Origins of the UNIVERSE

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:55 pm

Hi Qev

I certainly hope so, its a rather poorly kept secret that astronomers aren't very keen on Dark Energy, Dark Matter I can live with but DE is a much more difficult to feel comfortable with. Its whole presence is inferred from one type of measurement. At least DM has about a dozen.

The problem with supernovae as standard candles is that you can't be sure that they will be the same over Billions of years. The metallicities of stars going supernovae 6-7 Gyr ago will be totally different to those in the nearby Universe.

I've considered looking at this whole issue myself, trying to find some very metal poor SN in the nearby Universe, just to see if they are different, but finding them in the nearby Universe would be bloody hard.

The results your talking about remind of the situation with using Cepheid variables as standard candles, they were originally thought to come in only one type. But there are actually two, and when this was accounted for the error in the distance scale was improved vastly.

We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

MWarnkegwg · Post by **MWarnkegwg** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:42 am

First of all, Hello all. I have been interested in astronomy and cosmetology for quite a few years. I am curious though. I wonder if you could answer a question on mine that has been rattling around in my brain for a while. Why is it that computers and calculators cannot 'divide by zero' but the universe can? Just a thought.

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:26 am

Hello MWarnkegwg

I wish people use simple nmaes like smith, or peg, or Qev

Yes we know the Zero with calculators.

With the universe dividing by zero,,,,,,,,, What do you mean?

Qev · Post by **Qev** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:37 pm

MWarnkegwg wrote:First of all, Hello all. I have been interested in astronomy and cosmetology for quite a few years. I am curious though. I wonder if you could answer a question on mine that has been rattling around in my brain for a while. Why is it that computers and calculators cannot 'divide by zero' but the universe can? Just a thought.

Well, mathematics is really just a model we've constructed to describe certain aspects of the world around us. Not every statement you make within the model necessarily makes sense. Dividing by zero in standard mathematics is akin to saying the sentence "I'm lying." in English... they're self-contained contradictions.

There are mathematical systems where division by zero is perfectly allowed (such as the Real projective line), but I have no idea how they work.

As for the universe, the singularity of a GR black hole seems to be division by zero (hence the name singularity), but chances are quantum mechanics is going to get rid of that, once we figure out how to combine it with gravity in some meaningful way.

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:51 am

Hello Qev

Singularity cannot happen.

Therefore zero cannot happen.

For zero to occur you need to distroy matter to nothing.

I could be wrong

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:50 am

Hello All

Prof Manuel emailed me this link.

Maybe of interest to some.

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Th ... Origin.pdf

Looking at the origin and functioning of our sun.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:41 am

Hello

Just had this emailed to me from the hubble site.

PRESS RELEASE: STScI-PR06-34

HUBBLE FINDS EXTRASOLAR PLANETS FAR ACROSS OUR GALAXY

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has discovered 16 extrasolar planet
candidates orbiting a variety of distant stars in the central region of
our Milky Way galaxy.

The planet bonanza was uncovered during a Hubble survey, called the
Sagittarius Window Eclipsing Extrasolar Planet Search (SWEEPS). Hubble
looked farther than has ever successfully been searched for extrasolar
planets. Hubble peered at 180,000 stars in the crowded central bulge of
our galaxy 26,000 light-years away. That is one-quarter the diameter of
the Milky Way's spiral disk. The results will appear in the Oct. 5 issue
of the journal Nature.

To see and read more about SWEEPS on the Web, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/hubble http://hubblesite.org/news/2006/34
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0612.html
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/p ... 38-06.html

also

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoverie ... page.shtml
It is interesting to look at the movies of deep filed images. This will give you a better feel of the overal scope of the universe that we are able to see. 13.2 billion light years it aint so bad.

We see millions of galaxies that are billions of years old.

===========================================
I'm just learning about the universe, and sometimes giving my opinion, which is by nature unconventional. But! that me.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:25 am

Hello All

I had to add this currect link

COBE All-Sky Map
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061007.html

This historic all-sky map is based on the first two years of data from NASA's COsmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite, launched in November of 1989. The map shows minute temperature variations (red is hotter) imprinted on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation by structures in the early Universe. These detailed measurements of the CMB and other COBE results ushered in an age of precision cosmology, and exactly confirmed the predictions of the Big Bang theory. Playing leading roles in the COBE project, for their resulting discoveries John C. Mather (NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center), and George F. Smoot (UC Berkeley) were selected to receive the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics.

This does not cement the Big Bang theory. I would like to see other scientists comments on their findings.

linx · Post by **linx** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:06 pm

Hi to Harry, Qev & all,

doesnt singularity = 1
& zero = 0

Linx

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:00 pm

This does not cement the Big Bang theory. I would like to see other scientists comments on their findings.

How not? Please present some proof of this. If you predict something in advance and then it is matched exactly when you do the experiment how is this not good evidence of the correctness of the theory?

The fact that they got a Nobel prize for their work shows what other scientists think of their work.

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:30 am

Hello Astro

There are many Nobel Prize winners that were proved to be wrong at a later date.

What we have is a group of Big Bangers voting for the theory they believe in. And thats OK.

What I'm saying. Something is wrong.
If there was a local Big Bang producing these resutts I would understand. But not a Total Big Bang and dating the universe as 13.7 Gyrs old, in no way. Many of the large objects out there have taken 100Gyrs to form if not more. I'm talking of the super clusters of galaxies.

Look, if you want to believe in that, well and good.

and one more thing

At the 2005 conference on the Crisis in Cosmology, one
of the abstracts noted that some features of the fine
structure in CMB are linked with the geometry of the
solar system.

ta152h0 · Post by **ta152h0** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:08 pm

please name one object out there that took 100gy to form and subject the finding to peer review.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:18 am

Hello All

Hi! tai52ho, i can name several.

Can you find one.

Can anybody tell me of any object that can take 100 Gyrs to form.

Who wants to be a million dollar person?

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:51 am

Im sure he can name some things that would take that long to form, BUT NONE HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. Wait around another 86Gyr and you may see some Harry.

So how about answering a question for once Harry. Please name one thing that has been observed that takes 100Gyr to form.

I guarantee there isnt one thing you can name that can't be explained by the BBT.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:13 pm

Harry, Harry & Harry

Your vague, ill-defined, imprecise and unclear rebuttals are becoming redundant and there is an increasing absence of logic with each reply.

It is not enough to say “There are many Nobel Prize winners that were proved to be wrong at a later date”. This is a layman’s position that has been obsolete since religion was debunked and exposed as "organized mass exploitation".

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... php?t=8271

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:00 am

Hello All

There are a number os supercluster's of galaxies that have taken ove 100Gyrs to form.

If you use the Big Bang theory than you would have formed these in no time at all. Thats the logic of the Bangers.

Have a look at the sizes of these super objects

Coma
Hydra
Virgo
Centauris
Persues
Pagasus
Pavo
and so on.

========================================

If that is not enough look at the evolution of galaxies and their collisions.

If that is not enough, look at the origin of our sun.

If it formed from a supernova and the remnant was a compact core that formed our sun, how old would the previous star be.

OOps I think I'm going off the subject.

What I trying to say, it takes time to build things up to super clusters of galaxies.

Yes Martin, Martin, Martin and your logic and your point is What?

I asked a question, is there a problem with that.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:13 am

Hello All

On a different note.

Hilto Ratcliffe attended a conference on cosmology and has written a paper on some issues, particularly the Big Bang Theory and the sun's origin.

http://www.americanantigravity.com/docu ... cliffe.pdf

cosmo_uk · Post by **cosmo_uk** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:21 am

I do all of my research into rich galaxy clusters out to z=1 and find no evidence that their formation is inconsistent with the Big Bang. How much research have you done harry to pluck this 100Gyr number out of thin air? When I say research I don't mean reading wikipedia or some nut job's website.

astro_uk · Post by **astro_uk** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:39 am

On a technical note, only Coma and Virgo could really be classed as superclusters.

Apart from that, you seem to have simply plucked the number 100Gyr out of your own backside.

As I have previously explained, simulations with DM and the observed expansion of the Universe (plus DE) have no problem reproducing such structures. In fact they produce some that are larger than observed.

So perhaps you would be kind enough to provide some evidence for you claim of structures taking 100Gyr to form. They certainly would in your static universe cosmology, but not in the current paradigm.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:21 am

Hello Astro, cosmo

It seems that you think along the lines of the Big bang

You have no regards, for the previous link, by Hilton Ratcliffe

You fail to understand that I know the Big Bang theory.

You have placed all your eggs in the same bag.

http://www.americanantigravity.com/docu ... cliffe.pdf

Read these links if you have time

Some other useful references:

1. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Red shifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998).

2. http://www.metaresearch.org

3. Eric J. Lerner The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage Books, New York, 1991)

4. http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

5. http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org

6. http://www.cosmology.info.

7. http://www.cosmologystatement.org.

8. http://www.electric-cosmos.org

9. http://www.holoscience.com.

Hilto Redcliffe emailed me this comment

Thank you for your email and interest in our work. I share your surprise that Mather and Smoot received the 2006 Nobel Prize for physics because of their very biased interpretation of the Microwave Background. Even more surprising was the fact that the “discoverers” of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), radio engineers Penzias and Wilson, also received the Nobel Prize. They did not look for CMBR, they did not know of the predictions of Gamow, when they found it, they thought (correctly) that it was just radio noise interfering with their work, and they tried to get rid of it. In fact, they at first thought it was caused by pigeon droppings in their radio antenna! Only when Peebles and Dicke from Princeton University told them of Big Bang prediction did they try to make something useful (and profitable!) out of it. From pigeon dung, the Nobel Prize!

The CMBR has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic and in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.

Dr. Skeptic · Post by **Dr. Skeptic** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:28 am

Hilto Redcliffe emailed me this comment

Quote:
Thank you for your email and interest in our work. I share your surprise that Mather and Smoot received the 2006 Nobel Prize for physics because of their very biased interpretation of the Microwave Background. Even more surprising was the fact that the “discoverers” of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), radio engineers Penzias and Wilson, also received the Nobel Prize. They did not look for CMBR, they did not know of the predictions of Gamow, when they found it, they thought (correctly) that it was just radio noise interfering with their work, and they tried to get rid of it. In fact, they at first thought it was caused by pigeon droppings in their radio antenna! Only when Peebles and Dicke from Princeton University told them of Big Bang prediction did they try to make something useful (and profitable!) out of it. From pigeon dung, the Nobel Prize!

The CMBR has been intensively investigated by both the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and more recently by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). The COBE data was inconclusive (because of low resolution) but the WMAP results are overwhelming in their challenge to Big Bang theory. Study after study (conducted independently and sometimes by arch supporters of Big Bang) have shown that it is extremely unlikely that such radiation could have come from a primal explosion. The anisotropies seen in high-resolution WMAP images indicate an astonishing correlation with local astrophysical structure, both on the ecliptic and in the galaxy. All the current evidence suggests that the microwave background is simply a benign background picture of the radiating structures that surround us.

_________________
Harry : Smile and live another day.

Talk about a very biased interpretation of the Microwave Background. Ooooooh them sour grapes!

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:25 pm

Hello All

Have a look at this image

Link
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/wallpaper/pr2002012a/

A galaxy in the making

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:11 am

A galaxy within a galaxy?

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:03 am

Hello Martin

Could be.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:35 am

Hello All

Interesting reading

The Plasma Universe

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html

Starship Asterisk*

Origins of the UNIVERSE

I am curious

Re: I am curious

Origins of the Universe

please name