Origins of the UNIVERSE

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:41 am

Hello All

I posted this message from Oliver Manuel on the "Starformation" link

Thanks for the message. I guess most stars are
spinning. They therefore explode axially. That
produces the Hour Glass formation.

Apparently I failed to communicate isotope evidence
that different elements in the Solar System came from
different chemical layers of a supernova (SN) that
exploded in just that manner:

a.) Troilite (FeS) inclusions of meteorites contain
"normal" Xe isotope abundances, like the Sun, Earth
and Mars, from the inner SN layers [http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/GJ/p ... 010017.PDF].

b.) Jupiter and diamond inclusions of primitive
meteorites contain "strange" Xe with He and other
light elements from the outer SN layers [http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/wi ... alysis.pdf].

AlmightyDave · Post by **AlmightyDave** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:54 am

Michael Mozina wrote:I don't really have a lot of answers to offer here, I only know what the WMAP data *does* show and what it doesn't show. It doesn't show lensing or shadowing properties that are consistent with the notion that the CMBR being due to the remnants of a Big Bang. Again, if you disagree, then please demonstrate the error in the method of the data of the two papers I have cited, or explain how these results are consistent with BB theory.

I only really know about the SZ effect (shadowing effect) and I assume you're talking about this paper

http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph- ... d15a610168

which was widely publicised in press releases like this

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104549.htm

I can't help but think that you have read the press releases but not actually stopped to understand the actual paper. Let’s just take a look at the very first sentences of the sensationalised news item:

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

And then contrast that to the first sentences from the conclusions of the actual scientific paper:

Formally a statistically significant detection of the SZ effect across our entire sample was achieved

So there are shadows and the guff about “the big bang falling apart” already appears shaky.

Although the shadows were detected, This paper reports that they aren’t as strong as would be expected. A difference, sure, but nothing catastrophic. Astrophysicists discussing this paper have already made a few suggestions as to where the analysis in the paper may be improved or refined:

* Some of the most problematic galaxy clusters in this paper are known to be ones that when analysed by other people have a very strong SZ sffect, indicative that there is something wrong with the method used in this paper. They observed at a very low resolution and fit smooth profiles to the clusters, this could perhaps decrease the SZ effect

* Error bars in the paper show only detector noise and not cosmic variance/CMB primary signal, errors are significantly larger than plotted

* dust foregrounds in the W-band are very hard to account for

I really dislike press releases like this. The paper itself is very interesting and will be investigated further by groups all over the world, but these "Oh god cosmology is collapsing" articles suggest to me nothing beyond it being time for another round of grant applications.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:16 am

Hello All

I have been trying to find concrete evidence to support the BBT.

I cannot find any.

and the evidence that they imply is questionable and disputed by many.

How did this BBT ever get off the ground and how do modern cosmologists keep defending the model?

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:51 am

Hello All

I have been reading these papers on the Big Bang

The Big Bang Theory Under Fire by William C. Mitchell
(As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997)

Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory
On the Problems of the 'Big Bang' Theory of Cosmology
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology ... Theory.htm

The Metaphysics of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) explains how our Finite Spherical Universe Exists within an Infinite Eternal Space
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

Read the above papers and draw your own conclusions.

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:24 am

Hello All

It is only logical that we supply links that support the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory is only a theory. As a theory it is not a fact.

Until I see evidence to prove the theory as a fact, than I may consider it.

So far all the info supplied by the scientists is in dispute.

People who wish to draw their own conclusions

Big Bang links supporting:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bblimit.html
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sta ... ather.html
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/2006/44/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/2006/49/
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph ... 604561.pdf
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/big- ... 22240.html
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/jag8/spacetxt.html

http://cosmos.swin.edu.au/lookup.html?e=bigbang

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_or/PressRelease_03_06.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bblimit.html
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/G ... tents.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... fy.html#c1
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q55.html

One more point, many people think that the big bang started from one point. That is a mistake. If the the big Bang did occur it would have occured at the same time in many spots.

If you have any other links please supply them.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:44 am

hello all

Hubble Captures Galaxy in the Making

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 5/image/a/

Images from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have provided a dramatic glimpse of a large and massive galaxy under assembly by the merging of smaller, lighter galaxies. Astrophysicists believe that this is the way galaxies grew in the young universe. Now, Hubble observations of the radio galaxy MRC 1138-262, nicknamed the "Spiderweb Galaxy" show dozens of star-forming satellite galaxies as individual clumpy features in the process of merging. A radio galaxy emits more of its energy in the form of long-wavelength radiation (radio wavelengths) than at visible light wavelengths. Because the galaxy is 10.6 billion light-years away, astronomers are seeing it as it looked in the universe's early formative years, only 3 billion years after the Big Bang.

In this statement it assumes the Big Bang theory as a fact and therefore making conclusions from it.

I would prefer to see comments of observation, rather than trying to fit it into some model.

What this does is continue to brainwash people in thinking along lines of thought.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:30 pm

Hello All

I had this emailed to me

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=40351

Quote:
A team of US and European astronomers analyzing two of the deepest views of the cosmos made with the Hubble Space Telescope have uncovered a gold mine of galaxies, more than 500 that existed less than a billion years after the Big Bang. This sample represents the most comprehensive compilation of galaxies in the early universe, researchers said. The discovery is scientifically invaluable for understanding the origin of galaxies, considering that just a decade ago early galaxy formation was largely uncharted territory. Astronomers had not seen even one galaxy that existed when the universe was a billion years old, so finding 500 in a Hubble survey is a significant leap forward for cosmologists.

This is a prime example of BBT people trying to prop up the theory by assuming it to be correct and than add statements to confirm it. This is raping science.

How can can 500 galaxies form in a few hundred million years. Just by saying so does not make it right.

Existing galaxies far far away are quite similar to near galaxies and you will find strange ones within.

As for what my theory is.

Look at observations and see the existing workings of the universe. Working this out will form the model of the known universe. Too many errors have been made from too many models.

I think the universe is endless and recyclic.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:54 am

Michael,
Interesting arguement against BB!!! But I must chime in with an Obvious question: (Predicated upon the statement that BB is wrong because the timeline is constantly changing therefore the theory is incorrect!) granted the timeline might in fact be changed as we see deeper and further away, Why is it that there are NO (zero) mature fully formed galaxies that are visible beyond the 13gy limit?
There are many visible galaxies at around 12.5gy - 13gy distant but these are more (most) malformed imperfect protogalaxies as opposed to well formed spiral or even elliptical galaxies. If the Universe were a "Steady State" It would seem that there would be many visible spiral and elliptical galaxies beyond the 13gy distance. I haven't noticed any being noted anywhere yet.

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:20 am

Hello All

Hello Michael

For instance, the very presence of *any* galaxies this far back in time could easily be used as evidence to suggest an "eternal" universe too. It all depends on how one attempts to "spin" the data.

I fully agree with you, and just imagine we are only looking at a very small area, wheat seed and we see 500 galaxies. Do your own calculations
and see how many galaxies are out there.

Hello BMAONE23

Why is it that there are NO (zero) mature fully formed galaxies that are visible beyond the 13gy limit?

Where did you get this info from.
Mate have a close look next time.

At 9 GYrs
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040226.html

The Deep Field ????
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970209.html

A Distant Galaxy in the Deep Field ? 13.2 Gyrs
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960628.html

Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/2004/07/

Searching for the faintest objects in the Ultra Deep Field is like trying to find a firefly on the Moon. Light from the farthest objects reached the Hubble telescope in trickles rather than gushers. The orbiting observatory collected one photon of light per minute from the dimmest objects. Normally, the telescope collects millions of photons per minute from nearby galaxies.

The image yields a rich harvest of about 10,000 galaxies.

If astronomers made the Hubble Ultra Deep Field observation over the entire sky, how long would it take?

The whole sky contains 12.7 million times more area than the Ultra Deep Field. To observe the entire sky would take almost 1 million years of uninterrupted observing.

Do you understand the above statement.

If there is 10,000 galaxies in one
Times this by 12,7 million
gives you
1.27 * 10^12 galaxies
Thats 1,270,000,000,000 at 13.2 Gyrs deep field. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!
and the BBT people would say
Yep all these formed in just 500 million years. Because matter expanded at 10^20 C or so.

All I can say to the cosmologists who think along the BBT is. Wake up and dream.

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

Hello Michael, on a different note which is similar to Prof Oliver Manuel's sun element sorting by mass.

But ! this is stars being sorted by mass in cluster formation.

Hubble Yields Direct Proof of Stellar Sorting in a Globular Cluster
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/2006/33/

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

cosmo_uk · Post by **cosmo_uk** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:54 am

Harry,
As we look further back in time (ie to higher redshift in the HDF and GOODS etc) we see an increase in the fraction of irregular galaxies as I mentioned in another thread. This is proof that the the galaxies in the universe are evolving with time on mass. Like I said in my other post your constant recycling would mean that we would have a constant fraction of galaxy types per epoch.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:53 pm

harry wrote:
Hello BMAONE23

Why is it that there are NO (zero) mature fully formed galaxies that are visible beyond the 13gy limit?
Where did you get this info from.
Mate have a close look next time.

At 9 GYrs
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040226.html

The Deep Field ????
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970209.html

A Distant Galaxy in the Deep Field ? 13.2 Gyrs
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960628.html

Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/2004/07/

Searching for the faintest objects in the Ultra Deep Field is like trying to find a firefly on the Moon. Light from the farthest objects reached the Hubble telescope in trickles rather than gushers. The orbiting observatory collected one photon of light per minute from the dimmest objects. Normally, the telescope collects millions of photons per minute from nearby galaxies.

The image yields a rich harvest of about 10,000 galaxies.
If astronomers made the Hubble Ultra Deep Field observation over the entire sky, how long would it take?

The whole sky contains 12.7 million times more area than the Ultra Deep Field. To observe the entire sky would take almost 1 million years of uninterrupted observing.
Do you understand the above statement.

If there is 10,000 galaxies in one
Times this by 12,7 million
gives you
1.27 * 10^12 galaxies
Thats 1,270,000,000,000 at 13.2 Gyrs deep field. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!
and the BBT people would say
Yep all these formed in just 500 million years. Because matter expanded at 10^20 C or so.

All I can say to the cosmologists who think along the BBT is. Wake up and dream.

Harry,
It shouldn't be assumed that just because an image contains that many galaxies, that all those galaxies imaged are at the 13gy threshold, most will be much closer.

As for the proofs listed above concerning deep field images and galactic formation

Your first image doesn't depict beyond 9GYS at that point structure is expected.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960628.html
Only one has a clear spiral structure the rest are as yet unformed. What is the distance to the formed spiral vs the rest?

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... rmat/zoom/
Most if not all well formed SPIRAL AND ELLIPTICAL GALAXIES in this image are closer to us than the not so well formed galaxies in the image.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960628.html
The "Distant Galaxy" has an unresolved structure and therefore cannot be assumed to be well structured and used as conclusive proof of sturctured spirals existing prior to 13.2gy

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:21 pm

The quoted universal distances are very plausible (if BB is true) given that they would be expanding from a central point in all directions at a relatively similar speed. The 13.7gy would be a percieved radious from universal center and not diameter.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:19 pm

Simple geometry would indicate that it is 2R or 2 X 13.7gy = 27.4gy diameter. (+ or -)

Like you stated though, as we develope telescopes with better magnification and are able to see farther with cleaner resolution, we will be better able to determine if the 13.7gy is accurate or not. "Tweaking" will always be necessary and will forever occur as there are no absolutes (aside from death).

Unless we do finally reach a point where nothing else is resolved beyond a certain distance. But would this point be proof of BB, proof of exponential expansion beyond C, or merely proof of a visible light threshold?

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:49 am

It would be easy (relatively) to understand how the Universe could expand and spread out the wavelength of light over time.

The article states light that traveled 1ly in the early universe (1,000,000 yrs old) has, over time, been stretched out to 1000ly distance in the current model because the universe is approx 1000 times larger today.

The next paragraph states "All the pieces add up to 78 billion-light-years. The light has not traveled that far, but "the starting point of a photon reaching us today after travelling for 13.7 billion years is now 78 billion light-years away," but I am uncertain as to what "Pieces" the article refers to.

Some simple math reveals this fact though (assuming BB is correct)

When the Universe was 1 million years old, given a steady expansion rate of C, it would have a radius of 1 million ly and a volume of 4.1888e+18 ly. (4.1888 quintillion cubic light years)
Given a steady expansion rate of C, today the Universe would have a radius of 13.7gly and a volume of 1.0771e+31 ly. (10.771 nonillion cubic light years).
While the universe has expanded to 13,700 times the size it was at 1 milion years old, its volume has increased by a factor of 2.571 trillion cubic light years.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:21 am

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.

As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:

Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.
Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.
Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.
Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.
One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe.

I know there are better links, but! these are the ones close at hand.

What's my theory? Well it does not belong to me.

The universe is endless and recyclic. How it does this is another issue. We are at the door steps of looking and going where no man has gone before in a galaxy far far away.

So! if you can hold your horses until the cows come home we will in the near future have better observations to DRAW conclusions from.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:34 am

harry wrote:Hello All

I have been trying to find concrete evidence to support the BBT.

I cannot find any.

Really????

and the evidence that they imply is questionable and disputed by many.

We've started looking at the best 'rocks' you've been able to throw, and, so far, you've not responded, in any way at all, to the debunking of those (nor answered questions asked of the case you put forward).

If we get to the level of "harry says X, Nereid says Y", then we have no basis for discussion, do we?

How did this BBT ever get off the ground and how do modern cosmologists keep defending the model?

One answer is "because there's no other game in town"; another answer is "because it's the best, most consistent model we have today".

But, if you aren't interested in science, then why hang out here?

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:39 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Doum wrote:[

Hi Harry, about your link,

For people who are interested in the Big Bang
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

It's from the same link u provide and if u read all the link you will see that it show that BB is still the only explanation for now. That paragraph is in the "age" page. It's an interesting link on many subject concerning the universe and matter. Thank you for sharing it.

(The expansion age measured by WMAP is larger than the oldest globular clusters, so the Big Bang theory has passed an important test. If the expansion age measured by WMAP had been smaller than the oldest globular clusters, then there would have been something fundamentally wrong about either the Big Bang theory or the theory of stellar evolution. Either way, astronomers would have needed to rethink many of their cherished ideas. But our current estimate of age fits well with what we know from other kinds of measurements: the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old!)

Of course many thing can happen and change our understanding of the universe. Till then let's continue the exploration.
Cya all!
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Ba ... t_999.html

Note that the WMAP data is a double edged sword as it relates to BB theory. The lensing and showing data from WMAP are not consistent with the idea that the microwave background is related to a "Big Bang". There is also an x-ray background in the universe as well as a microwave background. All of these wavelengths of light might all be related to output from galaxies and scattering from plasma in the webs that make up the universe. There is nothing in the WMAP data to support BB theory as it relates to the CMBR data.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160

OK, time to put this nonsense to be rest.

While the Lieu et al. paper is certainly interesting, to claim "[t]here is nothing in the WMAP data to support BB theory as it relates to the CMBR data" is either foolish, naive, or downright disingenuous.

As to the SZE, this LaRoque et al. paper not only reports on consistent detection of the SZE, but also derives H0 (the Hubble constant), independent of all other distance measurements, and consistent with the value found in the Hubble Key Project!

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:53 am

harry wrote:[snip]

I think the universe is endless and recyclic.

And I think the entire universe is just a light show, put on by Nereid's invisible pink fairies.

Fortunately, we have methods other than what any one individual may (or may not) "think" to determine the nature of the universe.

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:03 am

Hello Michael

As normal your comments are cool and to the point.

I have my opinions as to the ongoings of the universe. Neried comments are so limited and one side.

Neried said

Fortunately, we have methods other than what any one individual may (or may not) "think" to determine the nature of the universe.

Neried, What methods mate? and keep the fantasy ideas at home. What type of cosmologist are you? Your comments are very child like.