Starship Asterisk*

Hello All

THis is what I mean. People assume the Big Bang is somewhat correct and proceed to assume through the EYE of a Big Bang observer.

Those images have been taken into deep field over 13.2 Gyrs and found super clusters of clusters of galaxies.

Hello All

Re: Hubble site

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/1998/41/
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 8/41/text/

Turning its penetrating vision toward southern skies, the Hubble telescope has peered down a 12- billion-light-year-long corridor loaded with a dazzling assortment of thousands of never-before-seen galaxies. The observation, called the Hubble Deep Field South, doubles the number of far-flung galaxies available to astronomers for deciphering the history of the universe.

This new far-look complements the original Hubble "deep field" taken in late 1995, when Hubble was aimed at a small patch of space near the Big Dipper. Hubble's sharp vision allows astronomers to sort galaxy shapes. The image is dominated by beautiful pinwheel-shaped disk galaxies, which are like our Milky Way.

It will take months for astronomers to digest what new secrets of the universe are within this latest look. At first glance the HDF-S appears to validate the common assumption that the universe should look largely the same in any direction.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 1/image/a/

ABOUT THIS IMAGE:
Several hundred never before seen galaxies are visible in this "deepest-ever" view of the universe, called the Hubble Deep Field (HDF), made with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. Besides the classical spiral and elliptical shaped galaxies, there is a bewildering variety of other galaxy shapes and colors that are important clues to understanding the evolution of the universe. Some of the galaxies may have formed less that one billion years after the Big Bang.

Representing a narrow "keyhole" view all the way to the visible horizon of the universe, the HDF image covers a speck of sky 1/30th the diameter of the full Moon (about 25% of the entire HDF is shown here). This is so narrow, just a few foreground stars in our Milky Way galaxy are visible and are vastly outnumbered by the menagerie of far more distant galaxies, some nearly as faint as 30th magnitude, or nearly four billion times fainter than the limits of human vision. (The relatively bright object with diffraction spikes just left of center may be a 20th magnitude star.) Though the field is a very small sample of sky area it is considered representative of the typical distribution of galaxies in space because the universe, statistically, looks the same in all directions.

The image was assembled from many separate exposures (342 frames total were taken, 276 have been fully processed to date and used for this picture) with the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2), for ten consecutive days between December 18 to 28, 1995. This picture is from one of three wide-field CCD (Charged Coupled Device) detectors on the WFPC2.

The above are two deep field images one North and one south spanning some 25 Gyrs. We notice old and new galaxies in varies stages of evolution.

Hello All

This maybe of interest

Galactic Center Research
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php

Nice link..

I do think its pretty hard for us to see the end of the galaxy..

I think its impossible..Because the universe keeps on expanding..

Hello Zeilouz

You said

I do think its pretty hard for us to see the end of the galaxy..

I think its impossible..Because the universe keeps on expanding..

The end of the galaxy,,,,,,,,,,I think you mean Universe

As for the universe expanding, thats only in reference to space and time and not actual distance.

If the universe was expanding we would actually see this in observations.

The parts within the universe cluster together. Stars, galaxies, superclusters of galaxies and so on.

In my opinion the universe is endless in time, space and matter.

What we can see now is about 13.2 Gyrs north and about the same in the south focused on an area of a rice seed for about 1000000 secs , seeing super clusters of galaxies.

sorry sorry,i mean the end of the universe,thanks for correcting my mistake..>.<

To see the end of the universe it is quite impossible,but how could we even see them although we dont have the proper equipments?

Yeah ur right,the universe is an endless time n matter..everything is infinite n undefined,we cant count them,they will expand n expand,become bigger n bigger..

Hello Zeilous

It is very common to think that the universe is expanding.

Like I say, the universe is not expanding.

Think of it this way.

The universe is infinite in all manner. It is impossible for infinity to expand.

The parts within do expand and contract as a process of recycling.

=========================================
Zeilous its good that you are interested in cosmology.

There is a saying

Your mind is like a parachute, keep it open and you will control your fall. Keep it closed and you will fall like a rock.

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

I'm just learning more and more each day. The more I learn the more I know less and how little I know.

Thx for ur words of encouragements,

Regarding to the universe,

We cant simply conclude that the universe was born from the theory of big bang,but that it what other scientists n astronomers say,

Is there any scientific proof?Its very hard to think it logically..
Its just very hard to find that how does the universe comes from

_________________________________________________________

The universe is not expanding but what about other galaxy,

the andromeda galaxy?
the sombrero galaxy?

If the galaxy is expanding,but what about the universe?

Hello Zeilous

There are a number of theories to the origin or the ongoing universe.

Its good to study them all

Big Bang
Steaty state
String theory
and many more

Do not try to accept any, just study them.

Above all do not become emotional of any one theory.

I have the opinion that the universe is endless in Time, space and matter and the parts within the universe recycle in a never ending process.



Have fun with it.

harry wrote:Hello Zeilous

There are a number of theories to the origin or the ongoing universe.

Its good to studt them all

Big Bang
Steaty state
String theory
and many more

Do not try to accept any, just study them.

Above all do not become emotional of any one theory.

I have the opinion that the universe is endless in Time, space and matter and the parts within the universe recycle in a never ending process.



Have fun with it.

Indeed.

And as has been pointed out, rather too many times I feel, there is only one 'game in town' in cosmology, the Big Bang theory (or, more accurately, modern concordance cosmological models).

At least there's only one scientific game in town.

And I thought you understood things a bit better than this by now harry, to call String Theory a theory of the origin "or the ongoing universe".

There are only three possible theories about our universe

1. It is expanding

2. It is stable

3. It is collapsing

If 1. is true, it could go on expanding, or #2 will be reached, or #3 will then begin.
One must decide on what data one has as to what may be the truth.

Hello Neired

You may have opinions about what you think and may have been proven and understood through your eyes.

People are not cows to be driven and directed.

I have read many of your posts in this forum and other forums.

Many people have discussed with me the damaged caused by your attitude.
Your attitude stops their interest and motivation to extend their discussions and to probe and question the issues what they think is wrong with science in particular cosmology.

You keep on refering to the Big Bang Theory.

There are dozens of problems of issues about the BB theory, in particular.

The Red shift and the formation of the super clusters and the great wall and huge voids.

Better still
Read the link
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
I know that you have read it.
This is for new eyes.

Maybe you can give hard evidence in support of the Big Bang. Up to this date. I have not read any evidence on strong foundations.

I would predict that the Big Bang will be out by three years, four years at the most.


This was meant to be a cafe discussion and not dictated.

The one game in town.

I'm older enough to see HISTORY repeat itself.

Did people try to stop Galeleo and Eistein when they spoke against the main stream? Yep

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

Hello createrchains

Where does the recycling universe come into play?

if big bang is the only game in town,

prove it!

there are many scientific reasons on how the galaxy or the universe is created,that is why we are discussing,

not only just the big bang theory

Hello Zeilous

I never pick sides.

Observations sometimes takes priority over mathematical sums.


Do not make a mistake about this, and I'm not trying to give Neiried a big head. Neried is a smart cookie and If I was to go to war, i would rather have her beside me.

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

Zeilous

Process, I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Maybe I should have put this in the other post.

The answer to how the sun is held together, lies in the evolution or maybe the origin of the solar system and its association with the parts of the Milky Way as it moves around.

There is a theory that our sun is a second generation sun, maybe just a phase in the evolution. It is not the only theory.

The previous phase was a star that went supernova and left a compacted core, ultra dense plasma matter that some think, maybe a neutron composite. This we can observe and read in many papers.

This compact core in time formed a solar envelope.

The function of the compacted core is to release energy and Hydrogen to the solar envelope where fusion adds more energy.

The other important function, because of its extreme density it has extreme electromagnetic/gravitational forces acting like en electric magnet, controlling the release of energy from the core. It also functions in holding the solar envelope together as a unit.

Our sun like any other sun produces elements from Hydrogen to Iron and after a few billion years, maybe 10 or 12 Gyrs it accumulates a high amount of Iron and starts to lose its core properties, resulting in a reduction in electromagnetic/gravitational forces.

When this happens the core loses its hold on the solar envelope and in time expands like the red giant.

It also loses its ability to control the release of energy from the high density core.This high energy release is in the form of high energy photons that hit the Iron atoms that have take billions of years to form. This causes a chain reaction by fission, breaking down the Iron to Helium, than to Hydrogen than to Neutrons. This process according to some takes a very short period, some say seconds.

Neutrons find themselves in zone of extreme heat and electromagnetic/gravitational forces. Because Neutrons are Neutral in charge they compact under the extreme heat and form a rejuvinated Neutron core.

I have not added to this logic matter that has been collected through the MIlky Way as the star roams.

Hello All

Interesting link

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 4/15/text/

Two astronomers have discovered that our own Milky Way galaxy and most of its neighboring galaxies, contained within a huge volume of the universe, one billion light-years in diameter, are drifting with respect to the more distant universe. This startling result may imply that the universe is "lumpier" on a much larger scale than can be readily explained by any current theory. "The new observations thus strongly challenge our understanding of how the universe evolved," says Dr. Tod Lauer of the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO).

Read on.

I find that most theories, that are unprovable, then they must not be worth bearing too much weight.

This doesn't mean that I feel that we should completely discard a theory, because we can't prove it, but it does mean that I don't feel that it should be taught as a fact until, the total and complete facts are in.

Creation, evolution, big bang, antimatter/matter void mixture....primordal soup, stars in a glass, etc.

The reason, that I wouldn't discard any, is because if it was thought of, then there may be some merit in a theory. However, just as I wouldn't totally discard as a theory because it is unprovable, at the same time, I would hold all ideas in the same regard until disproven.

No one has ever DISPROVEN the Holy Bible, as a truth, the only thing that has been proven, is that some people just don't want to believe in something greater than themselves.

Heres a theory for us, and it is a creation type question.

What have you ever created that was greater than yourself?

Scriptures told us over 1000 years before Christ was born, that there were volcanoes under the ocean floor, that the ocean was many many leagues deep, and that the earth was round, that the planets were in a state of decay, and of ocean currents, prior to the discovery of ocean currents in the 1800's, the discovery of the telescope by Galileo, as well as many other discoveries in science. Why isn't it considered as a valuble tool today in regards of science.

Superstition? If that superstition had the answers 1000 years before Christ, then what other answers could it possibly hold?

Just a question. Love everbodies.

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:And as has been pointed out, rather too many times I feel, there is only one 'game in town' in cosmology, the Big Bang theory (or, more accurately, modern concordance cosmological models).

That is simply not true. There is more than one "game in town". EU theory is also a viable option that many scientists continue to explore. The correct statement would be "there is one *favored* theory in cosmology". Favored ideas come and go.

At least there's only one scientific game in town.

Only if you consider "dark" stuff to be "scientific". IMO it's like doing math with elves and faeries. I don't call that "scientific" in any way. It's mathematical mythology IMO.

And I thought you understood things a bit better than this by now harry, to call String Theory a theory of the origin "or the ongoing universe".

String theories have been put forth as an "option" as well. The only difference between string theory and dark stuff theory is "popularity". We can't "test" (as in *controlled* experimentation) strings anymore than we can test dark stuff. Astronomers simply put faith in dark stuff and no faith in strings.

Michael, we have been over this before, and over and over and over it ...

If you can provide references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals* which present:
+ an internally consistent, quantitative set of theories and models purporting to account for the large-scale features of the observable universe and its evolution
+ quantitative accounts of how this set matches the main, relevant cosmological observations (Olbers' paradox, the CMBR, primordial abundance of light nuclides, Hubble relationship, and large-scale structure (P(k)))

Then there will indeed be a 'new game in town'.

Fair warning: any further attempts by you to introduce pseudo-science (or non-science) here will be dealt with appropriately. The policies of this forum are clear, have been clearly stated, and the particular alternatives you name discussed at great length.

*other than those you and harry have provided so far

harry wrote:Hello Neired

You may have opinions about what you think and may have been proven and understood through your eyes.

People are not cows to be driven and directed.

I have read many of your posts in this forum and other forums.

Many people have discussed with me the damaged caused by your attitude.
Your attitude stops their interest and motivation to extend their discussions and to probe and question the issues what they think is wrong with science in particular cosmology.

You keep on refering to the Big Bang Theory.

There are dozens of problems of issues about the BB theory, in particular.

The Red shift and the formation of the super clusters and the great wall and huge voids.

Better still
Read the link
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
I know that you have read it.
This is for new eyes.

Maybe you can give hard evidence in support of the Big Bang. Up to this date. I have not read any evidence on strong foundations.

I would predict that the Big Bang will be out by three years, four years at the most.


This was meant to be a cafe discussion and not dictated.

The one game in town.

I'm older enough to see HISTORY repeat itself.

Did people try to stop Galeleo and Eistein when they spoke against the main stream? Yep

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

Hello createrchains

Where does the recycling universe come into play?

harry, we have been over this before, and over and over and over .... it.

If you do not like astronomy and cosmology as a science, and the basis on which these, as sciences, are done, then perhaps this is not the forum for you. I have already suggested some other fora where discussion of the history, philosophy, and nature of science is more central than it is here.

That there are unanswered questions, challenges, problems, etc, etc, etc* with modern cosmological models is a given ... that is an essential part of all sciences, it's a key factor in what drives them.

Particularly outrageous is your "Galeleo and Eistein" comment ... a few minutes perusing the astroph section of arXiv will turn up non-mainstream theory pre-prints by the dozen; check back in a few months and you'll find almost all of them have been published. In any case, this forum is not a place to air conspiracy theories.

*Sadly though most, if not all, the 30 items on that list (which we have discussed before, in this very thread, at considerable length) are not really among them.

zeilouz wrote:if big bang is the only game in town,

prove it!

zeilouz, you're new here, so you may have not yet had a chance to read this thread in its entirety.

That science involves "proof" is a (very) common misunderstanding.

Science is about consistency and theories - internal consistency of the theories, consistency of one theory with others whose domains of applicability overlap, and (above all) consistency between theory and (good, independent, etc) observational and experimental results (in the theory's domain of applicability)*.

It has taken several centuries, but we now have a good appreciation of the engine of science: theories.

In the case of cosmology, as a science, the LCDM (lambda cold dark matter) cosmological models, 'the big bang theory' in popular parlance, is the only game in town .... because there are no alternative theories that come anywhere near to meeting the three criteria above.

In a century's time, the LCDM models may be the laughing stock of cosmologists, and taught in schools as a classic example of how theories can become mainstream, only to be overthrown with a single new insight. Or they may be a thousand times better, with consistency with observational results down to the ppm (parts per million) level compared with today's ~1-10% level. No one can say.

Please take the time to read through this thread. When you have done so, if you still have questions about how well 'the big bang theory' meets the above criteria, or how poorly any alternative does, please ask.

there are many scientific reasons on how the galaxy or the universe is created,that is why we are discussing,

not only just the big bang theory

This is another popular misconception.

The modern scientific theories in cosmology ('the big bang theory') do not include the origin of the universe in their domains of applicability. There are, of course, many leading-edge ideas and models that incorporate physics beyond the Standard Model (of particle physics), such as string theory, to extend into this domain. However, none of these is yet established.

The origin of galaxies may be part of cosmology ... it depends on the particular theory, model, and observations being considered.

However, discussion of the origin of galaxies is best left to a thread other than this one, if only because it does not have a necessarily one-to-one connection with cosmology.

*If you'd like to learn more about the nature of science, its history, and its relationship to philosophy, I recommend this forum or this one.

jbragg4400 wrote:I find that most theories, that are unprovable, then they must not be worth bearing too much weight.

This doesn't mean that I feel that we should completely discard a theory, because we can't prove it, but it does mean that I don't feel that it should be taught as a fact until, the total and complete facts are in.

Creation, evolution, big bang, antimatter/matter void mixture....primordal soup, stars in a glass, etc.

The reason, that I wouldn't discard any, is because if it was thought of, then there may be some merit in a theory. However, just as I wouldn't totally discard as a theory because it is unprovable, at the same time, I would hold all ideas in the same regard until disproven.

No one has ever DISPROVEN the Holy Bible, as a truth, the only thing that has been proven, is that some people just don't want to believe in something greater than themselves.

Heres a theory for us, and it is a creation type question.

What have you ever created that was greater than yourself?

Scriptures told us over 1000 years before Christ was born, that there were volcanoes under the ocean floor, that the ocean was many many leagues deep, and that the earth was round, that the planets were in a state of decay, and of ocean currents, prior to the discovery of ocean currents in the 1800's, the discovery of the telescope by Galileo, as well as many other discoveries in science. Why isn't it considered as a valuble tool today in regards of science.

Superstition? If that superstition had the answers 1000 years before Christ, then what other answers could it possibly hold?

Just a question. Love everbodies.

jbragg4400, first, welcome to The Asterisk*!

Now that you're here, please take the time to read a few threads, and learn more about what we discuss here and what we don't.

One area that is beyond the scope of this forum is religion, so the answer to your question is "that is beyond the scope of The Asterisk*. If you are interested in it, please find another forum where it is within scope."

Also, as I advised zeilouz, if you are interested in the relationship between science, proof, truth, philosophy, and so on, there are some other fora that are much better suited to such interests than this one. Please read my response (above), and if you wish, check out the HPS (history and philosophy of science) sites I suggest.

Hello All

Maybe I should just sit on the fence and say Yes Neried, yes Neried your right Neried.

That would make a great discussion.

Do you actually call this Science.

Yes I do go to other Forums and some are upto date with science.

Hello All


MACS: The Most Massive Cluster of Galaxies in the Universe

http://www2.ifa.hawaii.edu/newsletters/ ... m?a=65&n=8

MACS: The MAssive Cluster Survey Led by researchers from IfA, an international collaboration of scientists has recently taken statistical cluster studies to a new level by compiling the first large X-ray-selected sample of galaxy clusters that are both massive and distant (until now, it was one or the other). The aptly named MAssive Cluster Survey (MACS) discovered well over a hundred giant clusters at distances of at least 1 gigaparsec, providing a well-defined sample that is more than thirty times larger than the previously best compilation of this kind.

1E 0657-56:
A Bow Shock in a Merging Galaxy Cluster
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/0066/


3C294:
Chandra Finds Most Distant X-ray Galaxy Cluster

This Chandra image shows gravitationally-bound, hot gas enveloping the distant galaxy known as 3C294. This X-ray emission is considered a signature for an extremely massive cluster of galaxies – one of the largest known structures in the universe. Astronomers believe they have captured the cluster surrounding 3C294 at a time when the universe was only 20 percent of its current age. This faraway cluster may therefore have important implications for the understanding how the universe evolved from a much earlier epoch.

The only objection that I have is this: Comments about the early universe implies the Big Bang. They should make comments on the observation rather than assuming.

3C438:
Galaxy Cluster Takes It to the Extreme
Whatch the movie clip,,,,,,,,,,very interesting.



http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2001/cdfs/

Another early exciting discovery to emerge from the Chandra Deep Field-South is the detection of an extremely distant X-ray quasar shrouded in gas and dust. The discovery of this object, some twelve billion light years away, is key to understanding how dense clouds of gas form galaxies with massive black holes at their centers.

MS 0735.6+7421: Monstrous Black Hole Blast in the Core of a Galaxy Cluster
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/ms0735/

More Images of MS 0735.6+7421
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/m ... 5_ill_xray

This is so!!!!!!!! interesting.

One starts to think, hey! we have so many clusters of galaxies.
How on earth did they form in just a few hundred million years according to the Big Bang.

well the MACS clusters are at z=0.5 ish and (i should know i've spent the last 2 years studying them!!) this is around 9 billion years after the big bang so thats plenty of time to form a relaxed cluster.

so far to my knowledge the furthest cluster known is at z=1.45 from the XCS survey, this is roughly 5 bilion years after the BB. however the cluster is not a huge beast like those from the MACS survey as it has not had the time since the BB to become as large.