Page 3 of 34
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:40 pm
by Qev
Dr. Skeptic wrote:How can you scientifically explain away
-Everything - as in everything - is measured in quantum units ⇒ summations of quantum units cannot = f∞. Period!
If you can't, you are speaking of a philosophical concept not a scientific one.
Here is one example of an infinite number of conflicts if infinity is allowed to exist in our universe:
What are to odds of an exact duplicate of Earth entering the Earths orbital plane where we can all meet ourselves?
Answer: 1/infinity
With the universe being infinite in size, the equation infinity/infinity = 1 or 100% chance.
That is the size of infinity!
If you are not shaking hands with your other self right now, infinity does not exist.
Actually, you can't do that, I don't think, at least not in the Reals. Infinity over itself is an undefined value, because infinity isn't a number, it's a limit (technically, you can make infinity/infinity equal any number, with the right mathematical gymnastics). Same with multiplying infinity by zero, oddly enough.
Ignoring that, you're also leaving out the time factor. It'd be more correct to you said that, in an infinite universe, the probability of meeting an exact duplicate of your self, over infinite time, is unity. Just... good luck staying alive for an infinite amount of time.
Didn't someone not so long ago actually calculate the average distance, assuming an infinite universe, between yourself and your next exact duplicate? It was some mind-bogglingly big (yet still finite) number. I found the idea intriguing.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:58 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
That is my point exactly!!!!!!!
Any equation using a function of infinity is a mathematical violation, including the age, size and mass of the universe.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:34 pm
by toejam
astro_uk wrote:While I disagree with Dr. Skeptics logic the essential point is true, an infinite Universe is not plausible given current understanding. It really doesnt matter anyway, as we are always limited to observing regions of the Universe within the sphere that light has had time to travel across to reach us. I.e assuming a constant non expanding Universe it would simply have a radius equal to the age of the Universe x speed of light. Now as has already been discussed in the real Universe due to expansion and various other effects the sphere actually has a radius greater than this, but still the principle holds. So whatever Universe we live in (infinite or BB model), we are limited to seeing only a region of it.
Note that this assumes that the Universe is infinite only in size, if it is also infinite in age we run into the problem that demonstrably rules out Harrys ideas about an infinite recycled Universe. Namely the Olbers paradox, that if the Universe is infinitely old and constantly recycled then the sky would be as bright as the surface of the Sun. This is simply due to the fact that no matter what direction you looked in, your line of sight would hit a star. There is simply no way to get round this without invoking strange theories that light emitted from these stars somehow decays before it reaches us. This is a non-starter because laboratory experiments of quantum physics demonstrate that this is ruled out, especially on the short timescales (cosmologically speaking) that would be required.
Keep posting astro-uk, you make the learning process easier.
btw with reference to Prof Turok's work that harry quoted & time existing before the BB. Is the theory that the universe will go on expanding until it"runs out of steam" & then begins to collapse with a resultant new BB at the end of the collapse, is that theory dead or passe'? because if not, that would make our present BB one of a series & time then might well have existed before.
harry
I said I was an old dog not an old man. There is a difference. Anyway that's what I like to think!
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:29 pm
by BMAONE23
Doesn't quantum theory indicate that there is an infinite number of possible universes with infinite outcomes for all possible events.
There may be one universe where you turned left instead of right at a certain intersection in your life and had a minor accident with Stephen Hawking as he was walking down the street. The resulting bump on His head causing him to have a certain idea about traveling between quantum universes to meet your other selves.
WOW talk about a headache.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:41 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
BMAONE23 wrote:Doesn't quantum theory indicate that there is an infinite number of possible universes with infinite outcomes for all possible events.
There may be one universe where you turned left instead of right at a certain intersection in your life and had a minor accident with Stephen Hawking as he was walking down the street. The resulting bump on His head causing him to have a certain idea about traveling between quantum universes to meet your other selves.
WOW talk about a headache.
Some interpretation incorporate ∞, making them as valid the equation ∞/∞
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:37 pm
by Pete
Dr. Skeptic wrote:That is my point exactly!!!!!!!
Any equation using a function of infinity is a mathematical violation, including the age, size and mass of the universe.
Keep in mind that the age, size, and mass of the Universe are physical, not mathematical, parameters. The concept of infinity crops up everywhere in maths (e.g. limits to infinity, asymptotes, uncountably many divisions of a finite line segment), although never in arithmetic equations such as 1/infinity or ∞/∞ - these expressions don't have answers because they're not asking anything. That being said, I can't think of any examples of infinity in the physical world.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:08 pm
by Qev
Dr. Skeptic wrote:That is my point exactly!!!!!!!
Any equation using a function of infinity is a mathematical violation, including the age, size and mass of the universe.
Honestly, it depends on what math you happen to be using at the time. I know infinities are perfectly normal creatures in Riemannian mathematics, which a lot of spacetime geometry theory is based on. Then there's good ol' Cantor and his cardinal infinities.
I'm curious about the concept of discrete quanta of spacetime ruling out an infinite universe. Anyplace you can point me to read up on that? My brain seems to be incapable of making that logical connection.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:12 pm
by Qev
BMAONE23 wrote:Doesn't quantum theory indicate that there is an infinite number of possible universes with infinite outcomes for all possible events.
There may be one universe where you turned left instead of right at a certain intersection in your life and had a minor accident with Stephen Hawking as he was walking down the street. The resulting bump on His head causing him to have a certain idea about traveling between quantum universes to meet your other selves.
WOW talk about a headache.
That's one interpretation of the quantum phenomenon of 'waveform collapse', basically observation forcing the outcome of some event to take a definite state (either A happens or B happens). I think it's more generally known as the 'Many Worlds' interpretation. Basically, for any event where there's a choice of outcomes, ALL possible outcomes occur, each one branching off into a separate world-line, or 'universe'.
I think the other primary viewpoint is the 'Copenhagen' interpretation, that observation causes the waveform to collapse, and all outcomes other than the one that actually is observed simply cease to be. In a manner of speaking.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:32 pm
by BMAONE23
Kind of off topic but in the scope of the current thread path: If you could travel through time (Other than the monemt you are trapped in) The past might seem stale and darkening as the light is leaving it but the future would probably be hectic and fluid as the events that shape it haven't occured yet and it would need to take them into account. The future should include all possibilities occuring simultaneously and only the appropriate one gets finalized in the present and transferred to the past.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:33 pm
by astro_uk
I'm curious about the concept of discrete quanta of spacetime ruling out an infinite universe. Anyplace you can point me to read up on that? My brain seems to be incapable of making that logical connection.
I have to agree with Qev on this one, I am only an astronomer and we are notoriously bad at maths (and grammar), but it seems that if you have an infinite number of any non-zero quantity you will inevitably have an infinity at the end (either positive or negative), whether that number is quantized or not is irrelevant. It just seems to be another version of the old whats 2x infinity question. I'm always happy to learn though, so any links would be appreciated.
To answer you question toejam the cyclic universe has definitely fallen out of favour recently. The reason for this is the observed acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, due to the so called Dark Energy, this means that the rate of expansion of the Universe is increasing with time and there simply is not enough mass in the Universe to counteract the expansion. The rather depressing conclusion being that the Universe will simply continue to expand until everything (including eventually space/time itself) is torn apart, the so called Big Rip. Don't go and sell the house though we still have trillions of years to go.
Dark Energy as Harry will no doubt point out soon is fairly controversial, but still fairly well supported by observations (mostly of very distant supernovae). Dark Energy can either be a cosmological constant like the one Einstein added to his equations but later called the greatest blunder of his life, or some strange quantum mechanical property of space like quintessence, surveys like DES (Dark Energy Survey) are being planned now to try to figure out which it is.
Of course the possibilty that DE is some sort of strange transient feature of the Universe is possible too, the fact is that the QM theories haven't been able to keep up with the observations recently, purely because its such a nightmare to calculate these things.
Hope that make things slightly clearer[/quote]
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:40 am
by Dr. Skeptic
I like the direction this discussion is going, looking at the fundamental points first (if I agree with them or not), and moving forward thought time ... the horse is ahead of the cart!
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:45 am
by harry
Hello All
Astro said
To answer you question toejam the cyclic universe has definitely fallen out of favour recently. The reason for this is the observed acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, due to the so called Dark Energy, this means that the rate of expansion of the Universe is increasing with time and there simply is not enough mass in the Universe to counteract the expansion. The rather depressing conclusion being that the Universe will simply continue to expand until everything (including eventually space/time itself) is torn apart, the so called Big Rip. Don't go and sell the house though we still have trillions of years to go.
In my opinion the cyclic universe has not fallen.
Look at the observation and not into a theory that has been molded to fit.
Look at the starformation and the evolution of black holes.
Look at the cluster of galaxies from local to super cluster.
You will find they form clusters that work as units.
Than show me what part is expanding. Show me by observation and not here say.
I will look at evidence anyday.
========================================
Smile..........As for dark matter,,,,,,,,,,,,,I'll come back to it
Have to go and pick up the kids for tennis.
Life goes on
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:06 am
by astro_uk
That may be your opinion Harry, but it is only that, and speaking as an astronomer no one in the field seriously believes that the cyclic Universe is a reasonable proposition, so in that sense it most definitely has fallen. The reason for this is the sheer weight of evidence.
I do look at observations, everyday, from nearby galaxies to redshift 6-7 objects and the fact is that objects are not the same over time, evolution has occurred its obvious to see, this rules out an unchanging Universe, as for the cyclic universe as I've said the changing expansion of the Universe rules that out. See
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/9812133 This paper is one of the first showing the effect of DE, Figures 1 and 2 are the important ones, more evidence comes from the CMB which can be fit nicely if you allow the same DE you measure from the supernovae (as well as DM and baryonic matter).
Regarding your points, im not sure what evidence you claim to find from star formation and black holes, the current observations of both fit in remarkably well with what people find from various simulations. If you have some evidence to back up your claims please let me know, it would do my career a whole lot of good if I could prove eveyone else is wrong.
I really dont understand how you claim clusters work as units, clusters are an inevitable result of bound reserviors of gas within the expanding Universe. Check out
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/
this simulation which only includes the DM as that is the dominant mass source accurately predicts the scales of groups of galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc. Its also very pretty.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:34 am
by harry
Hello Astro -uk
Thank you for the above links. I will come back to you.
=======================================
They seem to be BBT scientists, which puts a question on their work.
They are also 16 years old.
Regardless I will keep an open mind.
Astro said
That may be your opinion Harry, but it is only that, and speaking as an astronomer no one in the field seriously believes that the cyclic Universe is a reasonable proposition, so in that sense it most definitely has fallen. The reason for this is the sheer weight of evidence
.
Do you say that stars do not recycle
Do you say that black holes do not recycle
I do not care what people think or say.
Observation evidence will overide.
============================================
Refer me to one of your cosmologist who thinks that the big bang is the model and that the parts within the universe do not rcycle.
Than read parts of the following links.
http://metaresearch.org/
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V1 ... 0N1ANT.pdf
============================================
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.
Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often
Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.
NGC 4319 and Markarian 205
A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.
Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny
the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are "coincidentally aligned".
Inherent Redshift
Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherentiredshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift.
Mathematically, an object's total redshift value is the product of the inherent factor times the velocity factor. (e.g., If an object's inherent redshift value is, say, 0.3, and its velocity redshift is 0.06, then the total redshift that will be measured in light coming from this object is given by (1+0.3)(1+0.06) = 1.378. Which is 1+z; making its total redshift value, z = 0.378. In other words, for this example, the object's light is redshifted 30% due to its youth and then that light is shifted another 6% due to its velocity. The total is not the sum (36%) but rather 37.8%.
The total multiplying factor (1+ zt) is, therefore, made up of two multiplicative factors. Mathematically:
(1+ zt) = (1+ zi) (1+ zv) (1)
where zi is called the "intrinsic red shift of the object" and zv is the "red shift due to velocity of the object".
Consider, as an example, a pair of quasars symmetrically placed on either side of their parent galaxy. Both have the same intrinsic redshift value and their velocity redshift values are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign (one is approaching us and one is receding). Let their measured values of total redshift be z1 and z2 respectively. From the above equation we have
(1+ zi) (1+ zv) = (1+ z1)
and (1+ zi) (1- zv) = (1+ z2)
Expanding each yields 1 + zi + zv + zi zv = (1+ z1)
and 1 + zi - zv - zi zv = (1+ z2)
Adding the last two gives 2 + 2 zi = 2+ z1 + z2
Or zi = (z1 + z2)/2 (2)
So the intrinsic redshift value of a pair of symmetrically placed quasars is simply the arithmetic mean of the individual raw measured values.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example
On pages 15-17 in his book "Seeing Red...", Arp describes a pair of quasars surrounding galaxy NGC 4258. Their observed total red shifts are zt1 = 0.40 and zt2 = 0.65. Assuming they both have identical intrinsic red shift components, Arp calculates the arithmetical average
zi = (0.40+0.65)/2 = 0.525.
He then calculates the velocity red shift component for each via equation (1), above, as follows:
(1+zv1) = (1+zt1) / (1+zi1) = 1.40 / 1.525 = 0.918
or
zv1 = 0.918 – 1 = –0.082
and
(1+zv2) = (1+zt2) / (1+zi2) = 1.65 / 1.525 = 1.082
or
zv2 = 1.082 – 1 = +0.082
The quasar with the negative velocity red shift value is approaching us and the one with positive velocity red shift is receding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the inherent redshift z values of quasars seem to be quantized! Unusually tight groupings of those calculated values occur centered around values of
z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+z2) = 1.23(1+z1). [For example, 1.23(1+0.3) = 1.60].
The very existence of this quantization alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement. Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything!
Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!
Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope
And if Halton Arp is correct, the quasars are not that far away in the first place.
These sets of objects are not illusions or mirages - rather, they are visual proof that Arp is indeed correct in what he says: Young, high redshift objects are ejected from the centers of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and Seyfert galaxies. The images show exactly that happening.
The most (in)famous of these supposed "mirages" is the so-called "Einstein Cross" which is simply another example of objects in the process of being formed and ejected from the nucleus of an active galaxy. Arp has observed plasma clouds (whose light is strongly redshifted) connecting the ejected objects in the Einstein Cross.
So, modern mainstream astronomy is full of "illusions" and "mirages" (their explanation of why we should not believe our eyes) and "strange and dark" energy, matter, "neutron stars" and "black holes", none of which have ever been seen or photographed but whose existence they continually invoke in order to save their otherwise failed theories. Their attitude is, "Don't believe what you see; believe what we tell you!"
Arp says we should believe our own eyes rather than the tall tales of black-holes, and gravitational lensing told by the defenders of mainstream astronomy and cosmology whose continued research funding depends on their not rocking the boat of established theory
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:36 am
by cosmo_uk
Hello again Harry
Just to let you know I'm cosmo_uk not astro_uk in case you think we're the same person:)
I actually know quite a bit about Halton Arp. Arp was at the forefront of quasar research and made some great contributions to astronomy (Arp cataloge etc). He was also around when BB theory was only starting to gain acceptance. Quite rightly he noticed that quasars appeared to be associated with local galaxies (Messiers and NGCs). HOWEVER this was what we scientists call a Selection Effect. The only decent images we had at that time were of local galaxies (Ms and NGCs) and when looking at the outskirst of these images Arp found quasars. We now have all sky and wide field surveys of blank fields (2MASS, UKIDSS, SDSS) these surveys prove observationally that Arp Is Wrong by showing that you are equally as likely to find a quasar in an entirely blank field as one with a big fat local galaxy in it. Therefore quasars are not associated with local objects. Spectroscopy confirms that there are many high redshift quasars. Unfortunatley Arp still holds his belief that they are not far away.
By the way when you say "Observation evidence will overide. ", can I ask when the last time you did some observing was? Also I would like to know why you think there is some sort of conspiracy in favour of the big bang rather than just a huge weight of evidence for it?
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:32 am
by astro_uk
Hi All,
Cosmo_uk makes some good points there, iI really don't have anything to add there.
Harry, most of the people on that paper are not big bang theorists they went and looked at distant supernovae to try and measure the hubble constant and ended up finding something totally unexpected. If you asked them I'm sure they would admit they tried just about eveything to make the effect go away because it did not fit with theories at the time, but the effect was independently verified by another group and then again using totally different techniques in later years. This is a prime example of what happens in astronomy in general, Observational Evidence always wins out, because generally we observe things before theorists have predicted them. Its very difficult to fudge your data to match a theory that doesnt exist yet (unless your also a believer in psychics).
Secondly the paper was published in '98 as the title alludes to (and is written along the side) i.e 98 (year) 12(month) and 133 the number of papers submitted that month up to that point. So it clearly isnt 16 years old, and if its right it doesnt matter how old it is.
I certainly do not claim that stars do no recycling they obviously do through supernovae and stellar winds, however they cannot recycle everything. This is a simple to understand point, most stars hold onto most of their mass when they die, this material becomes locked up in a white dwarf, neutron star or black hole, this material is essentially lost to the Universe, forever bound to these objects. There is another serious problem with any assertion that claims contious recycling, nuclear reactions mean that the material that is thrown out of stars is not the same as went into them, the material that comes out is mostly helium or heavier, eventually if you allow contiuous recycling everything in the Universe will be elements heavier than lead which cannot be fused (and give off energy) so the stars will die and the light go out.
Black holes do not help any either, assuming you believe they recycle (through Hawking radiation) then all they do is heat regions of space around them slightly, if you can tell me how to get enough energy out of waste heat at a few kelvins above absolute zero and then turn this into new hydrogen atoms we'll both be very rich men.
Oh and the second of your links is by a philosopher, the universe is not limited to behaving in a manner that our brains determine to be conceptually pretty. The other links, especially the first is full of the most unscientific drivel I've read since the whole ID debate, the problem with sites like that one is that they have just enough real science in there to confuse the unwary.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:47 am
by Dr. Skeptic
Harry wrote:
Do you say that stars do not recycle
Do you say that black holes do not recycle
I do not care what people think or say.
It is true that individual parts of the universe "recycle" as you state, it is also possible that the entire universe "recycles". The mechanics however, would not be the same for they are two different types of events.
Sorry, it only conforms to logic when using more than the four dimension.
Your "Big Picture" could be on the right path, but you've made a wrong turn on how to get there.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:15 pm
by BMAONE23
In a truely recycling universe, wouldn't there be galaxies viewable in all stages of life as well as stars and black holes?
My point being:
If the universe were truely being constantly recycled, on all scales, we should be able to see more than stars dying and being reborn, we should also be able to see new galactic formation. Not just mergers and aquisitons but new formation.
Shouldn't we???
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:39 pm
by astro_uk
Thats indeed a good point BMAONE23, in a recycling Universe there has to be some method to destroy galaxies and then let them reassemble, this is not what we observe.
You do see different galaxies at different stages of "life" but the numbers of galaxies in each phase varies according to where the galaxies are located (their enviroment) and according to at what redshift you observe them. So if you look to larger redshift (i.e. longer ago in time) you see that you get more spiral star forming galaxies and less so called "red and dead" elliptical galaxies than you do in the local universe. This is just because it is the spiral galaxies that merge to form the elliptical galaxies, and the longer time you have, the more spirals will merge to form ellipticals. The fact that the Universe looks different the further you look back really rules out recycling.
You do see some smaller objects that could be interpreted as new galaxies, but these are really puny objects with little DM, so it becomes very difficult for them to grow. This is just a consequence of the heirarchical Universe that we live in, big things tend to form quickly because they live in very dense regions of the Universe where there are lots of smaller galaxies for them to swallow up. Smaller things (that survive until now) dont live in dense regions (or they would have been eaten) and therefore it takes a long time for gravity to collect material for them to grow.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:43 pm
by Dr. Skeptic
The BB can/could be considered to form or recycling.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:01 pm
by Martin
Harry, Harry and Harry
How can you continue to debate this if you continue to ignore the science for the speculation
astro_uk undone a whole year of your postings in the matter of minutes and all you can say is "observational evidence will overide"
Oh, and dare I forget the ever informed "News flash. Sydney Morning Herald"
Today I declare it to be UK Day !!!!
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:09 pm
by BMAONE23
astro_uk wrote:Thats indeed a good point BMAONE23, in a recycling Universe there has to be some method to destroy galaxies and then let them reassemble, this is not what we observe.
You do see different galaxies at different stages of "life" but the numbers of galaxies in each phase varies according to where the galaxies are located (their enviroment) and according to at what redshift you observe them.
You do see some smaller objects that could be interpreted as new galaxies, but these are really puny objects with little DM, so it becomes very difficult for them to grow. .
Perhaps they are in fact young "New" galaxies but only so because their light is only now just reaching us. This would represent how they looked some 10 to 12 billion years ago, when they were only a couple billion years old.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:08 pm
by astro_uk
Hi again BMAOne23
I didnt really make myself clear before, you definitely do see things that are very young at a large redshift like you say, but these things tend to be the most massive objects in the Universe at that time (10-12 Gyr ago). This is just because only large things are bright enough to be seen that far away.
There is a nice apod of one of these
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980324.html, a little disappointing to look at but it is over 10 Billion light years away!
What I was referring to as new galaxies are the occasional smaller dwarf and irregular galaxies we see in the nearby Universe which have young ages.
Check out this one
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap960519.html
Its actually very difficult to find something you would call a new galaxy as the majority of stars in the Universe are older than 5Gyr, so for a new galaxy you need to find something where most of the stars formed in the last few Billion years.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:19 pm
by BMAONE23
Understandably so. That is what seems to be missing
Re: Origins of the UNIVERSE
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:43 pm
by odlaram7
harry wrote:Hello All
As per the discussiion with aichip.
If we can discuss the origins of the universe putting forth all models and ideas to the table.
I know there are a number of models.
The standard model is the Big Bang Theory
Which model is correct ?
All for one and one for all.
So, if all is fair game, how about Intelligent Design? I am no scientist, so don't ask me to defend it myself. But in a way, isn't there something sweetly simple about it?