Talk:Alternative cosmology/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 23 July 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Additional sources

• The Quasi-Steady State Cosmology: Some Recent Developments
• The Quasi-Steady State Cosmology: Theory and observations

Dynamic Steady State Universe Theory

• Theoretical Foundation and Pillars of the Dynamic Steady State Universe
• The Large Scale Structure of the Dynamic Steady State Universe Forests (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

FSM, I hope you are not one of those people who thinks that the Big Bang is somehow creationistic...--ZooGuard (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well ZooGuard I would rather keep my personal opinions out of this and keep the article as neutral as possible, if I state I am a critic of the Big Bang I would be accused as promoting the Steady state. I am not supporting the Steady State theory and in it's original form it is obsolete and it's new version also has problems. Forests (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Occam's Razor

Wouldn't the original SST violate Occam's Razor? It seems it didn't explain anything that the Big Bang theory didn't, and required more assumptions (like the ill-explained matter creation mechanism). The only argument in favor I can think of is that it's scary to think that the universe would ever end, but that's an argument from adverse consequences fallacy. - LucidFox (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The original SST has been shot down, there are no supporters of that theory anymore. I do not think it violated Occam's Razor. Your second point has been noted by others, yes there were some philosophical advantages from the SST model. It would be worthwhile to point out that the Big Bang is actually compatible with an infinite universe. The (QSSC) model has argued for many little bangs, this idea is found in other cosmological ideas as well. Forests (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

I would like to cover plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe on this article. Any help would be appreciated. Forests (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• A reference for plasma cosmology Link Forests (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology is the second most well-known alternative cosmology after Hoyle/ Narlikar et. al. Steady State models. The beginnings of Plasma Cosmology might go back to ideas, work, and hypothesis first proposed by Nicola Tesla in the early 1930’s. Tesla’s ideas related to electricity (electro-magnetism) being involved in the formation and mechanics of galaxies that were then newly discovered entities outside our own galaxy.

In the 1960’s and early 1970’s Hannes Alfvén, a Nobel Laureate, and others formally proposed a new theory of cosmology which its founders called Alfvén-Klein (plasma)Cosmology. The underlying principle was that ionic clouds within galaxies (plasma) influence the galaxy’s formation and observed characteristics – as well as the universe as a whole. Since these plasma particles are primarily electrons and protons, they accordingly have charged electrical and magnetic influences on a galaxy’s appearance and motion characteristics. This work was generally ignored by mainstream cosmology because galaxies were then believed to gravitationally function according to Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity. In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s it was discovered that galaxy rotation curves were contrary to Newtonian gravity initiating the dark matter hypothesis. At the same time such a variation was predicted by Plasma Cosmology, that galaxies also had large electro-magnetic influences. This discovery helped reinvigorate Plasma Cosmology research and theory.

There is no consensus math to this model, or consensus view of the exact mechanics of the model. There are still active theorists in this field such as Eric J. Lerner who wrote the book “The Big Bang Never Happened” and others presently active in the plasma research field.

Some variations of Plasma Cosmology have been collectively called Electric Universe (EU) models. The few active Plasma Cosmologists today generally try to distance themselves from most EU ideas since many involve pseudo-science. ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.100.111.145 / talk / contribs}

Is this a parody?

I found another theory, but it may well be a parody, according to one page:

"Montgomery, Alabama. Terrence A. Lynch, founder and promoter of a new theory that the universe is eternal in nature, that time has no beginning nor end, and the Big Bang a is but a myth, was persecuted in an Alabama State Court. Lynch was arrested during the middle of the night, Nov. 21, 2003, taken from his home and locked in a mental institution for evaluation. Lynch's brother, Carl Gregory Lynch, had read about his younger brother's theory of cosmology upon the Internet and this disturbed the elder brother and his wife, a devout Catholic. A plot was then brewed to destroy Terry Lynch's life by having him arrested and declared insane. However, psychiatrists who evaluated Lynch could not find anything wrong with him."

Link and his theory itself appears to be a few drawings Link. Is it a parody, or is this serious? Forests (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we include the alternatives no matter how nutty?

This is a creationist alternative cosmology Link absolute bonkers. Notice how the author is trying to sell any of his products with it Forests (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This would take you all decades to write up.. don't bother. I do however think you should revisit the 'Continuous creation of matter' section to include Hawking Radiation and the idea that that near the event horizon of a black hole the particles created by a vacuum fluctuation may create new matter in this universe. Of course, as Lee Smolin suggests, the new matter at the singularity of a black hole may result in a new universe via a big bang scenario. Does this matter? ^{— Unsigned, by: Penguin face / talk / contribs}

Cheers for the suggestion. At the moment I will focus on the crackpot alternatives, but I will get round to discussing some of these "mainstream" alternatives. The problem is, is that Lee Smolin does not dispute the Big Bang, like Hawking his idea is not an alternative but rather an extension of the Big Bang. I think that extensions would belong on the Big Bang article. Forests (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Trouble is that there are ..er.. probably a million or so crackpot theories to write up. Good luck though. ^{— Unsigned, by: Penguin face / talk / contribs}

Very true, there are a lot of these theories, I am only going to cover a few more. Someone who is more educated in this area should expand the plasma cosmology section. Forests (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Found another creationist cosmology Contracting Universe by Rupert Raynar. It would probably be best to leave the creationist ones off the page. Forests (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We will not include religious-based "cosmologies" in general since few if any have any scientific basis for them, and therefore do not fall under the qualifications of this category 15:30, 21 August 2014 (FN)

The Static Universe Hypothesis

Interesting paper by Thomas B. Andrews, Link. I cannot seem to find any review of his paper. If anyone can find anything, let me know. Forests (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A well written hypothesis of a static universe otherwise explaining galactic redshifts as being a function of wave mechanics relating to decreased EM frequencies over distances, rather than being caused by an expanding universe. With math to support the model, there is an underlying appealing logic that supports arguments as well as references to supposedly supporting observations. The model may have a problem explaining type 1a supernova time dilation, which was a problem with some "tired light" static-universe models.

Because of the mathematical support shown in this paper, the cosmological model might also rightfully be called a theory. Since Hoyle-Narlikar's Steady State models also propose an expanding universe, with new matter creation, they are not "static universe" models like this one. ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.100.111.145 / talk / contribs}

Other references

• Evidence of a Cosmological Matter Cycle
• Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation: Discussion and Possible Solution of the Dilemma
• A New Look at Cosmology by Marian Axente
• The Universe Has No Beginning? Doubts about the Big Bang Theory by Alexander Matthews

Forests (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Dispersive Extinction Theory

This is not a crackpot theory, it was proposed by a professor of physics Ling Jun Wang but his papers appear in Physics Essays which describes itself as an "an international journal dedicated to theoretical and experimental aspects of fundamental problems in Physics and, generally, to the advancement of basic knowledge of Physics." I looked up this journal and it appears to be described as a fringe physics journal? Has anyone else heard of it? Here is some of the papers Wang has published with them. He seems to have published some mainstream science papers here. Forests (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Dispersive Extinction theory is presented to explain the cosmic redshift of galactic light and the 2.7 K background radiation as both being due to the dispersive scattering and absorption of starlight by a space medium of some sort. An estimate of the nonlinear absorption constant is given by comparing the result to the Hubble constant derived from the observational data. An experimental method is designed to test the validity of the dispersive extinction theory compared to the expanding-space theory.

Like other redshift models based upon decreased EM frequencies being caused by absorption processes, this model also may have a problem explaining the time dilation observed from type 1a supernovas. ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.100.111.145 / talk / contribs}

The Pan theory

According to the Pan theory "The Pan Theory is an alternative to the Big Bang Theory. It is also a set of theories that propose explanations for the origin for all the fundamental forces of physics as well as an alternative theory of Gravity and a new theory of Relativity.

You may never read another modern-age theory formulated in a similar manner that starts from scratch with no pre-existing laws of physics. This is because these related theories assert that the laws of physics, as well as energy, time, and space all can be defined and explained by the relative motion and interactions of matter."

(If anyone can make any sense of this theory, then let me know what it is about! Forests (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

The Pan Theory involves theoretical physics and cosmology, primarily textual but with a number of unique theoretical equations relating to cosmology. It generally is a re-write of the concepts of modern physics. The Pan Theory is a type of string theory, rightfully called a Theory Of Everything. In contrast to extra-dimensional sting theories, it asserts only the 3 Cartesian dimensions, and one of time. The theory asserts the existence of only one particle that makes up the entire universe and all other particles, with only one internal mechanical force that can be observed as particle spin. It proposes another theory of gravity and explains away the so-called forces of nature and pure energy. The universe accordingly is much older. It asserts that everything in the universe is relatively simple to understand, mathematics aside, with simple common-sense conceptual definitions, explanations, and asserted evidence.

This theory, along with other older and infinite universe models, predicts that the James Webb space telescope will find at the farthest distances galaxies that appear as old, and as large or larger than the Milky way and close large elliptical galaxies. This would imply that the universe is much older. If only small blue young appearing galaxies were observed at the farthest distances then The Pan Theory would be disproved. There is much present evidence, however, which would indicate that many old appearing large galaxies will then be observed. If so another ad hoc hypothesis will be needed for the Big Bang model to explain a much older universe. A number of theorists would then begin to be skeptical of the Big Bang model and start looking elsewhere.

Additional information:

The Pan Theory asserts the existence of a background field, Plank sized particles which would be more akin to an aether than dark matter, or a Higg's field. The theory states there are no forces of nature such as the Strong Force, the Weak Force, the electromagnetic force, the gravitational force. It instead explains all these so called forces mechanically via a physical background field, or as physical connections relating to the Strong and Weak nuclear Forces. The theory has its own theory of gravity which supposedly explains gravity in our solar system, galaxies, and clusters asserting dark matter is non-extent. It reformulates the Hubble distance formula supposedly explaining away dark energy as being non-existent.

As a type of string theory it does away with the standard particle theory and in its place a far simpler string theory. It states the Quantum Mechanics is conceptually wrong and that most all of QM theory is wrong. It asserts the math is simply probabilistic and based upon a long history of observation and proposes relatively simple understandings of it. It proposes several experiments that if valid would lend credence for the tenets of the theory.

It proposes that the universe in all aspects is relatively simple to understand. It is a diminution of matter model being a type of "Scaling theory" which accordingly is the cause of galactic redshifts in that matter accordingly was larger in the past producing longer wavelengths of EM radiation. Matter according about every 6 billion years becomes half its present size but there would be twice as much of it in count. The related mechanisms are explained in detail including supposed evidence.

respectfully, Forrest Noble theorist/author of the Pan Theory (e-mail on website Pan Theory) ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.100.111.145 / talk / contribs}

Have you published your theory in any scientific papers, or you are planning on doing this? Do you want your theory mentioned on the list? Forests (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my last scientific paper can be seen [here]. The website of the theory is pantheory.org. I think it would be appropriate to add the Pan Theory to the "Page" list. 06:25, 12 March 2013 (FN)

The Cosmic Time Hypothesis

Another theory I found. See and here here. Like the theory above if anyone can make any sense of it, please let me know and we may be able to add them in. Forests (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Cosmic Time Hypothesis (CTH) is based on the General Theory of Relativity (GTR) and makes use of its degrees of freedom for an extension of the time term. According to the CTH, the universal time scale expands to the same law as the expanding universe. By means of this “cosmic space-time”, accordingly physical reality can be described more comprehensively and plausibly compared to the present standard model of cosmology. It can be described as a non-mainstream Big Bang model. ^{— Unsigned, by: 74.100.111.145 / talk / contribs}