Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Harry Costas]

Hello Aireal

 

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,going through it

[ryan2006]

Harry,

My working hypothesis on what I call the Grand System that includes the solar system of universes with a universe that jumps out of orbit is consecutive with the big bang theory. When I said our universe went through a wormhole I was talking about when an entire region of dimension disappears through a vacuum. This may explain how a big bang occurs. There would be, however evidence of a pre universe and the universe we live in now. Expansion of a universe means that there is dimension outside our known universe. No I am not pigeon holing myself into this hypothesis I am simply slowly working on bringing the pieces of my theories together. I was glad to hear from you I hope you are doing well.

 

sincerely,

 

Ryan

[Harry Costas]

Hello Ryan

 

How are you mate?

 

What ever system or model you have just provide some form of facts so that someone can work it out.

[ryan2006]

Harry,

I have figured some things out through common sense but I don't have the technical skill necessary or at least not right now to really comment any further. Do you understand the model?

Ryan

[Harry Costas]

Hello Ryan

 

Yes I do.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Aerial

 

Smile

 

I got this email.

 

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=40351

 

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

 

 

Its good that they found 500 galaxies in an area of about a seed in size.

But they make the assumption that the BBT is correct and proceed to confirm it by saying that these galaxies were formed less than a billion years. This is what I call raping science big time.

[coldcreation]

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=40351

 

Its good that they found 500 galaxies in an area of about a seed in size.

But they make the assumption that the BBT is correct and proceed to confirm it by saying that these galaxies were formed less than a billion years. This is what I call raping science big time.

 

Oh yes Harry. I could not agree with you more.

Recall, the predictions were that no galaxy should be out that far back in time. Galaxies were thought to be only begining to form, as clouds condensed from fluctuations visible today in the microwave frquency (viz the CMBR).

 

Wait until the James Webb Space Telescope sends back its first images in a few years. Thousands, millions, billions of galaxies (well formed, massive, spiral structures, old stellar populations, with heavy metals) will be discovered when the universe was thought to be a newborn baby, just out of the crib, at a time and place where protostars had not yet condensed from the primordial plasma.

 

For some strange reason, I have a nagging sensation that then too, pro-big bang cosmologists will be shouting victory. Talk about a bad joke. What good is a theory when its predictions fall prey to illusion, i.e., it can't get anything right. And yet politics continues as if detrimental fact (or contradictory evidence) is proof of the dogma.

[Harry Costas]

Hello coldcreation

 

I fully agree with you.

 

Have a look at this link

 

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/archive/releases/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 (seed)

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.

[justforfun]

I am glad to see the demise of the big bang theory. I wondered how we could be so sure of any theory about the birth of the universe with such a relatively small amount of data. An expanding universe, it seems to me, could be just going through a temporary cycle, followed by a contracting cycle, etc etc etc like our lungs do when we breathe. Maybe the universe has been around ... forever?

[Harry Costas]

Hello justforfun

 

 

My intention is not to demise the BBT, but to look for observations that gives us the reality of the actual happenings out there, far far away where no man has gone before.

 

so to be fair

 

Some links on the Big Bang. Because I post these links, it does not mean I agree with them. I have listed them because many people talk about the Big Bang without knowing that there was never a Big Bang, just many bangs everywhere at the same time.

 

Models of Earlier Events

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/bbcloc.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3

 

Big Bang Time Line

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/timlin.html#c1"

 

Physical Keys to Cosmology

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cosmo.html#c1

 

Red Shift

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redshf.html#c1

 

Expanding Universe

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html#c0

 

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

 

Inflationary Period in Big Bang

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/inflat.html#c1

 

Cosmology: The Study of the Universe

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

 

WAS COSMIC INFLATION THE 'BANG' OF THE BIG BANG?

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth_contents.html

 

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

 

 

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

 

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.

By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.

It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.

 

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

 

Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.

Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.

Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.

Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.

One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[justforfun]

Hello justforfun

 

 

My intention is not to demise the BBT, but to look for observations that gives us the reality of the actual happenings out there, far far away where no man has gone before.

 

 

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

 

Thanks, Harry. I had no ideas my 'model' of the universe was so outdated. If I wait for the LAST word before making any more comments they will have to be engraved upon my tombstone, however, so I will continue to speak up in the hope my remarks are at least amusing if not exactly enlightening. Just passing through ...

[coldcreation]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Would that be the Quasi-steady state theory (QSSC)?

What would those better observations be.

What conclusions could be drawn from them?

Are there any predictions (you can make) that may pre-date the observations, as to the possible outcome?

[Harry Costas]

Hello Coldcreation

 

When we see past the 13.7 Gyrs deep field point we would expect to see existing galaxies as we see them near.

 

This will be the nail on the coffin for the BBT.

 

But! the BB people will come up with some fantasy theory to explain the observation. They always do.

[coldcreation]

Hello Coldcreation

 

When we see past the 13.7 Gyrs deep field point we would expect to see existing galaxies as we see them near.

 

This will be the nail on the coffin for the BBT.

 

But! the BB people will come up with some fantasy theory to explain the observation. They always do.

 

True, very true.

The James Webb Space Telescope will see further than Hubble, albeit still not without problems. There are very few photons emerging from depths close to the visual horizon. It can still be argued that galaxy formation was quicker than expected after recombination. However, the galaxies than can be tested at say 10 Gyrs in the past are already beginning to show signs that indicate that massive star formation was well underway, if not already completed by the time we picked up the image, heavy metals, indicating that the fusing of hydrogen to helium and so one down the line to heavy elements had already occured.

 

One of your links included a galaxy (in the lower right side of the ultra deep field plate) that already, in my opinion, put a nail in the coffin. With the James Webb Space Telescope many more will be observed (that is a prediction).

 

That galaxy has been known for some time now. I was wondering if more have been discovered (I've been offline for a while now). Got any more info on any old galaxies in the baby universe?

[Harry Costas]

Hello coldcreation

 

If you think along the BBT, than you would expect a baby universe a start to it all.

 

But! thats not the case.

 

In the future I predict that observations will show that the universe is endless and recycling and not expanding as many have predicted.

 

 

Read this link

 

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

 

Hubble deep field links

 

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/hubble_deep_field/links_page.shtml

[HydrogenBond]

One way to explain very early galaxy formation with a BB theory is to have the orginal primordial atom break apart into quantum chunks before inflation. Under those conditons one would not have a single BB but a multitude of mini-BB, all at the same time. This would not only explain how the universe expands uniformly with respect to the galaxies, i.e., each expanding mini BB is giving off energy pressure that pushing all the rest of the mini-BB, but the high pressure energy waves from all the mini-BB, keep the expanding matter of each mini-BB highly contained, while adding turbulance.

 

The quantum division before inflation occurs analogously to what is observed when particles reach extreme energy. At extreme energy, the mass/energy density of particles is higher than cool temperature particles. If we cool extreme particles they break into multitudes of smaller particles of lower mass/energy. With respect to the primordial atom, it can only exist at limiting temp. If it cools slightly, it breaks into smaller primordial molecular composites (to extend the terminology). Since the uniform expansion of the universe is known to occur at the galaxy level and not at the superstructure level, this would suggest the lowest quanta of primordial composites has subunits at the galaxy level. Their expansion will occur with extreme energy pressure waves coming inward from the exterior, from all the rest of the mini-BB. This will contain the expanding galaxy in limited space, while making turbulence, allowing galaxies and even stars to form in a couple hundred millions years, as is observed.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

One speaks of the BBT as a fact. We must remember its only a theory which has no or very little evidence to support it.

 

I know its the standard model. God knows how it got to be.

 

So! There is no early universe.

 

No evidence to support it.

 

What we do see in deep field 13.2Gyrs is existing galaxies with high Iron content. Instead of hydrogen and Helium.

 

This tells us that the universe is much older than the BB predictions.

 

Also the super clusters that are a few hundred million light yrs across needed over 50 Gyrs to form.