Back to Main Physics International
Back to Physics International TOPICS Page
Detailed Calculation of The
Energy of Propagation from the Redshift and Distance Values
Other (more or less serious ) Consequences of Abandoning the Big Bang Theory
The Fallacy of the "Big Bang" Theory
Ralph H. Rydman, BA., BS., MS., Ph.D., D.ABR.
Radiation Physicist, Retired (consulting)
The sun is red at sunset because of where we are on the surface of a spinning spherical earth and because the place where we are standing and looking at the sun is rushing away from the sun at over 1,000 miles an hour and so the sun exhibits a Doppler shift in its spectrum towards the red! +
Keywords: Big Bang, Red Shift, Energy of Propagation, Photon Conversion Efficiency
I herein propose the concept of "Energy of Propagation" and a "Photon Electro-Magnetic Conversion Efficiency Factor" for photons as the basis for the explanation of the "Red Shift" (which is observed in light coming from far distant light-emitting objects in distant galaxies) and as the basis for debunking the need for, and possibility of, a universe-originating "Big Bang". This herein expressed, newly revealed, original theory will form an additional scientific basis for the concept of a Steady State Universe and can form the basis for an explanation of the cosmic background and an explanation for the apparent change in the rate of expansion of the universe. The elimination of the "Big Bang" will be shown to also threaten the theory behind the possibility and existence of many other concepts that have become so essential to modern physics. I expect most physicists will not want to abandon the concepts that have been indoctrinated to believe.
But first, a Little Background Information:
You can check Wikipedia for Hubble
There are two basic concepts of how the universe exists. One is that the universe is expanding (or alternatively perhaps collapsing - or perhaps even alternating between first expanding and then collapsing, cycling forever from big bank to big crunch and back again) and the other concept is that the universe exists in a more or less steady state, neither expanding nor collapsing as a whole (although small localized portions of the universe may be expanding or collapsing at any small period of time) -- See: the discussion of "truth" regarding the classification of all things into only two categories.
In 1916 Einstein came up with his
general theory of relativity, which said that gravity is not a universal force, but a
distortion in space-time. His theory, was based on what he called thought
experiments, and the theory said that matter, such as planets or the stars, causes
space to become distorted. It has been described in two-dimensions as being like anything
with mass (like a bowling ball or a pea) making a depression on something like a rubber
sheet. Therefore, light rays, such as those from distant stars, will appear to be
deflected as they traverse the space that has been distorted by the presence of a large
mass (gravity), such as that provided by the sun. Actually, according to my theory, there
are not "light rays" that will be bent, but rather they will follow straightly
along the curve of space and may appear to have been deflected, although the plane of the
photon will actually be continuing perfectly straight through the distorted space.
Three years after Einstein proposed the theory of general relativity and the distortion of space by mass, he was proven correct by astronomers who, during an eclipse, measured how the mass of the sun distorted the space around the sun to move the apparent position of a star as indicated by the distortion of of light from that star. As a result, it becomes evident that space (and time) are not fixed. They interact with everything they contain.
Did Einstein believe in God? Einstein himself said that understanding everything about such a "Theory of Everything", ... will help us read the mind of God.
Tired Light:There has been a theory of tired light put forward. The basic idea is that light from extragalactic objects travels a long way through space before reaching us. In that journey, if anything interacts with the photon it will arrive with a smaller energy than it started with, i.e. it will be redshifted. The main difficulty with this model is that to rob a photon of some of its energy it must be jostled or perturbed, at least slightly. This means that its flight path is slightly deviated and the image of the emitting object becomes fuzzy. This theory therefore requires that all intervening space be filled with some sort of undefined uniform "atmosphere" (or ether?) of some unspecified matter to accomplish the scatter and that matter must be uniformly distributed throughout the universe. However, there is no evidence for this and high redshift objects appear as clear and sharp as low redshift objects. This new theory involving an "Energy of Propagation" as presented on this website, eliminates the need for the photon to be scattered or attenuated by any outside matter and the energy decrease over time (and distance) is a natural result of the photons energy of propagation (the value of which is derived and proven elsewhere on this website)
Einstein's Cosmological Constant:
Einstein himself held to the idea that the universe was what he called a "static universe" and such a static universe is sometimes referred to as "Einstein's Universe". This condition of the universe requires that it is neither expanding nor contracting, but rather is in its entirety, stable, infinite and eternal. In order to support such a static universe, Einstein proposed a model that included what he called a "cosmological constant" to counter the problem of a universe of matter which mathematically would eventually collapse. Unfortunately the erroneous conclusions of Hubble that the universe appeared to be expanding rather than constant. Hubble proposed a relationship between the energy shift (the red shift) of light from distant starts and the distance to those stars. This (erroneous) relationship for the basis for the the idea of an expanding universe. Unfortunately, this lead Einstein to declare his introduction of the "cosmological constant" to be his "biggest blunder" when in fact the inventing of an expanding, non-static, model of the universe based on the a wrong explanation for the red shift is and even bigger blunder, that many scientist have unquestioningly accepted.
Universe collapse (or expansion):
The idea that gravity can cause the collapse of the universe depends on the universe being not infinite, but finite. If the universe is infinite, all the mass that is outside of the two masses that are wanting to collapse into each other and thus be part of the cause of a collapse of the universe are being pulled outwards by an infinite amount of mass that exists in the infinite space that is on the other side of the mass that is attracting it. On an infinite scale, the infinity of mass surrounding all specific masses forms the balancing mass that lies outside of the attractive influence of any two single masses. Much like the thought experiment of what gravity you would feel if you were suspended in a hollow at the very center of the earth) -- NONE!.
Most physicists of the twentieth century assumed the cosmological constant to have a value of zero which will predict an expanding universe (as per the Hubble blunder) with a decelerating rate of expansion of the universe because of the mutual attraction of gravity of all the masses in the universe. However, with the discovery of the Accelerating Universe, the cosmological constant has been revived as a possible explanation for Dark Energy .
Those astronomers think that the universe is expanding because there is observed a phenomenon of Hubble Redshift and it is interpreted by those astronomers as a Doppler shift caused by galaxies moving away from our own Galaxy. Therefore, it is thought that the real solution of Einstein's field equation cannot be stationary.
It may be of interest that the discovery of what has been termed cosmic acceleration, which was proposed in the 1990's, has renewed the interest in the cosmological constant. Note , however, that the apparent acceleration of the expansion can be easily explained and relegated to the mathematics of the degradation of the photons energy in an exponential fashion as proposed in my theory of the "Energy of Propagation". Again erroneously because the physicists are not considering the effect of the "Energy of Propagation" requirements, recent finer measurements have concluded that instead of the (non-existent) expansion slowing down, it seems that the rate of expansion must be accelerating. A further unfortunate conclusion derived from this erroneous assumption of an accelerating expansion, is the use of the cosmological constant as a possible explanation for "dark energy".
To further the absurdity of the magnitude of faulty conclusions are derived from the big bang theory is that the cosmic microwave background radiation is also some sort of residual radiation left over from the original big bang. This electromagnetic background (discovered in 1965) pervades the entire universe and is assumed to originate at the farthest reaches of the universe at a distance equivalent to the age of the universe. ( See: Age of the Universe ). This Cosmic radiation background radiation has a thermal blackbody spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 Kelvin (in the microwave region with a peak at a frequency of 160.2 GHz which corresponds to a wavelength of 1.9 mm. Most scientists erroneously consider the cosmic background radiation to be the best evidence for a big bang model.
The "Big Bang" theory thus forms the basis for a great deal of the modern theoretical physics. It is based on the observed and measured change in the wavelengths of light coming from light emitting objects in distant galaxies. This change in the wavelength is always seen in a lengthening of the wavelength of the light, that lengthening of the wavelength makes the light look redder. The light is seen to have a shift in its spectrum towards the red end of the spectrum, hence the term "Red Shift". This Red Shift is interpreted as being caused by a Doppler shift in the observed frequency as the objects move away from us. That idea that objects are moving away from us, forms the basis for the "Big Bang" theory. And the logical conclusion is that if it all started in a big bang event then that must have occurred at some specific time in the past and that determines the Age of the Universe
The Age of the Universe
Galactic Distances:The actual physical distance to those galaxies (at least some of the closer ones) can be determined by methods being based on the intensity of the light reaching us from certain types of deep space energy emitters that are expected to have known intensities at their source.
The distances to some of the closer galaxies can also be determined by their parallax, a sort of binocular vision sort of optical means based on viewing the object from opposite extremes of the earth's path as it revolves about our sun.
The red shift (as a Doppler phenomena)
Certain very specific events in atomic physics have very specific and consistent results. For example: the spectrum of light emitted from high temperature hydrogen is determined by its atomic structure and that spectrum is therefore very specific, precise, consistent and well known and is able to be accurately measured. The excitation of hydrogen to make it emit light at its physically defined spectrum of energy is seen in all of the celestial infernos. That known spectrum of hydrogen is one of the things that can be seen to be shifted in the light coming from the most distant light emitting objects (stars). Other elements also emit characteristic radiation with a spectrum that is unique to that chemical.
All the "Big Bang" theories are based on the miss-interpretation of the Red Shift by a hired telescope observer who interpreted the "Red Shift" as being caused by his limited understanding of physics and relying on his unscientific observation of the lengthening of the sound waves from moving objects caused by the Doppler effect on those sound waves in a physical compressible medium, like air.
Incidentally, interstellar space is generally not considered to be composed of any sort of compressible medium in which the Doppler effect may be accomplished (like air).
Well then, if the farther away light emitting objects in space do, in fact, really exhibit a "Red Shift" which is greater for the objects at greater distances, then what is the cause of that Red Shift if not a Doppler effect as initially proposed by Hubble almost a century ago?
The answer is so simple ... consider the "Energy of Propagation" that I propose on this website.
According to Hubble and his interpretation of the red shift caused by a Doppler shift being caused by galaxies moving away from us (The reason for this? "Who cut the cheese?" or "Is it something we said?" -- or expansion of the universe?), the distance to these relatively closer light-emitting objects can be determined and the amount of red shift can be seen to be proportional to their distance from us. The farthest away objects, as determined by other means, have the greatest amount of red shift. Implying from Doppler considerations, that the farther away items are receding from us at higher speeds than the closer objects. Even though more distant objects can not be accurately determined by optical methodology, nevertheless the amount of red shift can be measured and has been used to determine the distance to those more distant objects by knowing the amount of the red shift and considering that to be based on a Doppler effect and interpreting that as representative of the rate that light source is receding from us.
The red shift then becomes considered to be a measure of the distance to the object and the amount of red shift is seen to be greater from the more distant objects because they are supposedly receding from us at a greater rate that is supposedly causing the greater red shift from the more distant light emitting objects.
The idea that the red shift is caused by the source of the light rushing away from us is based on that Doppler effect most often observed when a sound source is moving away from us. The example often used is the sound of a train whistle as it passes us as we stand near the railroad tracks. The sound can be observed to be higher in pitch as the train approaches and similarly lower in pitch as the train rushes away from us. This effect of the Doppler shift is heard as a decrease in pitch (elongation of wavelength) as the train passes and rushes away from us. The sound waves are appear to be stretched and lengthened as they are being emitted from the sound source that is rushing away from us. A similar explanation is put forward to explain the lengthening of the wavelength of light (making it look redder) from the far distant light emitting objects (stars in distant galaxies). The assumption is that the light emitting source is rushing away from us.
The amount of red shift seems to be a fairly accurate means of determining the distance of the light-producing object from us. The Red Shift is measurable and is a real phenomenon and is apparently a fairly accurate means of determining the distance of the hydrogen burning light emitting object from us (stars).
The interpretation is that that Red Shift is caused by the light source moving away from us and the conclusion of that interpretation is that, since the farther away objects are seen to be Red Shifted more, they are considered to be rushing away from us faster the farther away from us they are. That interpretation of the Red Shift is the basis for the "Big Bang" theory.
Extrapolation of the Universe expansion back to a Big Bang:
That "Big Bang" theory assumes that since all the objects in the universe are seen to be moving away from us in all directions, that would imply that some time in the past those objects were all once much closer together. If this assumption is extrapolated backwards in time long enough, those objects would get closer and closer together as we consider times farther in their past. The assumption and conclusion is that if they were closer and closer together the farther we consider back in time, there will eventually be a time in the far distant past when all objects in the universe (ALL objects) were at that time somewhere in the far distant past, all very close together and even before that, the assumption is that the entire universe was compacted into an even tighter and hotter compacted pre-primordial infinitesimally small point of "something" -- and that at some very ancient time trillions of billions of years ago in time, that must have been compacted into essentially a point with no dimension and no real existence in a nothingness of empty non-existence (no space, no time, no energy, no mass, no nothing not even any empty space into which it could expand -- absolutely NOTHING).
This theoretical point of everything-in-nothingness existed for an immeasurable time before even space and time even existed, and marks the origin of all things, and even the initiation of time itself. This obviously must be when the entire pre-universe was compacted to some sort of a pre-something nothingness and at which point, at the beginning of "time", the "Big Bang" occurred and the universe simply and for no particular reason came abruptly from some sort of incomprehensible nothingness and burst in some sort of a "Big Bang" into existence and started its explosive expansion -- the effects of which some theoretically can still see in the expansion of the universe and in the moving-away of the farthest objects we can see.
There are other things observed in the deep space distances of the universe, such as the celestial background, the basic background temperature of deep space, that is interpreted as the residual energy of the initial explosive initiation of the universe and which is considered by some to be additional evidence of the Big Bang.
Universe Expansion is Slowing (or so it seems):
Another extrapolation of this theory is based on the fact that more distant objects seem to be rushing away more quickly, forming the conclusion that the rate expansion is slowing. This interpretation of the decrease in rate is extrapolated to the conclusion that the mutual gravity of the many parts of the universe are all acting to slow down the expansion and will eventually cause it to re-contract back to a point (called the "Big Crunch") ... where and when the entire universe will compact again into an infinitely dense mass more dense than any possible "black hole", and disappear from existence into nothingness. If not a collapse into a black hole, then some consider that the universe will then re-emerge in another new Big Bang, which will then immediately occur, as our universe blinks out of existence. That theory would have the entire universe be "Banging" and "Crunching" repeatedly, something like a bouncing ball, but repeating over an over unendingly for all of immeasurable eternal time.
We all live inside of a black hole (yes, you can believe it):Depending on one's interpretation of a black hole, it might even be considered that we all now are living within a gigantic black hole (from our point of view) as we are within a universe from which no light (or no thing) may ever leave (like it is theorized that nothing (mot even light) can ever leave a black hole).
"In the Beginning" Genesis 1:1 The Big Bang has been used as the basis for other philosophical and religious interpretations ... "in the beginning ..." which is, by some, implied as meaning the beginning of time which is considered to be at the initiation moment of the Big Bang. Some other world religions have this sort of concept of a Big Bang and a big crunch as explanations for the origin and eventual end of the universe and a rebirth in some sort of a death and reincarnation of universes.
Other religions offer the concept of a "God" (and incomprehensible controlling power and directing benevolent intelligence) that has no beginning and has no end, a "God" who directs and controls, by laying down of the laws of physics, the manifestation, creativity and inventiveness in all that is seen and unseen. An infinite "God" (if you need to give the infinitely unknown and unknowable a name) that has no beginning and will have no end. Is the concept of a sudden burst of everything (time, space, the entire universe and all physical laws) into existence from absolutely nothing at some specific time in the past for no specific reason -- more believable than the idea that mass and time and energy and space all existed for all time and are continuously changing form and structure under the control of physical and chemical laws and principles and will continue to do so from eternity to eternity -- "world without end, Amen."
The Big Bang FallacyThese assumptions of the whole "Big Bang" concept are debunked by the following explanation of the photons non-100% perfect energy conversion of electro-magnetic oscillation as being based on the herein proposed "Energy of Propagation". Now, the real reason for the "Red Shift" (and the discrediting of the "Big Bang" theory): Any alternative to the Big Bang implies the necessity of some sort of a steady state universe, a universe that never ever had a beginning and will likewise theoretically never ever have an ending. Many people don't like the concept of a steady state universe because that concept of eternity is evidently beyond the comprehension of the mortal, transient, limited minds of temporally limited creatures of time (such as humans) that require a beginning (and equivalently also, an end) for everything. Such limited creatures of time have a difficult time with the concept of anything that "... always was and always shall be ...". Such mortal creatures of time are much more comfortable with, and accepting of, a universe that has a physical beginning and that will, eventually, like themselves, have a physical end. They are more comfortable with the concept of a "Big Bang" than with an incomprehensible concept of an Eternity of Infinity.
Some contend that gravity must ultimately collapse the universe because all things are attracting all other things and forcing them to all move back towards each other. However it can been also considered that whatever may be forcing us (or any galaxy) toward any other, is countered by the gravitational forces of all of the infinite number of objects on the opposite side of us that are tending to move us the opposite direction. There is an infinity of gravitational forces pulling us both left and right, and up and down, all at the same time and, on a universal scale of infinity, all in perfect balance. All those other celestial bodies that are pulling on us, are also being pulled in the opposite direction away from us by all the rest of the infinity that lies on the opposite side of them from us. All in perfect steady state balance. Although there may be local anomalies where things attract and form galaxies and solar systems and planetary systems with moons. All galaxy and solar system formation and destruction in a perfect balance of accretion and decay.
If not Hubble's Doppler effect, then what?The answer is so simple and so obvious that I cannot understand why so many supposedly intelligent minds have accepted the explanation of the Red Shift as being a Doppler effect of receding light sources and the resulting interpretation as the basis for the expansion of the universe and ultimately resulting in the need for a "Big Bang" as the starting point of the receding galaxies. Perhaps its all accepted out of fear of being considered to be running against the stream of accepted theories -- like accepting the idea that the earth is the center of the universe as many supposedly knowledgeable scientists of the time did centuries ago.
As newly defined herein earlier: A single photon of light consists of a simple oscillating electro-magnetic field. As the photon's magnetic field collapses because it has nothing to sustain it, it generates a magnetic field (as does any moving or changing electrical field). When the electric field has completely collapsed, the produced magnetic field then has nothing to sustain it and so it in turn collapses. When the magnetic field collapses, it produces an electrical field (as does any changing or moving magnetic field). When the magnetic field has completely collapsed, the generated electric field has nothing to sustain it, and so it in turn also collapses. And this process repeats and repeats and repeats ... seemingly forever with nothing to stop it. The energy of the fields produced by this photon oscillation is a measure of the photons energy and the greater the photons energy, the faster it oscillates. The frequency of this oscillation is a standard measure of the energy of the photon.
Imagine a mechanical system consisting of a weight hanging from a spring. If you pull the weight down and let it go, it will oscillate. The spring tension will increase the farther it is stretched and the weight will be pulled up harder the more the spring is stretched. As the weight is lifted by the spring, the spring tension will decrease and its effect on lifting the weight will decrease. This conversion from spring tension to weight position oscillates in a manner similar to the oscillation of the electrical and magnetic fields such as are in a photon. If there were nothing to dissipate the energy, the oscillation would continue forever.
Similarly, a capacitor and inductor electronic system can be setup as an oscillator. The capacitor given an initial electrical charge can be made to discharge through the inductor. As the current flows through the inductor, it will then generate a magnetic field. When the capacitor is full discharged it can no longer produce a current and the inductor cannot maintain the magnetic field so it will then collapse and subsequently generate an electrical current that will charge up the capacitor. This simple oscillator is the basis for many electrical systems and its physics is fairly well known. This is done regularly in radio transmitters and almost every sort of electronic device in use today has some sort of an oscillator circuit built into it in some way.
A photon is an oscillating electro-magnetic field. A pure field without any associated physical mass, just the fields without any mass into which to dissipate their energy.
However, any oscillating system will naturally decay over time. You've seen it, you know it. Unless given some form of energy input to sustain the oscillation, the spring-weight system will gradually oscillate to a stop. Likewise, without energy input, the electrical oscillator system will decrease in energy over time and eventually stop oscillating. Similarly, a photon will naturally decrease in energy over time as well. This decrease in energy will be demonstrated in the photon as an increase in wavelength proportional to the decrease in the photon's energy. This natural decay in energy over time is so obvious and intuitive, yet so blatantly overlooked by otherwise intelligent scientists who support the Big Bang as the ultimate results of believing that the Red Shift is cause by a rapid rushing away of the most distant light emitting object in the universe rather than a decrease in the actual energy of the photon. For some reason, many persons would seem to believe that a photon can oscillate for eternity without ever decreasing even the tiniest bit in energy. How unlikely! That's as unlikely as expecting the photons decrease in energy to be due to a receding of the source.
As a photon travels through space over time it naturally decreases in energy over those eons of time. The amount of decrease in energy is a measure of the time since the creation of that photon. Without the burden of a physical substance, the conversion from electrical to magnetic fields is almost perfectly efficient. However there is some, infinitesimal, perhaps immeasurable on a practical scale, decrease in the photons energy and the energy of conversion is thus and naturally not absolutely a perfect 100%. As a result, the photon has a "half-life" of energy, although that half-life is millions of years long and almost impossible to directly measure in any laboratory (yet).
Those photons travel at the speed of light (by definition) and the time of flight is a direct measure of the distance it has traveled. Thus the distance to far objects in the universe is conveniently measured in terms of "light-years" (the distance that light will cover in a year - a very great distance). As a result, the distance it has traveled is a measure of the time it has existed and the time it has existed determines the amount of energy it has lost during that time. Consequently the amount of energy decrease (Red Shift) is certainly a measure of the time the photon has existed and consequently also a measure of the distance from the originating light source, but it is definitely not caused by any sort of a Doppler shift caused by an increase in the distance between the source and the observer or a rushing away of one from the other.
Also knowing the distance and time covered and knowing the frequency of the photon, it is possible to know the number of electromagnetic oscillations that the photon has accomplished during its millions of years of travel over those vast distances. Knowing the number of oscillations (a very large number) and the decrease in energy (the Red Shift - a very small number) it is possible to determine the efficiency of each electrical to magnetic oscillation of the photon. The conversion is not absolutely perfect. The conversion efficiency of the oscillation from electric field to magnetic field and the subsequent almost immediate conversion of that magnetic field back to an electrical field will not be absolutely 100% efficient, it will be incredibly close to 100 percent efficient, but not 100! (We will calculate that number in a following section) ... and that slight difference is the real cause of the Red Shift (not any sort of Doppler effect) and that small inefficiency eliminates the need for, and even the very possibility of, a Big Bang being needed to create "everything" out of "nothing". (The creation of matter, notably hydrogen, from the ambient and all pervasive infinite amount of energy in an infinite steady state universe will be discussed in a separate section. As all real physicists know, all other elements can be derived from various combinations of the constituent parts of hydrogen.) Spontaneous Generation of Hydrogen (CREATION!)
E = E0 e-RD
E = the currently observed energy of the photon (including the "red shift" change in energy)
or E = E
According to this simple equation, the loss in energy is less the longer the photon has existed and as the photon loses what energy it had when created. In fact, that would imply that a photon is in fact eternal, although eventually its energy will decrease to undetectable energies, essentially zero (hence the black sky at night - another problem of astrophysics solved by this new theory -- although there is another explanation presented in another section of this website). This exponential decrease in energy over time would give the impression that the closer objects are losing energy more rapidly (or that the most distant objects are farther away from us than they really are) and if that has erroneously been interpreted as being caused by the more rapid rushing away of those objects, then that would also erroneously imply that the closer object are rushing away more rapidly than are the farther away objects. That could cause the ridiculous interpretation that the expansion rate of the universe is increasing. That is just another fallacious conclusion reached by those who base their Red Shift on the Doppler effect that is the basis of the equally fallacious Big Bang theory.
Calculation Details of the Energy of Propagation
1) The Red Shift is not caused by the far away light emitting objects rushing away from us.
2) There was not ever a Big Bang and there is no need for one as a theory for anything.
3) There is a steady state in the universe, which is infinite in time and dimension (and as incomprehensible as is God?).
4) The reason for the black sky at night is the loss of energy of the photons and and the age of a galaxy.
5) The cosmic background is a manifestation of the energy loss from those decaying photons
6) The rate of expansion (which it is not doing) of the universe is not increasing (nor decreasing).
7) Photons have a half-life, which may be possible to determine (but not yet determined precisely or accurately).
8) Considering the physics principle that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time and in consideration of the Pauli exclusion principle, black holes (an infinitely dense light trap) are a physical impossibility. (unless that you consider that our entire universe is a "black hole - as defined by the fact that light can never escape -- as in, no light ever escapes this infinite universe.)
9) There is no need for high-energy colliders to try to discover what was happening in the early Big Bang. You can use such machines to evaluate the physics of high energy interactions, but you shouldn't have to assume that has anything to do with a big bang origination of all things.
10) Without a Big Bang, the universe is infinite, eternal and closed (without limit or ends and with nothing outside of it to expand into).
11) Unfortunately, there is a great deal of modern astrophysics that is based on a fallacious Big Bang theory, but those who's theories depend on a big bang will just have to figure out something else.
Back to Physics International TOPICS Page
Interesting physics projects:
Physics questions with easily answerable questions (Be careful, truthfully answering these questions will destroy your concepts of a "Big Bang" and the expanding universe and may destroy some of the basis for your basic physics concepts of eternity and infinity):
1) How much energy does a photon lose over time? (This can be determined knowing amount of Red Shift (energy loss) and the distance the photon has traveled and the speed of light).
2) Calculate the photon's energy half-life. (This can be determined knowing the time and the proportion of energy loss from objects at various cosmic distances).
3) Calculate the amount of energy lost per oscillation ... or, more practically perhaps, per year. How many oscillations does a photon make in a year !!!! How many oscillations has a photon made during the millions of years it has taken to cover those millions of light-years of distance?
4) How does the energy loss per oscillation compare with the energy of the "cosmic background"?
5) How does this value compare to the values used in Heisenburg uncertainty principles? Can such small numbers be determined with any sort of certainly? Can the oscillation conversion efficiency be directly measured, or only calculated?
6) How much energy is required to propagate a photon? What is the "Energy of Propagation" of a photon?
( You may contact me for the answers or to discuss this Big Bang
debunking theory )
Back to Physics International TOPICS Page