed for a static universe if the CC had a very specific value. Unfortunately, even with this value, the resulting stasis was unstable: any slight change and expansion or contraction would start.

Einstein saw it as his greatest blunder because he would have been able to predict the expansion of the universe from his original equations. After that discovery, most cosmologists stopped using the CC, thinking it was unnecessary.

But in the interim, there were still people who looked at it and explored its mathematical properties. So, when the accelerating expansion was discovered, it was very quickly realized to fit into the extended equations with CC, only with a different value of CC than in Einstein's original.

One way of looking at the extra term, depending on which side of the equation it is, is that it represents an energy density in a vacuum: as space expands, the energy density stays the same (as opposed to going down, which is what would happen with ordinary matter). In this guise, it is called dark energy.



The value of the CC determines the rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe (along with mass and energy density overall).

I was pretty sure that I was going to get the details wrong. I guess I was too busy to do a quick Google search. Thank you.

 

[Native]

The cosmological constant was an extra term in the equations for gravity that allowed for a static universe if the CC had a very specific value. Unfortunately, even with this value, the resulting stasis was unstable: any slight change and expansion or contraction would start.

Einstein saw it as his greatest blunder because he would have been able to predict the expansion of the universe from his original equations. After that discovery, most cosmologists stopped using the CC, thinking it was unnecessary.

Knowing from numerous experiences how old and present conventional ideas changes in astrophysics and cosmology, it shouldn´t surprise me the least if "Newtons blunder" on day become very close to what's basically is going on in the observable Universe.

I predict this: The law of energy conservations mut be observed and obeyed, hence: The universe is basically steady and infinite with its "internal" cyclical and eternal changing process of Formation, Dissolution and Re-Formation, all governed by E&M qualities and frequencies.

Anybody could have learned this from the 6-500 thousand years old ancestral cultural numerous Stories of Creation.

BTW: One day I also expect the expansion idea of the Universe to fall. Just the need for having yet another dark occult thing, "dark energy", to patch up this idea, really should tell it all.