Origins of the UNIVERSE

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:23 am

Hello Cosmo

There we go again, we assume that the Big Bang Theory is a fact and proceed to make conclusions.

Before we step in that direction, just hold your horses until the cows come home.

I wish that the Big Bang is correct. But! wishing is not very scientific.

Lets have a look at some deep field clusters

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/felines/
9 and 11 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_rel ... 40805.html
6 to 8 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/smg/
11 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/darkenergy/
6.7 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/rdcs1252/
8.5Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/highzqso/
13 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/1273/
11 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/1127/

The X-ray image of the quasar PKS 1127-145, a highly luminous source of X-rays and visible light about 10 billion light years from Earth, shows an enormous X-ray jet that extends at least a million light years from the quasar. The jet is likely due to the collision of a beam of high-energy electrons with microwave photons.

Reading Chandra you would think that the Big Bang is reality.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/1999/0064/
6 Gyrs

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 4/07/text/
13.2 Grs

The HUDF field contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies. In ground-based images, the patch of sky in which the galaxies reside (just one-tenth the diameter of the full Moon) is largely empty. Located in the constellation Fornax, the region is below the constellation Orion.

The NICMOS sees even farther than the ACS. The NICMOS reveals the farthest galaxies ever seen, because the expanding universe has stretched their light into the near-infrared portion of the spectrum. "The NICMOS provides important additional scientific content to cosmological studies in the HUDF," says Rodger Thompson of the University of Arizona and the NICMOS Principal Investigator. The ACS uncovered galaxies that existed 800 million years after the big bang (at a redshift of 7). But the NICMOS may have spotted galaxies that lived just 400 million years after the birth of the cosmos (at a redshift of 12). Thompson must confirm the NICMOS discovery with follow-up research.

Now for a galaxy to form in just 400 million years is quite an ask. For a cluster of galaxies is going to far with the question.

Compare this with the evolution of our solar system and its life expectency of about 10 to 12 Gyrs.

Something is wrong. Are we blind not to question?

Soon we will look into deep field over 14 Gyrs. What than?

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:02 pm

Then, We will likely be able to say:

"We have looked deeper than ever before but saw nothing more, thereby prooving that the universe is less than 14gyrs old"

or

"We have looked deeper than ever before and have seen many new wonders prooving that the universe is now 16.7gyrs old"

Proof is only proof as long as it is continually reaffirmed or until it is replaced by proof to the contrary.

"Disclaimer" (to be disproven at a later date)

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:48 am

Hello BMAone23

Smile

You right and wrong at the same time.

We can only talk about for now.

Until than, we can make estimated time scales on:

How long would it a super cluster to form?

How long would a super black hole take to die?

How long does a spiral galaxy take to form?

What is the life span of our sun? How did it evolve?

All these and more can divert you to time spans much greater than 20 Gyrs to say the least.

Life of a super black hole is 10^65

We do not need to protect the Big Bang from falling. To do so we trap ouselves in a non scientific zone.

but! than again what IF it is right?

Than evidence should be the proof. Than we can eat the pudding.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:48 pm

harry,

It would seem that you are searching for something that the science of astronomy/cosmology cannot provide ... "proof".

If so, why hang out here?

Alternatively, you may have a different view of how astronomy and cosmology, as sciences, should be done. Good for you.

But again, why hang out here?

Maybe you think you know better than the thousands of professionals, and believe you have some deep personal insight into how the universe works. Terrific; you are entitled to your personal beliefs.

If you are so certain, why hang out here?

Maybe you'd like to be part of the collective human endeavour called astronomy/cosmology. Wonderful! Several folk who hang out here would, I'm sure, be only too glad to recommend courses and universities for you to take and go to, leading to you getting a PhD in astrophysics.

If so, just ask!

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:04 am

Hello Nereid

You read words out of context.

Regardless,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,your right.

Proof is something that cannot be given at this time.

But! we do have some ideas.

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

Nereid are you asking me to stop posting?

I can do that

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:34 am

Hello All

Until I get my PhD

Have a look at this link.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c438/

Whatch the movie.

Before I discuss it I'd like an opinion,

What is driving the centre explosion.?

makc · Post by **makc** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:42 pm

harry wrote:Nereid are you asking me to stop posting?

I can do that

I think she means, were you to share accepted scientific ideas, discussion could be much more fruitful for everybody; and since you do not, why insist on discussing it?

IMHO, you two (and accompanists) have said all you had to say to each other long time ago; this is ridiculous to have this topic (in particular) to run for so long.

@Nereid, will rules ever be enforced here?

makc · Post by **makc** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:you are "assuming" that the explanation for these events can be found in "accepted" ideas, and that these accepted ideas are somehow "more fruitful" than any theory related to plasma cosmology theory.

Not at all, I am saying that discussing things only has a point when you agree on starting points. If Nereid comes with "BBT fits data good enough" and Harry comes "BBT is not a fact", what's left there for them to discuss?

Michael Mozina wrote:Why is it ridiculous to continue to entertain plasma cosmology theory?

Because it is against the rules of this forum?

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:01 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
Which rule specifically are you referring to? Which part of plasma cosmology theory is "off limits'? Surely you don't mean to suggest that we cannot discuss Birkeland currents and MHD theory as it relates to astronomy?

She is not saying you can't discuss it and DON'T call her Shirley!!!

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:26 am

Hello All

Hey! Stay Cool

I'm not the smartest guy off the taxi rank. Just learning bit by bit.

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

Ok Back to the link

Another intriguing feature in the Chandra data is the possible detection of a cavity in the hot gas. This structure, seen in the upper left of the image, would require a tremendous amount of energy to produce. There are also hints of a similar structure on the other side of the central galaxy. Images of 3C438 and Surrounding Galaxy Cluster Astronomers think such X-ray cavities are usually generated when large amounts of matter funnel into a supermassive black hole. The black hole inhales much of the matter but expels some of it outward in a high-speed jet, carving space into the hot gas. If the cavity was generated by a supermassive black hole, then it would be the most powerful event of its kind ever seen.

We are looking at a Bh about 4.8 Gyrs away in a cluster of galaxies.

What we are seeing is a supermassive so called black hole, possibly a neutron merged neucleon if not a composite theoretical preon/quark compact core.

This is fantastic.

You actually see the ejected matter from the Compacted core, to me it proves my theory that black holes eject matter and reform the galaxy or the cluster of galaxies.

Some of these cluster jets go for millions of light years, with the ability to eject and seed galaxy matter.

This is not main stream thinking, so take it with a Z-pinch of salt.

makc · Post by **makc** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:29 am

Michael Mozina wrote:Which rule specifically are you referring to? Which part of plasma cosmology theory is "off limits'?

Nereid has been saying for a long time that discussions of things not backed up by papers in astronomy magazines of her choise are "not welcomed". Personally, I think she just have no balls to say "forbidden" instead, loud and clear. She's admin, so whatever she says is a rule to follow; at least, if I were an admin I would expect it so.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:31 pm

Hello Michael

Just when I thought there was no more reading, you have come out with another "LOT".

Darn!! don't you hate it when you know you know very little.

Asterisk is at RISK of going into a local dark age era if it controls what information is accepted. Many people have walked away from this forum, because they want to learn more and have people who are able to discuss that info.

I for one love this forum, it has a great potential.

As for rules,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they are made to be bent, just like light.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:31 am

Hello All

Have a look at this link and whatch the movie, deep field

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/movie_theater/lookdeep/

cosmo_uk · Post by **cosmo_uk** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:03 am

This new hole is not at odds with LCDM cosmology.

MM said

whereas plasma cosmology "predicts" a universe that is threaded and full of "holes" as well.

As far as I am aware no one has ever used plasma cosmology (pc) to predict anything. If it was possible to model the universe with pc then it would be a viable theory. where are the pc simulations that show large scale structure and galaxy formation?

i've said it before: plasma cosmology is an outdated theory still clung to by a few old men at the iEEE with subject envy

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:15 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
harry wrote:Hello All

Until I get my PhD

Have a look at this link.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c438/

Whatch the movie.

Before I discuss it I'd like an opinion,

What is driving the centre explosion.?
IMO, the radio wave image is the most informative of the images in that movie. The radio waves shows a "z-pinch" taking place inside the x-ray field, with a heavy mass bulge in the middle of the z-pinch thread. My best guess is we're looking at a neutron star that is carrying a great deal of current through the plasma threads that we we see in the radio wave spectrum. The x-rays are released from the entire electrified field of plasma around the neutron star, and possibly these x-rays are being influenced by some sort of supernova like event to took place when the z-pinch began. Like all "guesses", my guess is only a guess.

My guess is that this EU-based explanation is nonsense, that MM knows it's a deliberate flout, and so on.

But my guess is only a guess.

I guess it doesn't matter if I delete it then?

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:25 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
makc wrote:
harry wrote:Nereid are you asking me to stop posting?

I can do that
I think she means, were you to share accepted scientific ideas, discussion could be much more fruitful for everybody; and since you do not, why insist on discussing it?
The only problem with that logic from my perspective Makc is that you are "assuming" that the explanation for these events can be found in "accepted" ideas, and that these accepted ideas are somehow "more fruitful" than any theory related to plasma cosmology theory. To do that, one first has to have some confidence that "accepted" idea are viable and more fruitful than other options. Some of us don't believe that is the case, which makes it much more difficult for some of us to go that route.

This has been covered, many times, in this thread and others.

To take just one aspect, "plasma cosmology theory" - there is no such thing, in the sense of contemporary scientific theories; to take another, you are totally free to believe what you like.

Is there any particular part of the Asterisk Cafe policy that you don't understand Michael?

IMHO, you two (and accompanists) have said all you had to say to each other long time ago; this is ridiculous to have this topic (in particular) to run for so long.

@Nereid, will rules ever be enforced here?
Why is it ridiculous to continue to entertain plasma cosmology theory? Do you really believe that any new astronomical idea is going to be accepted by the mainstream in a relatively short period of time? Can you cite me even one example of when and where that ever happened in the field of astronomy? Birkeland never lived long enough to see his theories about Birkeland currents proven true, and the debate about the flow patterns of energy from the sun to the earth raged on for many years before satellite systems finally confirmed Birkeland's theories in the early 70's. Some debates are bound to last a relatively long time, certainly a "long" time by cyberspace standards.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/1995/T60/014

That may well be ... but as you don't have a perfect crystal ball (in respect of what scientific theories will be mainstream in the future), your opinions on this matter are just that, opinions.

Should we allow anyone, with any kind of crazy idea, to write posts like this (substituting their versions of tiny snapshots of the history of one branch of science or other)?

As I think I have said before, more than once, there are internet discussion fora where such opinions are not only acceptable, but welcome; where topics such as this are explored in considerable depth (an example).

However, this is not one such forum.

Please stop trying to use the Asterisk Cafe as if it were.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:31 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
makc wrote:Not at all, I am saying that discussing things only has a point when you agree on starting points. If Nereid comes with "BBT fits data good enough" and Harry comes "BBT is not a fact", what's left there for them to discuss?
Well, Nereid might try explaining why there are gaping holes in BBT as it relates to matter dispersion in the universe. No BBT I'm aware of explains this "hole" in the universe, whereas plasma cosmology "predicts" a universe that is threaded and full of "holes" as well.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 164846.htm

"Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size," said Lawrence Rudnick of the University of Minnesota astronomy professor.
It seems to me that BBT fails to "predict" a lot of what we see in the universe. I am "required" to have faith in BBT?

[snip]

Discussion of recent discoveries is most certainly within scope, as is the extent to which these discoveries are consistent with LCDM cosmological models.

References to non-scientific theories is not within scope.

What any scientific theory, cosmological or not, 'requires' anyone to have faith in is downright silly, coming from you Michael ... I know you know very well what the nature of modern scientific theories is, so to make what seems to me to be a deliberately provocative mis-statement is rather troubling.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread, if you don't accept the scope of this forum, why to continue to hang out here?

If you do accept the scope of this forum, why do you continue to (blatantly, deliberately?) go beyond it?

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:38 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
makc wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:Which rule specifically are you referring to? Which part of plasma cosmology theory is "off limits'?
Nereid has been saying for a long time that discussions of things not backed up by papers in astronomy magazines of her choise are "not welcomed".
Perhaps you missed the link I provided earlier?

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresul ... er=4287017

Plasma cosmology theory is well documented at this point in time.

I seem to be missing something Michael ... what has this got to do with cosmology?

In which of the papers* in that special edition may one read about the CMB? the Hubble relation? P(k) (large-scale structure)? and so on.

I'm particularly interested in your characterisation "well documented".

*Other than, perhaps, the one on GEMS ... though this is more of a TOE, like string theory, than cosmology.

makc · Post by **makc** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:04 pm

harry wrote:Many people have walked away from this forum, because they want to learn more and have people who are able to discuss that info.

I also remember people who walked away because they wanned scientific discussion instead. Not to mention that we no longer see RJN or Dan posting, or reading.

Nereid wrote:If you do accept the scope of this forum, why do you continue to (blatantly, deliberately?) go beyond it?

Actually, I went for cafe rules draft (now on page 2 or 3) and, to my surprize, there even was no clear statement. Newcomer who didn't bother to read 50+ page threads like this one cannot really know this. I think it's about time to finalize rules, stick it on page 1, and start enforcing it.

Some people will leave, some will stay, new people will join; but we surely will stop these crappy flame wars.