Saturday, December 20, 2014

The Equivalence Principle: BBT or SUT

Einstein made the following reasoning:
he took the Doppler Effect and using the Equivalence Principle, turned it into a Gravitational Shift. And then from there, he derived his eponymous Field Equations.
See The Essential General Relativity.

By reversing this reasoning I've shown the following:
from the Gravitational Shift and using the Equivalence Principle, I've turned that into a Doppler Effect, and from there I then derived the Hubble Equation.
See The Equivalence Principle and the Big Bang Theory.

So one inevitable conclusion is: either the redshift from faraway galaxies is the result of a Doppler Effect and that gives the BBT - or it's a gravitational effect and that gives the SUT. The second inevitable conclusion from the EP is that one interpretation cannot be differentiated from the other, that is, there are no conclusive tests that would favor one over the other. You either accept GR and the EP, or you reject both. Now note that only facts independent of GR/EP can tip the balance in favor of one of those models.

Friday, December 05, 2014

Big Bang Theory Versus Static Universe Theory

In this blog, I will compare the Static Universe Theory (SUT) versus the Big Bang Theory (BBT) in regard to their respective assumptions.

As it has been mentioned in Another argument against the BBT, it is believed that only a Hot Big Bang scenario can explain the CMB, and any other explanation would have to be contrived. We show here quite the contrary that it is the BBT which is contrived in its assumptions to make all the parts fit in.

Static Universe Theory

(1) The Equivalence Principle is valid and the redshift from faraway galaxies is gravitational in nature. See The Equivalence Principle and the Big Bang Theory.

(2) The universe is eternal and infinite.

(3) The CMB can be explained in terms of the surface of infinite redshift. See Olbers' Paradox .

Big Bang Theory

(1) The Equivalence Principle is valid and the redshift is due to a Doppler Effect – the galaxies are moving away from each other.

(2) By extrapolating backward in time, the universe started as a singularity and then expanded.

(3) There is a 4th spatial dimension into which our 3-spatial dimensional world is expanding. See Riemannian Geometry and the Big Bang Theory.

(4) In order to solve the Einstein Field Equations to get to the Friedman Equations, one must assume the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

(5) To justify (4), one must assume that the universe went through an inflationary period in the early stage.

(6) To justify (5), one must assume that quantum fluctuations popped out of the vacuum some 13.7 billion years.

(7) Since the universe is accelerating, one must assume that the universe is filled with Dark Energy, which must make up 75% of the universe in order to justify a flat space universe (As of now, the Vacuum Energy from (6) is out of step by 122 orders of magnitude with Dark Energy).

(8) To calculate the density of the universe, one must assume the universe is finite in size with its radius equal to its Schwarzschild radius.

(9) In order to tie in the CMB with the BBT, one must assume that the universe must behave like a nearly perfect idealized fluid, so that one can tie in the redshift to the scale factor in (4), which itself is tied in with temperature and time. One can then set a chronology of different reactions that would have happened at different temperatures/times, all of these requiring a number of parameters that can be fine-tuned with observation.


The BBT is a contrived theory which besides the number of assumptions that is needed to support the BBT - a much larger number than the SUT - it nevertheless leaves a certain number of unanswered questions such as: what evidence do we have that a 4th spatial dimension exists? If the universe didn't exist from t = -∞ to t = -13.7 billion years, what caused it to spring out of the vacuum some 13.7 billion years ago? How many more assumptions will the BBT need in order to reconcile the Vacuum Energy with Dark Energy in order to make that fit into the theory?

Monday, December 01, 2014

Olbers' Paradox

Olbers' paradox is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe.

Let n be the average number density of galaxies in the universe. Let L be the average stellar luminosity. The flux f(r) received on earth from a galaxy at a distant r is,

(1) f(r) = L/(4πr2)

Consider now a thin spherical shell of galaxies of thickness dr. The intensity of radiation from that shell is,

(2) dJ(r) = flux x number of galaxies in the thin shell.

= L/(4πr2) x n x r2dr

= (nL/4π)dr

We can see that the intensity only depends on the thickness of the shell, not its distance.

The total intensity is found by integrating over shells of all radii.

(3) J = (nL/4π) 0dr = ∞

Accordingly, the night sky should be bombarded by an infinite number of photons.



The primary argument of the Olbers' paradox from the Big Bang Theory is the universe has a finite age (by extrapolating backward in time), and the galaxies beyond a finite distance, called the horizon distance, are invisible to us simply because they are moving faster than lightspeed and therefore their light can’t reach us.

(B) The static model

The paradox is only an apparent contradiction. In this case, if humans had eyes that could see 2mm wavelength (the Cosmic Microwave Background), then one would see the night sky being illuminated from every direction. What's missing in the above calculation is that the wavelength of light travelling immense distance is shifted more and more towards the red. In terms of the wave model, the next peak would take an infinite of time to reach us. This is the surface of infinite redshift. What we see in the CMB are the photons released from a distance slightly less than the surface of infinite redshift. Any photons released from galaxies beyond that distance will not reach us.