Starship Asterisk*

Your suggestion that the disk around the material might emit light is fine, but we don't even have any real evidence that massive sized BH's, complete with disks no less, even exist at this stage do we? It seems to me like we're simply throwing out ideas that happen to be consistent with our theoretical understanding of what we might *expect* to see, rather than basing our opinions on direct observation. If the idea was based on actual observation, we would know the difference between a field of stars and a BH disk of light.

We have no observations of BHs at that distance no, why? because its far away. As you correctly point out all we have is smudges, the colours of which imply that we either have BHs or star formation, it will require spectroscopy to determine which is right, which will require a much large telescope then presently available. We do know however from the Magorrian relation that there is a relation between the size of a central BH and the mass of the bulge of a galaxy, this relation may even hold down the globular cluster masses, this strongly implies that we should see some massive BHs associated with regions of stars even that far back.

How could whole galaxies made of matter get more than 13.7 billion light years from their point of origin?

Eurgh, a typical question I get regularly from 9 year olds when talking about the BB. Alright one last try, the BB is NOT and explosion in the conventional sense. There is NO centre to the Universe, everything is not moving away from one point, if there was then we must be at the centre of the Universe which of course we aren't. The galaxies have not moved at all in any real sense, they are still sat on top of exactly the same piece of space, to them it seems as if all other galaxies are moving away, the space between bound structures is expanding. Each galaxy is exactly where it started, it hasn't moved at all, the galaxies aren't really moving, space is expanding, so it looks like they are.

If all this is true, then the particles in the universe that are made of mass could not be more than 27.4 light years across. In fact, the physical universe could not be more than 2 Hubble constants wide.

That would be true if we lived in a Newtonian Universe (Im assuming you meant 27.4Gly), but we don't the Universe has curvature on cosmological scales, and the influence of dark energy. When you do the full calculation, the observable (and not the whole Universe) comoving radius is about 46Gly.

Here is a nice quote from wikipedia on the subject.

The figures quoted above are distances now (in cosmological time), not distances at the time the light was emitted. For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation that we see right now was emitted about 13.7 billion years ago by matter that has, in the intervening time, condensed into galaxies. Those galaxies are now about 46 billion light-years from us, but at the time the light was emitted, that matter was only about 40 million light-years away from the matter that would eventually become the Earth.

So you can see again the trap of thinking in a Newtonian sense, no wonder people have problems with the BB, it requires an understanding of phenomena we simply haven't evolved to comprehend properly.

I'll try to sort out some links about observations of the early Universe, and probably put them in another thread, though obviously this wil have to wait till after Christmas.

Merry Christmas to all.

Hello All

Astro said

Eurgh, a typical question I get regularly from 9 year olds when talking about the BB. Alright one last try, the BB is NOT and explosion in the conventional sense. There is NO centre to the Universe, everything is not moving away from one point, if there was then we must be at the centre of the Universe which of course we aren't. The galaxies have not moved at all in any real sense, they are still sat on top of exactly the same piece of space, to them it seems as if all other galaxies are moving away, the space between bound structures is expanding. Each galaxy is exactly where it started, it hasn't moved at all, the galaxies aren't really moving, space is expanding, so it looks like they are.

I agree with this statement of the understanding of the theory behind BBT.
But! totally disagree with the logic.

It makes no sense.

I blame NASA for the BBT, for disregarding evidence decades ago: evidence that did not fall in line with the standard model was ruled out and scientists who did not toe the line were restricted in their workings by limiting their cash flow and their ability to write papers in well known paper outlets.

Harry, NASA is not astronomy. The vast majority of astronomy is done with no input from NASA. Most astronomy is done from the ground where NASA has little or no input, and beside that, what do you think NASA is doing? Do you think NASA is at the forefront of some conspiracy to support the BBT? For what purpose?

Provide some examples of good work that was deliberately suppressed.

Of course it makes no sense to you Harry, you are living in the 19th century, you are thinking from a point of view that has been shown to be incorrect for nearly 100 years now. Take some time to look at the implications of GR for a while.

In much the same vein as Harry here is an interesting link:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

Since Harry constantly posts links that are basically rip offs of Eric Lerners book "The Big Bang Never Happened", here is the rebuttal from a professional that actually understands the topics involved. It makes interesting reading.

Hello Astro

In much the same vein as Harry here is an interesting link:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

Since Harry constantly posts links that are basically rip offs of Eric Lerners book "The Big Bang Never Happened", here is the rebuttal from a professional that actually understands the topics involved. It makes interesting reading.

I have read that link before and your statement above is in error.

Like I said before in time you will eat your words. Until than keep your comments in a scientific manner. If you wish to stick with the Big Bang so be it.

Hello All

This is a repost

Red shift
How accurate is it?

You will need to reaserch some papers.

I came across these

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Ba ... t_999.html

Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology ... Theory.htm

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTh ... inning.asp

Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

Exploding the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm

Redshift
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

A Bang into Nowhere
Comments on the
Universe Expansion Theory
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V1 ... 0N1ANT.pdf

On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
by Mark Stewart
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

THE REDSHIFT AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY
http://www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm

The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html


In the past even NASA ignored the evidence against the Big Bang and the redshift. Today it is a different TIME and people are not sitting back saying "yes boss".

I notice that most of those links have the same poorly thought out reasons as ones previously discussed here. Including the infamously poor list of 30 reasons, we have previously discounted.

I also believe that your name is on that list of people that object to the BB Harry. What "independent research" you have published that qualifies you to pass judgement I'm not sure of. Also of the actual astronomers on that list I can't spot one that has published anything of note related to cosmology that is younger than 60.

harry wrote:Hello All

This is a repost

Red shift
How accurate is it?

You will need to reaserch some papers.

I came across these

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Ba ... t_999.html

Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology ... Theory.htm

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTh ... inning.asp

Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

Exploding the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm

Redshift
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

A Bang into Nowhere
Comments on the
Universe Expansion Theory
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V1 ... 0N1ANT.pdf

On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
by Mark Stewart
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

THE REDSHIFT AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY
http://www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm

The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html


In the past even NASA ignored the evidence against the Big Bang and the redshift. Today it is a different TIME and people are not sitting back saying "yes boss".

Warning time harry: please stop posting material like this!

As has been stated, repeatedly, throughout this thread, the contents of these webpages (etc) have been rebutted, often many times over; indeed, many such rebuttals are contained in earlier pages of this very thread.

Further, you personally have been asked - again, in some cases, several times - to either clarify some details on those webpages, or defend the claims made (or both), and you have remained silent.

If there is new material, by all means please present it.

If you are prepared to defend the material that you present, by answering direct, pertinent questions about that material, by all means do so.

If you wish to present clarifications of material in these webpages, by all means do so.

However, this part of The Asterisk* is not, and has never been, a forum for unsubstantiated, repetitious pseudoscience.

Please heed this warning harry.

(For avoidance of doubt: I personally would like nothing better than to have someone actually mount a good, science-based defence of any of the claims in those webpages; if nothing else, it would give all readers an opportunity to see how alternative ideas are handled in modern cosmology and astrophysics, and it may pique some readers' curiousity enough that they will dive into the fascinating world of modern physics.)

Hello All

Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year.

Well written Michael, i like the response.

I have a few words

read this link

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology ... Theory.htm
The Big Bang Theory Under Fire by William C. Mitchell
(As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997)

Abstract

The very old big bang problems (of the singularity, smoothness, horizon, and flatness) and the failed solutions of inflation theory; newer Big Bang problems relating to missing mass (as required for a flat inflationary universe), the age of the universe, radiation from the "decoupling" ("smearing" of black body spectrum), a contrived Big Bang chronology, the abundance of light elements, and red shift anomalies; and problems, newer yet, regarding inconsistencies of red shift interpretation, curved space, inflation theory, the decelerating expansion of a Big Bang universe, and some additional logical inconsistencies of Big Bang theory are presented.
Key words: singularity, smooth universe, flat universe, average density, age, black body radiation, neutrinos, chronology, light elements, red shift, curved space, quasars, inflation, decelerating expansion. (Note: Numbers in brackets refer to references at the end of this document.)

Rather than me trying to force information, read the link.

Its easy to rubbish links.

Hello All


Neried said

(For avoidance of doubt: I personally would like nothing better than to have someone actually mount a good, science-based defence of any of the claims in those webpages; if nothing else, it would give all readers an opportunity to see how alternative ideas are handled in modern cosmology and astrophysics, and it may pique some readers' curiousity enough that they will dive into the fascinating world of modern physics.)

From your own statement, what is stopping you from lateral thinking.

The ideas are not alternative as so to speak.

Modern cosmology and astrophysics stands alone.

I do not call modern cosmology as modern as it looks. Sometimes it reminds me of the dark ages controlled by men with little info.

Look at these movies
The Universe: Cosmology Quest
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9911703060 (part 1)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2505202765 (part 2)

In the final analysis, its evidence that will rule and not religion and political input.

Hello Michael

Those links were posted before by ??????????

I forgot. Still credit is due to Mr unKnown. I should go back>>>>>

hishadow said

How many forks would the flying spagetti monster need to handle this thread?

Just wanted to dump a video I remembered seeing on the national telly some years ago. Beware, there are english speaking norwegians included!

The Universe: Cosmology Quest
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9911703060 (part 1)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2505202765 (part 2)

btw .. please don't shot the messenger.

hehe.. and last a delightful video I think might be somewhat related to this thread
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7476141009

When I first saw the movies I cried for those people, for in vain they forged ahead with limited money and equipement. You would think the dark ages were over. Still human behaviour lives on.


Michale am I on the wrong boat, the wrong train track, the wrong path, the wrong flight path, am I wasting time searching for reality.

I remember Churchill during the WW2 when the Germans were invading England day in day out. He said: Never, never ever give up on your dream.

Every time I remember that saying it gives me energy like a compact star core.

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

Happy New Year and the best of wishes to one and all.

Eurg, just been watching the first of those videos you linked. I won't be bothering to watch the second, it is utterly rubbish. It reminds me most of one of those creationist videos where they totally misrepresent the truth. It amuses me at the start when it claims many astronomers now do not believe in the BBT when the number of actual astronomers that think along Arps lines is less than 50, out of 10s of thousands.

The sections with Arp are utterly self serving, he didnt get time because he was wasting valuable and expensive telescope time, end of story, his research wasn't not as good as the others and he lost out simple. He should stop whining and do some work that doesnt look like a high school student submitted it.

Again a bunch of very old men, that can't let go of the prejudices of their youth. The ironic thing is that they are more guilty of inflexible thought than the people they accuse. Oh well, this is exactly why science can only move on through the death of the old guard.

The stuff about the "connected" galaxies and quasars is particularly poor, they claim the odds of those four objects in the tail being there by chance is less than 1 in 300000000 or something like that shows you how dumb they actually are. They have no idea how many objects around that galaxy actually are quasars, as they admitted they didnt know that the two objects in the tail were quasars until they took spectra, so they actually have no idea of the local background of objects in that region, so how the hell can they come up with odds for random events? This is why people doing that kind of work don't get time, because they are poor scientists.

Hello Michael
Yes I do smile alot even during bad weather.

Michael said

If you want to get a scientific view of the universe that makes sense, and doesn't require a host of unevidenced fields and particles, you might want to pick up a copy of Donald E. Scott's new book called "The Electric Sky". I think you'll find the plasma cosmology approach to understanding our universe to be quite enlightening. I'm just starting to read his new book, and already I'm hooked. The universe isn't as complicated as you might think. It just requires some knowledge of electricity, a bit of common sense, and a skeptical, scientific approach.

The universe is quite simple, its man who creates the paths.

Thank you for the book. I hope they sell it down under in the land of oooozzzzzzzzzz. People think we run around naked with spears.


Plasma, I was just thinking aloud. The ultra dense plasma matter that is found in the progressive compaction from Neutron to quarks to the theoretical preon stars and to the so call blackholes and MECO. Has an inbuilt power house.

The plasma may create convectional currents creating a jet stream where the EM forces are neutral as in a cyclone.
Now if this neutral area is created, what stops the UDPM exploding out from this neutral area and forming the jet that we see in Neutron stars and BH.
Many say the jet is created by infalling matter. I cannot see this happening. The amount of power the jet creates and the huge amount of matter expelled is huge, galaxy forming size.

One more thing, people say that neutron stars and black holes spin. What does the spinning, the total UDPM or the jet area.

I have been reading about the electric and plasma universe for the last 15 yrs and its the only way to fly.

Happy New Year and Merry Xmas to the people who celeb it on 30 Dec and first week in Jan 2007.

Michael you clearly do not know enough about Arps "techniques". His method is to look at interacting galaxies, those galaxies that are known to have tidal tails, in other words those that have bits of streams all over the place. His target galaxies are generally tens to hundreds of square arcminutes in size, we know that there are about 15 quasars per square arcminutes. So how difficult do you think it proves to be to find some quasars that seem to be connected to the galaxy?

He tries to justify this approach using statistics, but insists on using a quasar number count that is factors less than the real value. Why? Because if he used the real value his probabilities would begin to look exactly what one would expect from random chance.

So it is not an ad hominem attack to say he is a poor scientist, if in fact he is.

Black Holes (or MECOs) cannot explain intrinsic redshift, they would have to be so massive that we would be seeing the effect of their mass in other ways, most obviously through lensing, or the behaviour of objects around them.

The point about the odds they quote is that those odds totally depend on the assumed background of quasars, as I have already noted Arp uses values that are 30 years out of date, based on his own small area, flawed observations, on photographic plates!


Perhaps since you are an expert on PC, you could provide the same level of predictive ability as the BBT. Perhaps you can explain all of the observed Universe in one simple overarching theory, unfortunately all of the people that call themselve plasma cosmologists seem to be allergic to anything like quantitative maths. Until I see something like a prediction from PC that disagrees with BBT and allows a test of both, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

Hello All

Astro what are your thoughts on the

Big Bang Theory and the evidence that supports it.

Plasma cosmology

Hello all

I like some ones opinion on the following

Although you cannot see the black holes you can see their shell.

Binary Black Hole in 3C 75
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060412.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041211.html
M87's Energetic Jet

Years gone by many used to think that the jets were drawn into the so called black holes. That is not the case. Black holes eject matter at close to the speed of light. Why is this so? You have to look at the forces that are required to keep the degeretaed matter together within compact degerated matter and than look at how this force is used to create a electromagentic convectional currents creating a door opening for these internal forces to be released and eject subatomic paticals out into space. As they leave the electromagnetic forces decrease and the subatomic paticals start forming quarks, and quarks form neutrons and protons form protons and both form the nucleus of many atoms.

Thats in a nutshell. Part of a recycling process that goes for ever and a day.

Hello All

Black Hole Boldly Goes Where No Black Hole Has Gone Before

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/07_rel ... 10307.html

Astronomers have found a black hole where few thought they could ever exist, inside a globular star cluster. The finding has broad implications for the dynamics of stars clusters and also for the existence of a still-speculative new class of black holes called 'intermediate-mass' black holes.

Black holes are, by definition, invisible. But the region around them can flare up periodically when the black hole feeds. As gas falls into a black hole, it will heat to high temperatures and radiate brightly, particularly in X-rays. Maccarone's team found one such stellar-mass black hole by chance feeding in a globular cluster in a galaxy named NGC 4472, about fifty million light-years away in the Virgo Cluster.

It is perhaps possible for a stellar-mass black hole to gain enough mass through merging with other stellar-mass black holes or accreting star gas to stay locked in a cluster. About 100 solar masses would do. Once entrenched, the black hole has the opportunity to merge with other black holes or accrete gas from a local neighbourhood rife with star-stuff. In this way, they could grow into IMBHs.

The black holes that keep on growing end up at the centre of the galaxy and take part in the overall movement of the galaxy.

The Swarm
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050128.html

The Galactic Center Radio Arc
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050403.html

Another example is Andromeda, a secondary black hole with a reasonable size is directly inflencing the surrounds of the galaxy.
The Double Nucleus of M31
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap961011.html

M31: The Andromeda Galaxy
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap961009.html

Many people see Black holes as "wells" gravity wells and think that the jets are rotating inwards rather than outwards.

The black hole is just a huge compact star core that has enough density created by the compaction of quarks and preon partical composites which prevents electomagnetic radiation from escaping.

Harry, Just a quick note;

Thank You So Very Much for all your links on pg 36 of this topic.
I just downloaded 13 of them and printed out 5. (and 15 links, of 429 pages worth yesterday ! I'm almost out of ink)

The one on Hannes Alfven is particularly cherishable , I appreciate your sense of humanity with its inclusion to the otherwise mostly impersonal topic of redshifts and cosmology. A scientist with a naturalistic orientation might describe myself best, like Hannes. Being so focused on the path ahead I oft forget to look astride to notice my companions!

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

A good laugh everyday is the best medicine !

Hello Kovil

My pleasure,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,happy reading.

If you wish to discuss any topic,,,,,,,,,,,,,just ring,,,,,,,,,,,smile.

It makes me happy that you are very interested.

Hey!!!!!! I just find the links. Give credit to the writers and scientists.

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

and
like they say
Take time to smell the roses