Starship Asterisk*

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].

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

harry wrote: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?

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

harry wrote:[snip]

I think the universe is endless and recyclic.

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