The Universal Depression Is Nigh: ‘Cosmic GDP’ Crashes 97% As Star Formation Slumps

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Global Macro Monitor

The Collaspe In Cosmic GDP


Peak oil.  Peak food production.  Now (11 billion years ago) peak star production.

The Royal Astronomical Society writes,

Cosmic GDP’ crashes 97% as star formation slumps


While parts of the world experience economic hardship, a team of Portuguese, UK, Japanese, Italian and Dutch astronomers has found an even bigger slump happening on a cosmic scale. In the largest ever study of its kind, the international team of astronomers has established that the rate of formation of new stars in the Universe is now only 1/30th of its peak and that this decline is only set to continue. The team, led by David Sobral of the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, publish their results in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society…


Dr Sobral comments: “You might say that the universe has been suffering from a long, serious “crisis”: cosmic GDP output is now only 3% of what it used to be at the peak in star production!”

The decline in the universe’s star production appears structural and secular to us. Could be cyclical depending on your time horizon, however.

The universe must be suffering from not enough demand, too much austerity,  and thus needs the cosmic central bank to engage in some QE.   That is,  Quasar Easing.

Krugman, weigh in!

Hat tip Guardian Science via Twitter.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Alpha Monkey's picture

Neither are businesses, we just like to pretend they can last forever... like we used to think about stars.

Piranhanoia's picture

its full of stars  

icanhasbailout's picture

another dire result of global warming

epwpixieq-1's picture

The Big Bang theory by itself is a bubble theory. Out of NOTHING came SOMETHING. Seriously this shit can not be made up. And do not start with the red and blue shift for this can be explained in several different ways.

It is time for serious revision of our understanding what energy and matter ( witch is just a another state of energy ) are and how they are interrelated. For one is certain the numbers do not lie ( unless they are made by economists ), so our UNDERSTANDING of the numbers, and with it our understanding of Nature, will have to change, based on facts and not on fictional extrapolation of the numbers.

busted by the bailout's picture

Numbers may not lie, but they sure as hell can be wrong.  They are only as good as the assumptions built into the formulas of astrophysicists.  For example, they say they have proven the existence of dark matter and dark energy with their calculations, but common sense tells me they are about as real as the tooth fairy (whose existence could also be proven by calculations made with the right assumptions).

Flakmeister's picture

My fuck, so you have it all figured out, publish a paper and scoop up a Nobel...

But first, someone should be vetting you. Could you explain the Red shift for us all...

Orly's picture

Right after you explain entanglement...

blindman's picture

you might like this link.
by Miles Mathis
.."Yes, well. Albert claims that Bell said that no algorithm could avoid non-localities. In direct language, that means that Albert thinks that Bell said no mechanical explanation of entanglement was possible, or, conversely, that a mechanical explanation was impossible. I would say that interpretation of Bell is pretty strong, but let us say it is true that Bell meant that. Can Bell be correct? No. Albert must be a very poorly trained philosopher if he believes you can prove a negative in this form. Every good philosopher since Thales has known that you can't prove a general existential negative. Yes, you can prove that a theorem is false, but you can't mathematically or logically prove that something cannot be done, universally.

This should be doubly obvious in Quantum Mechanics, the realm of probabilities. Any first-year statistician knows you cannot prove anything with probability math. But Albert expects us to believe you can prove a negative with probability math and probability assumptions.

The reason you cannot prove a universal negative is that it requires total knowledge of the field. To make the claim Bell and Albert are making would require them to know, for a certainty, that they knew everything about the mechanics, operations, and interactions of the quantum field. Norman Finkelstein has entitled one of his books Beyond Chutzpah, and this argument of Albert's is beyond chutzpah. It is hubris, period. " ..

.."To explain this, quantum physicists have come up with the idea that the particles are in contact with eachother over huge distances, without any mediating field or particle. Yes, they can talk to eachother instantly, so that when the physicist measures one as spin up, the other can flip immediately to spin down to conserve parity.

All this is patently absurd, but neither the physicists nor the philosophers can seem to cut through to the fairly obvious answer. They can't do that because they have made the question much more complex than it is. First of all, the physicists have buried the problem under decades of math and terms. Then the philosophers have followed, adding their mountain of semantics and lingo and sloppy thinking. One must come to the conclusion that neither the physicists nor the philosophers want a simple answer. They only want to look smart, bandying a vast vocabulary and an infinite disrespect for their readers." ...m.m.

Alpha Monkey's picture

I forget where I saw it, but somewhere I read an analogy of entanglement as being something akin to this:

Imagine a fish in an aquarium.  The aquarium has two cameras on different sides of the fish.  You being the observer, can only see the screens wich display each camera's perspective of the fish.  As you observe the fish in camera one, you see the fish in camera two behave in a contrary but instantanious fashion.  Not knowing that the two cameras are looking at the same fish, you may conclude that the two fish are somehow connected....




Orly's picture

So the Universe is a Hologram, then?  A 2-dimensional representation of a 3-D idea?

blindman's picture

also important remarks on
the cosmological constant

by Miles Mathis
.."Bang theory is built upon a web of propaganda." ...
.."The rather simple reason for this is due to the operation of measurement, and all we have to do is look at how we see distant objects using light. The important fact is that we do not measure at an instant. When we collect light from a distant object in a telescope, we take some sort of extended reading." .. m.m.
why it is wrong and why it is right
by Miles Mathis

epwpixieq-1's picture

It is just time to update your knowledge. There are many sources Internet is the easiest one:

Another one is your own thinking. but you will have to connect many observable facts and have thinking that is NOT entrenched in the COMMON science books but developed by reading Maxwell, Heaviside, Tesla, Lord Kelvin, Dirac in ORIGINALS. Only than you will figure out that there is ALWAYS more than one explanation of everything and it is very subjective WHICH explanation will be chosen. A best text on that is "Dirac's Equations and the Sea of Negative Energy" by D.L. Hotson ( 3 parts .pdf, freely available on the net ). Of course, it is not reading for everyone, especially without some background ( preferably from Europe ) in Physics.

Alpha Monkey's picture

So, a documentary I've seen called "Black Whole" makes the claim that "empty" space is anything but that, and is actually full of energy.  This energy is then claimed to be the source of all things (something from apparent "nothing"). 

Fun fact, from some PBS science documentary, if you removed all the empty space (like between all the particles of all the atoms and so on) from every bit of matter in the empire state building, it would give you about a tablespoon of sand that weighs tons.

I think that guy is on to something.

Flakmeister's picture

He may be on something but he certainly isn't onto something...

The Gooch's picture

You hear that Krugman?

pcrs's picture

just with the economy the question is:will the universe deflate or inflate? Deflate under collapse of gravity or inflate under the outward push of the big bang? All evidence suggests that the universe is expanding faster and faster. Or in economic terms:it's balance sheet is inflating exponentially. 

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

“Should be there in an hour,” he called back over his shoulder to Chuck. Then he added, in an afterthought: “Wonder if the computer’s finished its run. It was due about now.”

Chuck didn’t reply, so George swung round in his saddle. He could just see Chuck’s face, a white oval turned toward the sky.

“Look,” whispered Chuck, and George lifted his eyes to heaven. (There is always a last time for everything.)

Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.


David449420's picture

"Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out."

Read Alfred Besters "The Demolished Man" for the original.

The best book that you will read this year. And it was written about 70 years ago.

This is not meant to denigrate Clarke who was an awesome short story writer.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

"This was a Golden Age, a time of high adventure, rich living and hard dying… but nobody thought so. This was a future of fortune and theft, pillage and rapine, culture and vice… but nobody admitted it. This was an age of extremes, a fascinating century of freaks… but nobody loved it." [tumblr done right]


Thanks for the tip, I'll read it when I find a wild copy out there.

vintageyz's picture

Less cosmic banging??  Then we need more cosmic viagra.

UrbanBard's picture

What a silly thing to be concerned about.

Sure, most star production was back when, because there were no complex elements. All stars were huge, short lived hydrogen consuming things. They lasted a few hundred million years before they super-novae. In the process of exploding they created higher elements.

Our Sun is an ordinary long lived, main sequence, fourth generation  star about four and a half billion years old and will last about twice as long as that. Longer living stars mean that fewer new stars need to be created. Much of our Sun's energy is by fusing higher elements like Carbon into Iron.

It's a good thing that there are so few new stars. While the human race won't last billions of years, the Earth will, until it is snuffed out when the Sun becomes a Red Giant. Fewer super-novas in the local area means less of a chance that life on our planet will extinguished by a particle storm from a nebula.

BTW, Peak oil is a Socialist concept from the Club of Rome. Technology allows us to better utilize the oil fields we have already found. 90 to 95% of the energy is still in the ground. We just haven't found cheap enough ways to get it out. The rest of the unutilized oil is that which the Environmentalist won't allow us to tap, such as ANWR or America's East and West Coasts. Peak Oil is not about energy, it's about politics. Everything on Earth is scarce, except for nonsense.


Flakmeister's picture

M. King Hubbert was anything but a socialist...

Shit you were doing so well up to then, but you fell to the ZH curse, letting ideology blind you to reality....

UrbanBard's picture

I wasn't making a personal attack. It is quite possible to get caught up in a wrong crowd, or have your ideas latched onto for political reasons.

Peak Oil is age old, specious logic. It is reasonable to believe that everything is finite. But, you can base complex ideas on false premises. Oil is finite compared to what? The Earth is a huge place. A tiny part of it can seem limitless to humans. Peak Oil is not about oil, itself. It postulates that we are running out of "Cheap Oil." But, we always have been.

People began hysterically claiming that we are running out of oil shortly after it was discovered. This was long before the Communists decided to use Resource Depletion as a political tool.

Cheapness depends on a number of things in markets. We have long divided oil exploitation into two categories: Cheap and uncheap. But we call them by different names: Reserves and Resources. Reserves are that portion of Oil Resources which we can exploit at today's price. Most of Resources stay underground, because we can't.

Academics, even non socialist ones, have been saying, for a century, that we are running out of oil Reserves. The way they expressed it was, "We are "X" number of years before we run out of oil." Peak Oil is just a different way of expressing that idea. Those academics have been dead wrong.

What's happening here? Technology and price effects exploration and production, just as politics do. Despite the fact that governments close off areas to exploit, businessmen find cheaper ways of exploiting the areas open to us. Hence, the number of years before we run out of oil has always grown.

The point here is that Peak Oil concepts are anti free market. They are socialist ideology. I'm merely responding to it.

I guess that responding to ideology is ideological, too. Talk about unreal; everything in America is political.

I wish this were not. We would have a lot more of everything at cheaper prices if politicians kept their noses out of business. I wish we had a concept of "Peak State Interference."

Flakmeister's picture

Quit with the strawmen...

Peak oil is not about running out of oil, it is only a statement about the maximum rate of extraction. To argue anything else is disingenouous...

UrbanBard's picture

What is the ideal rate of extraction? It should be enough to supply our current needs and that of our immediate future. Extract too much and the price of oil falls; too little and the price increases. Much of today's high oil price is due to the fact that oil is denominated in dollars. As the dollar slowly crashes and burns as the world's reserve currency, the price of oil must increase.

What is disingenuous is the term Peak Oil. It implies to the ignorant that we are running out of oil, when we are not. Who cares if we are not finding new oil fields when the fields we have, with better technology, will supply all our needs? Eventually, the price of oil will increase to the point where it will be economical to extract CO2 out of the air and turn it into fuel. But not if people like you are in charge.

The head of the world's largest oil company, Saudi Aramco, said:

We are looking at more than four and a half trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. That number translates into 140 years of oil at current rates of consumption, or to put it anther way, the world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional oil potential. That fact alone should discredit the argument that peak oil is imminent and put our minds at ease concerning future petrol supplies.”  

The point that you are missing is that the amounts of Potentially Recoverable Oil keeps growing because the technology improves. That is why Peak Oil is not a useful term, except as a propaganda tool.

Flakmeister's picture

Start by replacing technology with price, but that still says nothing about flow rates and it is all about flow rates not reserves..

Only someone trying to mislead or assuage fears takes a resource base and divides by production to quote a lifetime...

Why don;t you look back at what Hubbert wrote, increasing the estimate of recoverable oil in the US by 33% moved the time of his predicted US peak by ~6 years.... 

And really, please lay off the strawmen...

I'll check back later to see if you have anything to add on rates...

In the meantime, why don;t you look up Export Land Model to get a better idea of where we actually are...

UrbanBard's picture

Clearly, you know nothing of economics. Technology effects costs, but costs never determine prices.  (Otherwise, we would never have sales.) A higher oil price encourages flow rates, but does not determine them because there may be many factors including political impediments. The markets determine supply and demand and they are too complex for Peak Oil.

I notice that you did not mention oil's currency problems.  Socialists, such as yourself are never good at predicting trends. Their ideology gets in the way. The Club of Rome's predictions were dead wrong.

You seem rather bigoted. No one else's sources are good enough. You don't attack my arguments, just slur them.

The Export Land Model does not apply to the world, since the available oil is increasing. There is plenty of oil in places which are not barred from exploitation. I doubt that you predicted the shale oil boom which has been occurring on private lands in the US. Federal lands have been barred by Obama.

The Green River Formation in Western Colorado, on Indian Lands, has enough Oil to supply America's needs for two centuries. The Interior department shut down exploration during Obama's term of office. There are problems with exploited it. Water from Canada, now dumped into the arctic, would need to be piped south.

There seems to be evidence that oil is a renewable resource. Oil does not actually come from fossils. The oil could be coming from microscopic organisms deep in the earth. If so, your entire scarcity argument is bogus.

Flakmeister's picture

Hee, hee, hee..

I was waiting for you to drop Green River, you know, the bulk of which is on private lands (94%) and the very same that Chevron walked away from...

First Shell and now Chevron have walked away... That should tell you something...Pay close attention to EROEI and water requirments...

The Green River formation is the equivalent of really crappy coal, it has the energy density of a baked potato. literally...

As far as abiotic oil, yeah, it would be nice if unicorns existed too.... There not a shred of direct evidence for AO, nothing but handwaving and science-by-analogy, i.e. not real science...


I'll be more polite when you drop your slurs... and start dealing in reality, not speculation....

UrbanBard's picture

The question is not what I can prove. I was not trying to prove anything. I was pointing out the errors in your logic and evidence. I was trying to show what you are not seeing.

What if you are correct and we don't ever find any more oil fields? As of right now the world has a 140 year supply. Who knows what technologies we can develop before the oil runs out?

We won't do much in the next ten years, because the world will be undergoing a major economic debacle. But, there are many ways we can provide liquid fuels even when we run out of oil. Most of those depend on the use of nuclear technology and you probably oppose that.

Fusion would be less expensive but we don't have a proven method. That would probably require a permanent installation on the moon to extract Helium three.

A much cheaper Fission breeder method is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.!

It converts Thorium, via Pa233 into U233 to run the reactor. What's nice about it is that Thorium is quite common. A 1500 acre location in Wyoming has enough Thorium to supply America's electrical needs for two Millennial. This is just one of thousands of locations worldwide.

Once our energy source is cheap enough we can produce fuels by extracting CO2 out of the air or through making nuclear Portland cement. The CO2 driven off limestone can be converted to methanol which can then be changed into gasoline or jet fuels. Or we can also extract nitrogen out of air to produce ammonia fuels. Hence, we will never run out of energy. It's all green energy, too.


Ps. The private lands you speak of in the Green River formation is on Indian reservations. The Interior Department must sign off an any exploration plans and they continually refuse to do so. The Indians want the exploration because it means jobs. There are other problems (water mostly), but they aren't insurmountable.

Quantum Nucleonics's picture

The real fun starts to happen in another 30 billion-ish years.  Either the expansion of the universe slows, and boringly, all stars and galaxies fade from view till there is nothing left but evaporating black holes in 10^100 years and decaying protons in 10^200 years... or the expansion of the universe accelerates exponentially till it's so fast that the atoms in your body (and everything else) are ripped apart.

max2205's picture

It's so quite tonight, all I can hear is gunfire.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Bostrom is fun (see his webpage; the Oxford centre for the future of humanity seems, ironically enough, to be down at the moment), but frankly all too predictable. If you've enough resources to run a Universe size simulation, why bother using binary? You'd just use DNA & wetware, as demonstrated by Harvard. "While the scale is roughly what a 5 1/4-inch floppy disk once held, the density of the bits is nearly off the charts: 5.5 petabits, or 1 million gigabits, per cubic millimeter."

Remember: you only have to perceptually see the limits of the Universe in a simulation, you're never going to get there to check the fabric, so as long as it looks right, and pings back the right math, then...



If you want a final cosmic joke, Douglas Adams was right about the mice.

WhiteNight123129's picture

We are going to blink and be crushed like ants with Quasar easing, wait.... just like QE!

Sokhmate's picture

I'm fine with all those theories as long as vagina is real.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Hmm, may I suggest a marketing gimmick for your wife for Christmas?

Employ all five senses on that battle-ship to make sure it's real! (And, you never know, you might get boarded yourself for a reward)

neutrinoman's picture

Clearly, what's needed is a credible, centralized source of "gasity" to inflate the stellar market.

Youri Carma's picture

So, we really are up on par with the cosmos :)

Element's picture

Well that, or the 'relativistic' redshift equation, fundamental to heart of theoretical cosmology, is a complete load of arbitary old horseshit.

The latter I strongly suspect.

Check your axioms at the door.

A sine wave is a sine wave, period. They don't change shape with velocity, whether EM or audio, and the shape of the sine wave's sensed reception, by the observer results in the same systematic change in there received apparent amplitude and wavelength distortions, in both cases.

So how is the clearly adhoc 'relativistic' equation algo, as applied to EM, justified at all, when the velocity of propagation makes no difference, at all, to the shape of the originally emitted sine wave, or the wavelength and amplitude distortions at arrival, when compared to a prosaic audio sine wave? These are the SAME! So why the different redshift equation treatment for the two?




But if the redshift equation treatment were actually the SAME for audio and for EM, as the above suggests it should be, then guess what, this relativistic redshift induced observational 'anomaly' would evaporate in a puff of theoretical smoke and mirrors, and we'd more fully perceive the cosmos as it is.  Much bigger and older than we think. And don't forget that gravitational lensing makes things that are distant look closer and bigger arc on the sky than they are. Lenses do that.

And all that dark MASS (no, you DO NOT KNOW that is it dark MATTER, at all, do you?), what if space itself is the missing-mass (which is what the original term coined for this BTW, 'dark-matter' is the more recent theory-loaded dishonest term for the cosmic missing-mass problem), and not the actual bright matter? An anisotropic universal mass of space would be undetectable--except via a lensing effect, (and also when it becomes isotropically distributed, locally, in the form of solitonic wave 'particles', so why are waves behaving like what we term 'solids'? Because space has infinite impedance to a v greater than c, so reflects any further accelerations. The soliton wave oscillates at v=c, so any acceleration at all meets infinite impedance and all energy is conserved in its reflection, so we call that acting 'solidly', via its reflecting any further acceleration input). Then the dark anisotropic MASS distribution of space itself would act as its own telephoto lens.







Flakmeister's picture

Are there any other experimentally verified results that you think are wrong?

Be sure to dig into the Mossbauer-rotor experiment....

Also be sure to explain the WMAP result which show cosmis anisotropy to be at the level of 10^-4.....

You simply cannot make shit up, it has to be consistent with observations...


Element's picture

Actually I see no inconsistency at all with either link in what I said, and the WMAP anisotropy is precisely what I've said would predict.  No observational inconsistency there at all.

(Keep your "make shit up" statements to your own remarks, it's feeble and dishonest)

Flakmeister's picture

You explicity stated the RDE was horseshit and used some feeble analogy to "explain" why which smacked of the DK effect...

Sorry, but freeform babbling is not science, esp. when the experiments to show otherwise have been already done..

Element's picture

Flak, I expect no less than theoretical blinkers from you, and a stiff-necked determination to fail to grasp other interpretations of observations. Not surprising one little bit. You might want to have a look around, this is a discussion thread, not a lab. Free-wheeling discussion occurs in discussion threads. Take your pea-brain mantras to the toilet and flush.

Flakmeister's picture

The above statements are by you are a testbook example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect... Deal with it...

honestann's picture

Well that, or the 'relativistic' redshift equation, fundamental to heart of theoretical cosmology, is a complete load of arbitary old horseshit.

Or maybe just BS.  When I was 8 years old, I was fairly convinced the Big Bang theory was correct.  It was so simple and elegant... the fainter the galaxy, the more the spectral lines were shifted towards the red.  The doppler effect, what else could it be?

Now I'm 99% convinced the universe is dynamic, but in the aggregate, "stable" (albeit eternal and unlimited).  Of course my fellow astronomer types treat me like... well... like Galileo was treated long ago by the church, I suppose.

One problem with the simple, elegant theory that made sense to me as a kid, is that relative velocity is not the only known phenomenon that causes red shift.  But any paid astronomer or physicist of today who emphasizes this finds himself no longer paid, or else shunned and marginalized.  So "mainstream" scientists continue to report the big bang theory as absolute certainty, just like "mainstream" scientists continue to report human activity is the main cause of climate change and AGW.

Science has been destroyed by government financing and influence.  I'd say mainstream science has become a religion, except more accurately it is simply propaganda in exchange for grants, salaries, prestige, promotions and publication.

Terms like "missing mass" (mass that doesn't exist when some theory wants it to) turning into "dark mass" (mass that supposedly does exist but is not detected) is just one of endless perversions of science and propaganda versus honesty.  Put it this way, the problem is "missing honesty" in science (actually, in scientists), as well as "dark motivations" of government.

Everyone knows that "light (electromagnetic radiation) exerts pressure" on mass.  I don't think anyone disputes that, because it is too easy to demonstrate.  So, when some detector on some earth telescope detects light from long, long ago from a galaxy far, far away, how many intergalactic "particles" has that light encountered along the way?  The obvious answer is, "the further away the observed galaxy, the more "particles" that light has encountered.

Whether scientists wish to admit this or not, the most fundamental principle of science is the fundamental conservation principle.  There are derivitive conservations principles, like the conservation of mass, energy, momentum and such, but observations are later made that "gee, mass may not be conserved because mass can be converted into energy, and energy may not be conserved because energy can be converted into mass, and so forth".  However, neither mass nor energy nor momentum nor anything else real just "pops into existence" (appears) or "pops out of existence" (vanishes).  This is probably the simplest way to state the fundamental conservation principle, without which science cannot exist, and without which magic, mystical and arbitrary are the actual nature of reality.

What that tells any thoughtful sentient being is this.  Everything real is a certain configuration of one underlying "fundamental field" of some kind... and that fundamental field is something similar to or related to electromagnetism.  And in all interactions, configurations of the fundamental field change, but that field is conserved.

So, back to the question of what happens as light passes from long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away... to a detector on a spectrograph in a telescope today on earth.  That light has interacted with many fields and "particles" along the way (and if we know a bit more, we also understand that particles are indeed just certain locally stable fields), and that light causes changes in those fields and particles along they way (measured as "light pressure" and otherwise).

Now, since the fundamental conservation principle is never violated, energy in the light from that galaxy must be lost in order to influence these fields and particles along the way.  Quite obvious, no?

Well, guess how you measure the "energy" of light.  That's right, as wavelength (or frequency).  The wavelength of the electromagnetic field that is the "light" from that galaxy becomes greater as energy is lost.  Put another way, that light is "red shifted".  And the further away is the galaxy, the more times it interacts with fields and particles along the way, and the more the light is red-shifted.

So presto-chango!  As it must be, light is indeed red-shifted more from galaxies further away, simply because of the light encounters more interactions along the way.  Therefore, the red-shift is indeed a valid measure of distance of far away galaxies and other astronomical objecst --- completely independent of their relative speed.

This is just one thinking experiment that demands uncertainty in our interpretation of red-shift of galaxies and other distant astronomical phenomenon.  We also know that relative velocity causes red-shift, and we also know that other real phenomenon cause red-shift.  What no honest human being can say, given the difficulty of observing the nature of universe scale phenomenon, is what other phenomenon exists on the scale of intergalactic space.  Yet mainstream scientists exhibit zero humility or uncertainty about this issue, which for me, inherently rules them out as legitimate scientists.

Might red-shift mostly be due to relative velocity?  Yes, that is possible.  However, I very strongly doubt it.  I am just about as certain as I could be in circumstances where complete certainly is impossible that the universe is dynamic, but not an exploded pile of nothingness.  Just think about this naive (classic) theory of the Big Bang --- one nanosecond nothing exists, and the next nanosecond the entire substance of the universe exists, exploding away from the former nothingness at near light-speed.

That scenario is fundamentally incompatible with the fundamental conservation principle, which is also the fundamental principle of legitimate honest science.  It is, in fact, the most extreme possible violation of that principle, for it has an absolute nothing one instant becoming the entire universe in the next instant --- everything came from nothing, without any way to do so.

Of cousre some scientists recognize the hyper-astronomical scale of absurdity this scenario implies, and say the big bang was a hyper-hyper-hyper compact "singularity" that somehow got loose and exploded (due to some sort of probability and/or uncertainty principle).  Well, that's a huge, huge stretch, but at least it doesn't ask us to accept that the entire subject matter of science (the universe) is an absolute, complete and utter refutation of the fundamental principle of reality, existence, universe, and basic consistency).  I guess not all scientists are ready to admit that science is exactly equal to blatant, in our faces, impossible mystical absurdity.  Unfortunately, that's the only positive observation about the state of what passes for modern science that I can make.

Flakmeister's picture

The Big Bang was not an explosion, bad analogies lead to faulty thinking...

So you *strongly doubt* that Red Shift has to do with relative velocity....

Various forms of  "tired light" theories exist, they all have serious issues as there is a wealth of precision data that must be explained. For example see the papers referenced here:

As more and more data comes in, tired light theories are all but in the crank domain...

Element's picture

All sine waves are subject to red and blue shift type effects, and more, at cosmological emission distances, stop trying to misrepresent and discount what was said. She's just saying that there's much more to it then can be explained by the simple-ism you want to indulge, but I'm sure Ann can make a meal of you on her own, and certainly will.

honestann's picture

Was the Big Bang a "bang"?

Sorry, but to pick on the term to describe this supposed event is silly.

And when it comes to picking on terms, why do you characterize my comments as "tired light"?  Did I say "the light got tired", or anything even remotely like that?  No, in fact I gave examples of phenomenon that do not relate to "tired" whatsoever.

If you're gonna pick on terms, then try to be a bit more careful with terms yourself, know it all.

Sorry Element, it isn't worth my time and effort to hassle at length with people like him.

Flakmeister's picture

Theories that dispute the relativistic nature of the red shift are classified as "tired light" theories...

Hey I didn't make the name up...

Edit: And since you are clearly interested in this stuff (which is a good thing), you should be aware of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect

This is a good place to start

Element's picture

Which is really a shame, because I'd love to hear what you have to say, please do continue down the page, and we can all try to get on with some meaningful discussion.