John Dobson - Side Walk Astronomer

[CanisMajorTom]

This may only be relevant to Australia but who saw the show on the ABC last week with John Dobson?

Mr Dobson said that the big bang never happened. He mentioned that something cannot come from nothing and also questioned expansion.

But if the Hubble deep field images are anything to go by, he is very wrong.

[Radar]

I saw the last 20 minutes of this show.

I think it is good how he sets his scope up on the sidewalk and shows people stuff.

As far as the big bang not happening - I'm out of my depth. I'll google his theories on this and get back to you.

[CanisMajorTom]

Whilst it is good that he has such theories, I don't think he has enough experience in this type of science. I think he is out of his depth on issues such as the big bang, but it is also awesome that he tackles these issues and argues them. At the very least he is playing devils advocate.

[Radar]

I did some reading on the ever popular Mr Dobson. He doesn't seem to have a degree in physics or anything but man he lives for astronomy.

[RSW]

John Dobson has been around for many years. Even though he doesn't actually have a degree in quantum mechanics he is probably more than qualified to come up with theories on the big bang.

The science of the big bang is still very new, and once an individual has an understanding of the basic laws of physics, then creating your own theories is not that hard.

I think John Dobson lacks the observational data to support his theory.

[Radar]

I think the observations with Hubble over the last few years shows quite well how Galaxies used to look billions of years ago and also shows that they are moving away from eachother as if blown out from a single point. I think the Hubble observations make John Dobson's theories quite hard to swallow.

But! John Dobson is no idiot. If he beleives his theories so adamantly there is obviously a reason for it. He obviously has an observation of something somewhere that is making him think this.

[Red Giant]

May I interject?


But! John Dobson is no idiot. If he beleives his theories so adamantly there is obviously a reason for it. He obviously has an observation of something somewhere that is making him think this.

Yes, I agree with this. Whilst Mr Dobson is going against conventional knowledge, I bet he has some awesome observation up his astronomical sleeve. He has been around too long to just make up theories. I would be interested to hear what it is he has to say.

[CanisMajorTom]

I couldn't find anything solid on google yet that showed why he would oppose the big bang. I'll have another look later.

[Radar]

Maybe he is just one of those people that just has to be different :hmm:

:lmao: :lmao:

[rocketman]

We had the honour of having the great man give a talk at our club(packed house).Sure, he is eccentric, but surely, with his tremendous contribution to bringing astronomy to the masses, he is entitled to his opinion.We all have our little pet theories about astronomy which can be debated and discussed
ad nauseum.

rocketman

[CanisMajorTom]

, he is entitled to his opinion.We all have our little pet theories about astronomy which can be debated and discussed
ad nauseum.

For sure. It is just that his theories become interesting for the fact that he goes against the grain of what most scientists beleive. Because we haven't had the chance of hearing why he came to these conclusions, and couldn't find anything on google, I thought it was worth posting a thread here to find out more.

Did he cover any of his theories when he came to your club?

[Robert TG]

The main theory before the Big Bang was a theory called "Steady State".
Perhaps Dobson is one of the few remaining people who hold on to that once popular and very solid theory.

Fred Hoyle, who argued for the "steady state theory", actually first used the term Big Bang in an attempt to mock the present popular theory.

The good thing about science is that theories get overthrown and replaced or modified with better ones. Reading Astronomy history is full of theories that were wrong.

We really don't know a lot for sure...but it's remarkable that we have the ability to even know the amount we do!

There are many modern theories that will not be here in 50 years. An example is the modern term "Dark energy"; it is simply just made up to give a “name” to an “unknown” reason for the acceleration of the universe. When science works out why the universe appears to be accelerating, the term “Dark energy” will disappear.

Part of our society is simply not to say, “I don’t know”. We don’t want our scientists to say it and we definitely don’t want our politicians to say it. Teachers don’t want students saying it, so we all learn to give an answer that sounds good…. a theory…instead of just saying “I don’t know”.

Even today there is a “god of the gaps”, which is assigned responsibility for what we do not yet understand. We no longer say that god makes the sun rise…because we now understand that earth is turning and the sun only appears to rise. But when you get to the limits of our understanding, the god of the gaps reappears as the catch all answer.

[Radar]

Good post Robert. :thumbsupmate:

I was just reading up about this on Wikipedia.

The Steady State theory lost support with the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation.

So I guess anyone that still supports the Steady State theory has to explain the background radiation.

You are right in saying that many theories we have now will be replaced. If history is any guide, then pretty much everything we think we know is wrong. :pipethinker:

[Astro Dave]

Robert, you are right about the 'Steady State Theory' but not quite right about it being the main opponent of 'Big Bang' theory. You left one out.

Around the time all this was being discussed (pre-1960) there was another major and popular theory put forward by three of the greatest scientists of their day.

So, there were actually 3 competing theories (incl Big Bang) and BOY, did they cause some ripples in popular astronomy at the time!

I remember the debates on early Aussie TV at the time with Professor Harry Messel as he arbitrated these panel discussions.

Have a go and see if you know what the other popular theory was.

[Robert TG]

Have a go and see if you know what the other popular theory was.

The first and oldest theory comes to mind, Creation by god. It's now called "intelligent design".


I'd need a clue about what the other popular theory was at the time. :hmm:

[Astro Dave]

Hmmm, now we have something going on.

A clue? Well.... let's see.

OK, it is NOT Intelligent Design nor anything with a theological bent. It is, in fact, very closely aligned to one of the other two theories you originally mentioned... except for one main, specific point - indigenous to this theory.

[Robert TG]

You got me on this one...

Are we talking about Einstein's "Static Universe"? (I don't know if that was still around by the 1960's)

Or Lemaitre's model of the big bang which predicts a almost stationary phase (now) of the big bang before the universe begins to expand at a greatly increased rate?
But that is really just a Big Bang variation...like the HOT big bang theory, or the Big Crunch, etc...

[Radar]

I have no idea on this one either. :hmm: I would have said intelligent design, but as already stated, that is wrong.

[Astro Dave]

Ahhh, everybody please note - Robert has been technically stumped!

Now, you're tantalisingly close ... let me say this -
It is a very simple theory, some would say almost a copy per se but this points more to issues of 'life and death'.

It was a theory abandoned principally as it conflicted with the law of thermodynaics - specifically heat loss in the Universe.

At the Sydney University's 'Summer Science Schools' in the 1960's it was heavily debated along with BB and Steady State by 3 world renowned astronomers of the time who took the theory under their wing and stated categorically it was right.

Now I know we have many theories, Brane,Inflation, BB, etc etc BUT we're talking about an earlier time remember, when these 3 theories dominated world thinking. Only one of course survived, BB.

[Jimbot]

Ahhh, everybody please note - Robert has been technically stumped!

Now, you're tantalisingly close ... let me say this -
It is a very simple theory, some would say almost a copy per se but this points more to issues of 'life and death'.

It was a theory abandoned principally as it conflicted with the law of thermodynaics - specifically heat loss in the Universe.

If I may put an aor in so to speak, was this the cyclic model with the universe expanding and contracting ? This was of course rules out as entropy would cause it to eventually have insufficient energy etc. Just a thought.

[Astro Dave]

OOOOOOH - you are so HOT!!!!!!! I'd almost have to pay that answer BUT I know Robert would be a bit miffed for allowing a 'near miss'... and I wouldn't blame him.

Your terminology is good, but what's the name of the theory?

[Robert TG]

Oscillatory Universe Theory by Richard Tolman.




This is very close to the Hindu cosmology of creation by the god Braham every (311 trillion years or 100 Braham years)
"Brahma's life is divided in one thousand cycles (Maha Yuga, or the Great Year). Maha Yuga, during which life, including the human race appears and then disappears, has 71 divisions, each made of 14 Manvantara (1000) years. Each Maha Yuga lasts for 4,320,000 years. Manvantara is Manu's cycle, the one who gives birth and governs the human race."

I don't know where they got their numbers from, LOL

[CanisMajorTom]

Whoa! Thats pretty deep stuff.

[Radar]

I don't know where they got their numbers from, LOL

lol, yeah, those numbers are "out there".

[Astro Dave]

OK, the winner of the brass ring this week is... ROBERT!!!!!

Big ya for Robert folks, he's nailed the $64,000,000 question.

I think we should also light a candle in the window too for the one who practically gave us the answer but missed the actual name ... 'Big Yay Of The Day' to Jimbot.

The answer was: The Theory Of The Oscillating Universe'.

The theory kinda goes like this: What we once thought was The Big Bang was more likely 'Another Big Bang.' Measurements of background cosmic radiation suggest that our universe explodes, expands, then contracts to the point of exploding again. Hence, the oscillation.

In each explosion, all the dice are rolled. What we think of as the natural order of things is up for grabs in each cycle or oscillation; anything is possible. Each cycle from explosion to implosion is the life of a universe, not of the universe.

Within a single universe, natural laws apply; across universes, they are reinvented. As for the scientists who pushed the theory, look to Prof. Thomas Gold and the quite frightening looking Prof. Hermann Bondi et al.

I have another question if you want? This one is a doosey (is that how you spell it?)

[Robert TG]

.

...I have another question if you want?
...This one is a doosey (is that how you spell it?)


Yes, to the first question.

And the answer to the second question is...
doo·zy or doo·zie (dōō'zē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. doo·zies Slang
Something extraordinary or bizarre

:lmao:

[Astro Dave]

OK, Fanks for good spellin' - I have henceforth added this to my Junior Woodchuck's Encyclopaedia (anyone over 50 and who reads Disney comics will get what that means).

OK, Tune in sometime tomorrow for the doozie- I sincerely hope it is all you expect. I think it's the strangest space question ever asked, really, and it's all true. It really happened!!

Got you interested? Are you in suspense here?

This is like the old movie theatre days when an episode of 'The Shadow' just finishes, and they start to show you previews of the next episode.

Again, you have to be 50+ to dig it.

[CanisMajorTom]

That thread was quite funny in places. I'm looking forward to the doozie :pipethinker:

[Jimbot]

Why so close... never mind. So with bated breath we wait for the next installment... Yes Kemo Sabe I will be there. For those of us who got the Lone ranger rather than the "Shadow".

Jim

[Radar]

lol, I am your father young Skywalker :Chessy_Smile:

[RSW]

This thread does loops, twists and backflips. Where is the doozie?:pipethinker:

[astromanian]

I would second that RocketMan..... I had the pleasure of his company in October 2006 at the Birmingham Institute in the UK and really enjoyed his presentation and theories........ Whose to know anyway? Its nice to have such a passion though! I would recommend anyone to go to his talks, he is so dynamic for 91 years of age. Top bloke whatever your opinion.

Ian

[Radar]

91!!!

I didn't know he was that old. That is awesome that he is still going so strong.