Starship Asterisk*

1. The age of GC's.

3. The mechanics of black holes and the unfounded assumption that they are super massive degenerated matter / ultra dense plasma matter.

2. The Local streaming motion of galaxies being problematic.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0603692

Hello Astro

What do you mean?

Just that in your earlier post you said that streaming motions of the local group of galaxies presented a problem for a Lambda CDM universe, which is not in fact the case. It was an example of wrong out of date information, like the age of GCs.

It was also an excuse to post a link to the paper I came across while looking into it, it has very nice figures showing the distributions of galaxies in the nearby Universe, and the so called "fingers of God" effect.

Harry -are you trying to propagate creationism?

Hello Martin

Where did you get that Idea?

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

Hello Astro

To say something is wrong you need to prove it.

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

Thinking along the lines of the Big Bang is not the way to go.
Built on fantasy ideas.
=========================================

As for the age of Super clusters,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,saying they are just 13billion or so years old. Its hoo haa.

If you wish to think along those line than do so.

Each to their own opinion

Oh Harry, I think this is part of the problem. Are we just talking opinions here?

Do you believe intelligent design is responsible for our universe?

I did prove it Harry, thats why I put that link up. That is a peer reviewed paper which demonstrates that the Universe is not homogeneous on the (relatively small scale) it also demonstrates that there is sufficent mass to account for the motion of the local group.

If you want evidence that this is consistent with Lambda CDM models check out this link:

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/

This has some very pretty simulations of the Universe, its in fact the largest simulation ever made. It evolves a Universe from the BB for 13.6 Gyr and traces where the DM lies after this, you'll notice that they have no problem reproducing the observed distribution of mass in the allowed time.

If you have any constructive comments or questions feel free to ask.

That is so beautiful -ty for the link!!!!

Great link Astro!!!!!

I remember seeing an actual partial model somewhere but can't find it anymore. My link went south and never came back. All I get is 404 now.
But this looks like the same thing although it is only a sim.

Does anyone have a valid link to an actual model??

Hi BMAONE23

Do you mean a representation of what is actually observed in the Universe?
If you do I guess what you mean is something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2dF_Galaxy_Redshift_Survey

If you look for 2dF or SDSS you should get plots that look like this, where every point is a galaxy, the one here isnt that good, I'll cast about and see if I can find a better one.

That is also similar though what I had linked was a 3d model. I think it's gone now though. Or maybe the website is gone.

Hello All

Re: link

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/

The cold dark matter model has become the leading theoretical paradigm for the formation of structure in the Universe. Together with the theory of cosmic inflation, this model makes a clear prediction for the initial conditions for structure formation and predicts that structures grow hierarchically through gravitational instability. Testing this model requires that the precise measurements delivered by galaxy surveys can be compared to robust and equally precise theoretical calculations. Here we present a novel framework for the quantitative physical interpretation of such surveys. This combines the largest simulation of the growth of dark matter structure ever carried out with new techniques for following the formation and evolution of the visible components. We show that baryon-induced features in the initial conditions of the Universe are reflected in distorted form in the low-redshift galaxy distribution, an effect that can be used to constrain the nature of dark energy with next generation surveys.

This may give us some insight to the formation of the ongoing universe.

But! the idea that the universe had a start or initial conditions is another issue.

So far there is no evidence of any initial conditions.

harry wrote:This may give us some insight to the formation of the ongoing universe.

But! the idea that the universe had a start or initial conditions is another issue.

So far there is no evidence of any initial conditions.

Except the Hubble Expansion, and the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the observation of galaxies in earlier stages of formation at greater distances from us, and the ratios of the most common element formed by baryosynthesis...

Hello Qev

You say

Except the Hubble Expansion, and the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the observation of galaxies in earlier stages of formation at greater distances from us, and the ratios of the most common element formed by baryosynthesis...

What hubble expansion?

What about the cosmic Microwave Background?

Observation of galaxies in earlier stages,,,,,,,,,, what do you mean as part of a recycling process or along the Big Bang Theory.

Please explain the ratios of the most common elements.


I'm not trying to be a pain. I just want to know what people are thinking.

This Hubble expansion:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html

This CMB:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html

which is about as close to inital conditions as are possible, due to the fact that the Universe was opaque before this epoch. Alright this is actually 300,000 years after the BB, but you can't actually look any further back.

There is no recycling process Harry, if there was we would see equal numbers of young and old galaxies, we verifiably do not see that, we see that the further back in time you look the fraction of younger galaxies increases. There is no way to get material out of huge old Elliptical galaxies and allow this to form new smaller younger galaxies.

If you view the ratios of the most common elements at the present they are seen to be very different to what they were in the distant past. If you look at more and more isolated gas clouds in galaxies with little star formation you see that the Hydrogen and Helium become increasingly more dominant until they almost reach the values you expect from BB nucleosythesis. Clear evidence for the fact that the Interstellar Medium has been enriched in metals (rto an astronomer any element heavier than Helium) by previous generations of stars, either by supernovae or mass ejections from outer envelopes.

Hello Astro

I totally disagree

=====================================
We know that stars go through their stages. During these stages such as a supernova we witness the recycle process.

It basically goes from subatomic to atomic structure during the star's life and during the supernova.

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

When we look at galaxies and see their evolution again we witness atomic matter ..........MECO (subatomice matter) also know as the so called black hole-----------becomes active ejecting subatomic particals to the surrounding galaxy.

these are observations.

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

I cannot stop you from thinking the way you do.

But! read up more on compact star cores and their function.
Look up the functioning of the so called black holes and their evolution in reference to recycling.

http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html

Professor Manuel (center) discusses research on the composition of the Sun with (on the left) Professor Fumihiko Suekane of Tohoku University's Research Center for Neutrino Science in Sendai, Japan and (on the right) Professor Dr. Hans Klapdor-Kleingrothaus of the Max-Planck Institut fuer Kernphysik in Heidelberg, Germany.

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

Hey! I could be wrong and at the end of the day, I may be eating my own hut.

Until than, something is wrong with the Big Bang Theory and has left its mark on alot of people.


An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://cosmologystatement.org/

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

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

At the end of the day,,,,,,,,,,,,,hopefully within 2 years the model still standing will be used for the next generation and who knows after that, maybe we were all wrong, off the Beaten track.

"Telescope set to reveal 'Big Bang'"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/2 ... index.html

Harry:

Will they not find radio evidence of the BB?

Harry you talk about what you do not understand fundamentally.

It all comes down to a question of scale, even if you could recycle material with BHs, they still make up less than 1% of the mass of baryons in the Universe. The vast majority of stars are too small to ever form a BH and in stable orbits that mean they will never (and I mean never in 10^100 years) come across a another object, so how do you intend to make new matter when you can't recycle the old? Or are you just assuming that energy conservation does not exist?

And you can't rely on supernovae either, let us use your own axiom there, that we should be led by the observations. So let us do that.

If you examine groups of young stars you can measure the elemental abundance of the stars and the gas clouds from which they form, if you then see a supernovae go off amongst them you can then measure the elemental abundances of material ejected by the supernovae. Guess what, their not the same, the supernovae has made loads of material too heavy to be used to derive energy by fusion. (i.e elements heavier than iron).The next generation of stars that form will therefore have a different abundance pattern (more metals compared to Hydrogen). This is not recycling, what you get out is not what you put in.

You simply dont seem to be able to grasp that there is no way your ideas are capable of constantly recycling a significant fraction of the matter in the Universe, the vast majority of material is locked up in low ish mass stars and always will be.

You may have a deep seated religious or philiosophical problem with this, a lot of people do, but the Universe doesnt care about peoples feelings.

Hello Dr Skeptic


I cannot open the link.


You said

Will they not find radio evidence of the BB?

No way in hell.

Mark my words.
Read my lips,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no way

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

A few years ago, many cosmologists said as soon as we see deep into space over 13 billion years we will see the birth of the early universe and prove the BB.

I said than,,,,,,,no way in hell.

When we do see deep field images as 13 Billion years we find giant so called black holes 10 billion times that of our sun. How long would this have taken to form if the estimated life span is 10^67. Without make believe statements. How do you expalin the BB.

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

Harry as I have patiently explained before this argument is utterly asinine

When we do see deep field images as 13 Billion years we find giant so called black holes 10 billion times that of our sun. How long would this have taken to form if the estimated life span is 10^67. Without make believe statements. How do you expalin the BB.

It displays a deep lack of understanding. Are you really claiming because something has a long lifespan it can't form relatively quickly?

What about low mass stars, they form in a million years but should live for a trillion, apparently not in your Universe.

It is entirely possible for high mass BHs to form within the first Gyr. You also fail to take into account the observational uncertainties, that BH most probably could really have a mass from 1/100 of what is claimed, they work out the mass assuming the energy from the BH is given out isotropically, whereas it is highly likely that we are seeing a beamed emmision from the jet.

The link works for me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science 13 February 1998:
Vol. 279. no. 5353, p. 987
DOI: 10.1126/science.279.5353.987
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Research News
ASTROPHYSICS:
Sunquakes May Power Solar Symphony
Erik Stokstad
The sun vibrates with millions of different overtones, but their exact cause has been a mystery. Now a paper to appear in the 1 March issue of the Astrophysical Journal proposes that solar tremors called "sunquakes" power this resonance with bursts of sound. By analyzing measurements of the solar atmosphere for motions caused by sound, the researchers found evidence that strengthens a theory that gas plunges noisily below the solar surface. Although it's unclear how these downdrafts might generate the noise, the team detected this acoustic energy feeding one type of solar oscillation.

The acoustic renonance imaging of the sun provided by Sunquakes, the mass of the Sun, the average densityof the Sun all prove there is no neutron core! There is no Fe+ core either!

Hello Astro

If thats what you think,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,than keep thinking along those lines.

==========================================
Hello Dr Skeptic

You need to study more on the function on our sun.

The papers written by Profesor Manuel have some crucial information.
He is no small fry.

http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html

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

What causes sunquaks?

================================
Nice images

The Iron Sun
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960521.html

The Sun Erupts
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960916.html

Harry wrote:

"When we do see deep field images as 13 Billion years we find giant so called black holes 10 billion times that of our sun". "Without make believe statements. How do you explain the BB".

Harry The above quote is a make believe statement.

The last time I checked we are currently unable to determine most anything about BH's. Except - its gravitational effect on close objects. So I will assume that you are referring to MASS. What exactly are YOU trying to imply without using "make believe statements"?


I hope your not saying that because a BH (a name given to it because its origin, nature and mechanics are unknown to us except in theories) in deep space shows a greater mass than our sun that this means the BBT is fantasy. Harry, Harry and Harry

Hello Dr Skeptic

You need to study more on the function on our sun.

The papers written by Profesor Manuel have some crucial information.
He is no small fry.

I most certainly know enough about the Sun to state that you should stop filling your mind with tabloid science.

All I can say is:

9 X 3 + 1 = ??????



Questionable interpretation of inconclusive data, it is not the science that great careers are built on.

I have not found any science to prove (only speculate) how Fe = H ➚ which need to be true, ➘Fe = H (a known solution) will not sustain a star's fuel.

Another posting of a theory creating ten holes in an attempt to fill one.