I have collected a few quotes from a variety of sources that I felt conveyed some of the problems with modern cosmology. The authors of these quotes might not agree with my assessment however, because overall they accept the current theory even if their statements, taken alone or together with established principles, present a universe inconsistent with the Big Bang Theory.
The true size of the universe is probably much larger than the visible universe. The geometry of the universe suggests that it may have an infinite size and that it will expand forever. Even if the universe is not infinite, our visible universe must be a minute speck in a much larger totality.
From: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html
This actually reflects what I have been saying; an infinite universe that is expanding. Given the Cosmological Principle and an infinite universe, the matter in the universe would also be infinite. The schizophrenic nature of modern cosmology is well reflected in the statement as well. The writer is not willing to say that the universe is infinite even as he admits that the data support this, but admits that it “might be.”
There is no centre of the expansion, the universe is simply expanding at all points. Observers in any galaxy see most of the other galaxies in the universe moving away from them.
The only answer to the question "Where did the Big Bang happen?" is that it occurred everywhere in the Universe.
From http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html
The first sentence reflects the Copernican Principle but, as usual, the writer does not distinguish between the visible universe and the whole universe.
For distances D larger than the radius of the Hubble sphere rHS , objects recede at a rate faster than the speed of light.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law
Inflation of the universe could lead to separation of galaxies at a rate faster than the speed of light. Just an interesting fact that suggests that there are galaxies outside of the visible (or detectable) universe.
Our universe has no edge or boundary - there is no outside of our universe (see question 1). It is possible that our universe is part of an infinity of universes.
From: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html
The use of the plural universes means, to me, that there are Hubble Spheres that extend in all directions infinitely. Again, infinite mass is inconsistent with any Big Bang. Since each galaxy (star and planet) describe a unique Hubble Sphere, however, all of these “universes” are overlapping and interconnected as one universe. Cosmologists, however, don’t like an infinite universe and sometimes describe the universe as a kind of spherical object in more than one dimension such that travelling in one direction would eventually bring you back to the starting point (much like a globe).
The light from more distant objects simply has not had time to reach us. For this reason everybody in the universe will find themselves at the middle of their own visible universe.
From: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html
Exactly. Extending infinitely in all directions, there are galaxies, and each galaxy describes a Hubble Sphere, the radius of which is the distance to z = infinity (infinite redshift).
Why does the apparent density of galaxies drop off at larger distances? The short answer is that it's harder to see things that are farther away. So while we can see almost all the galaxies nearby, we can only see the very brightest ones far away. This effect overwhelms everything else, and is responsible for the density of galaxies in those maps dropping off at large distances. So if you look at one of those maps, you can imagine that there are actually many more galaxies on the outskirts, but we just can't see them.
From: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=543
Density of galaxies is uniform until we reach the limits of resolution of our present instruments. Brighter galaxies are easier to see in the distance, and these tend to be “new” galaxies (brighter and bluer). “Many more” to me means that there are galaxies extending further and further away (and further and further back in time) until we reach the Hubble radius beyond which galaxies’ light will not ever reach us. It is likely incorrect to claim that there will be no well formed galaxies seen beyond z=10 (13.2 billion years ago, or “within 300 million years of the Big Bang” – see the quote below). If the James-Webb telescope confirms this, it will be sufficient confirmation for me to leave this “blog” up for a long time to come. The simple finding of mature spiral galaxies beyond this distance alone will suffice to vindicate my hypothesis.
Redshift is a measure of the stretching of light caused by the expansion of the universe - a galaxy with a large redshift is further away than a galaxy with a small redshift. The most distant galaxies visible with the Hubble Space telescope are at redshift 10, whereas the most distant protogalaxies in the universe are probably at about redshift 15. The edge of the visible universe is at redshift infinity.
From http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/redshift.html
The description of the unseen galaxies as “protogalaxies” is hypothetical, not observational. All of the visible galaxies have a well formed galactic shape. Also, the statement about the most likely extent of the “protogalaxies” as having a redshift of 15 is also speculation and relies to some extent on the theory that the universe expanded from a single point and/or at a single time. I contend that there is no reason to speculate that unseen galaxies 1) have a different configuration or 2) stop at a distance outside of our visible range.
Study leader Dr Goto said: 'It is surprising that such a giant galaxy existed when the universe was only one-sixteenth of its present age, and that it hosted a black hole one billion times more massive than the sun.
'The galaxy and black hole must have formed very rapidly in the early universe.'
Surprising to whom? I would have predicted exactly this, and furthermore more of the same beyond this (before this). “Must have formed very rapidly” is the current method of explaining anomalies that actually point in another totally different direction.
We know that the universe is not empty. Not only are there stars and Galaxies, but there is also (certainly) a large amount of gas (molecular hydrogen) filling the space, with a thickness of billion of light years around us. The temperature of that gas (hydrogen) has been measured (using a different method). It was measured (i.e. by G. Herzberg a Noble Laureate) that that hydrogen is at 3K.
It is impossible for that hydrogen in space not-to-emit the Planck spectrum. All matter in the universe must emit the Planck spectrum.
Therefore if the Big Bang really emits the Planck spectrum, there must then exist two different Planck spectra. (the one emitted by Hydrogen in the universe and the one due to the Big Bang). However only one Planck spectrum is observed.
From: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmic-microwave-background-radiation.htm
This is from a cosmologist who doesn’t buy that the black body radiation of the Cosmic Background Radiation is from a “bang.” Instead, he suggests that “black body radiation” from hydrogen gas in intergalactic space is responsible for the radiation. This meshes well with what I have been saying, although I don’t presume to claim to know where the radiation comes from. I would suggest that it comes from expanding space, but that is not materially different from saying it comes from hydrogen in intergalactic space. Incidentally, the “thickness” of the hydrogen would likely extend throughout the universe and not just our immediate vicinity.
Even in the COBE map, it was observed that the quadrupoleQuadrupole (l = 2 spherical harmonic) has a low amplitude compared to the predictions of the big bang. Some observers have pointed out that the anisotropies in the WMAP data did not appear to be consistent with the big bang picture.
From: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
Anisotropies have been noted, and while the anisotropies are generally consistent with the big bang theory (quantum fluctuations), there are some anomalies that belie the big bang theory. The complexity of the issues and the factors that might affect the radiation allow for several alternative explanations.
The shapes of these distant systems are distorted by the gravity of the foreground cluster. This distortion provides a measure of the cluster mass, a phenomenon known as "weak gravitational lensing".
From: http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0309.html
And
Gravitational lensing occurs when light traveling toward us from a distant galaxy is magnified and distorted as it encounters a massive object between the galaxy and us. These gravitational lenses often allow astronomers to peer much farther back into the early universe than they would normally be able to do.
From: http://www.physorg.com/news122649622.html
And
It's not that nearby galaxies are spiral and distant ones elliptical; spirals and ellipticals are found both nearby and in the most distant regions of the universe. Ellipticals are more often found in clusters, while spirals are more often found in the field. There are some differences between nearby galaxies and more distant galaxies, but none of them are really morphological, meaning that as far back as we can see, galaxies have pretty much the same shapes out there as they do nearby…. And finally, yes, the distribution of galaxy shapes is the same no matter which direction you look.
From: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=76
These three quotes show that distant galaxies will appear distorted because of the methods used to see them, not necessarily a reflection of their actual shape. The actual shapes of the distant galaxies are like those that are close by, and the distribution of the galaxies (and their shapes) is consistent through both time and space.
Previously, astronomers thought that the universe had ceased to give rise to massive, young galaxies, but findings from NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer suggest that may not be the case. Surveying thousands of nearby galaxies with its highly sensitive ultraviolet eyes, the telescope spotted three dozen that greatly resemble youthful galaxies from billions of years ago. In this illustration, those galaxies are represented as white circles on the right, or "today" side of the timeline.
The discovery not only suggests that our universe may still be alive with youth, but also offers astronomers their first close-up look at what appear to be baby galaxies. Prior to the new result, astronomers had to peer about 11 billion light-years into the distant universe to see newborn galaxies. The newfound galaxies are only about 2 to 4 billion light-years away.
New galaxies are forming around us. Coincidentally, they are forming in intergalactic space.
Current theories of the formation of galaxies are based on the hierarchical merging of smaller entities into larger and larger structures, starting from about the size of a stellar globular cluster and ending with clusters of galaxies.
According to this scenario, it is assumed that no massive galaxies existed in the young universe.
However, this view may now have to be revised. Using the multi-mode FORS2 instrument on the Very Large Telescope at Paranal, a team of Italian astronomers have identified four remote galaxies, several times more massive than the Milky Way galaxy, or as massive as the heaviest galaxies in the present-day universe.
Those galaxies must have formed when the Universe was only about 2,000 million years old, that is some 12,000 million years ago. The newly discovered objects may be members of a population of old massive galaxies undetected until now.
The existence of such systems shows that the build-up of massive elliptical galaxies was much faster in the early Universe than expected from current theory.
From: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-04x.html entitled “Old Galaxies in a Young Universe":
As resolution improves, and we can see galaxies easily beyond z=10, I believe we will identify old galaxies in a universe “before the big bang” using current dating. The description of galaxies forming “much faster” is a relic of the assumption that the universe is 13.72 billion years old. What will they say when the spot the first galaxy that is 13.73 billion years old? Or 14 billion years old? Or even older?
It could be that the new Hubble galaxies were just the tip of the iceberg and that many more galaxies are lurking just below the threshold of detection. ‘The new camera,’ he said, ‘has revealed a bunch of little glowworms. The James Webb telescope will see the sky blazing with them.’
This is the reason for my optimism about the discoveries that this telescope will make. Instead of trying to guess what lies beyond z=10, we will actually see them and know.
Finally, here’s an old quote to summarize it all.
"Most new insights come only after a superabundant accumulation of facts has removed the blindness which prevented us from seeing what later comes to be regarded as obvious."
-- Isidor Issac Rabi (1898-1988) Galician-born American physicist, 1944 Nobel laureate for his discovery of nuclear magnetic resonance
