Jump to content
Science Forums

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


Recommended Posts

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Moontanman said

 

 

 

Age of the earth about 5 billion years. First sedimentary rocks I think about 4.2 billion years ago indicating water flow.

 

Our Sun is estimated to be about 5 billion give or take. It may have another 5 to 7 billion years. But! I think the Milky Way and Andromeda have a meeting in about 4 to 5 billion years time. Our Sun belongs to a cluster of stars and merging maybe a possiblity.

 

The density and mass of the core would determine the life of the Star.

 

At this moment I reading up papers on Neutron and Quark composites cores in stars.

 

I hope one to understand. Right now I know very little.

 

I know what the currently estimated ages and life spans are but I would think this drastic shift in the way the sun works might have some effect on it's projected life span since it has always been thought of as a ball of super hot dense hydrogen. The earth was thought to have been formed out of the same gas nebula the sun formed out of. All these things would, I think, have an effect on the life span and radioactive composition of the earth and the sun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 879
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Halton Arp’s life story is a case study in confirmation bias. In the 1960’s he built a theory on very little evidence as there was little evidence on the topic at the time. The evidence has since co

G'day   [astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF   Authors: Eric J. Lerner (

According to the latest Big Bang Theory, by about 3 minutes, the moment fundamental forces appeared and matter – mostly baryons, the stuff of present day atoms – became recognizable enough for Relativ

Posted Images

The Sun: A Great Ball Of Iron?

ScienceDaily (July 17, 2002) — For years, scientists have assumed that the sun is an enormous mass of hydrogen. But in a paper presented before the American Astronomical Society, Dr. Oliver Manuel, a professor of nuclear chemistry at UMR, says iron, not hydrogen, is the sun's most abundant element.

 

Oliver does not state that Iron is the most abundant element.

 

Craig's source (which you quote there) is correct. Manuel claims the most abundant element is iron.

 

 

source:
(O. Manuel and A. Katragada)

 

~modest

Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

Modest maybe your right.

 

AN IRON-RICH SUN AND ITS SOURCE OF ENERGY*

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0410/0410646.pdf

 

Iron meteorites, cores of terrestrial planets, and the

interior of the Sun consists mostly of Fe and other elements made near the SN core [11].

 

Mass-fractionation enriches light elements and the lighter isotopes of each element at the solar surface, making a photosphere that is 91% H and 9% He. However, the solar interior consists mostly of seven, even-numbered elements of high nuclear stability - Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca. These elements were made in the deep interior of the supernova that gave birth to the solar system 5 billion years ago. They comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites.

 

 

NASA is sending a probe to measure these and other what ever.

 

 

NASA SUN

NASA - Sun

Composition

The sun, like most other stars, is made up mostly of atoms of the chemical element hydrogen. The second most plentiful element in the sun is helium, and almost all the remaining matter consists of atoms of seven other elements. For every 1 million atoms of hydrogen in the entire sun, there are 98,000 atoms of helium, 850 of oxygen, 360 of carbon, 120 of neon, 110 of nitrogen, 40 of magnesium, 35 of iron, and 35 of silicon. So about 94 percent of the atoms are hydrogen, and 0.1 percent are elements other than hydrogen and helium.

But hydrogen is the lightest of all elements, and so it accounts for only about 72 percent of the mass. Helium makes up around 26 percent.

 

 

This info has been around for decades. In my opinion it is outdated and new research is required.

 

Probe to the Sun

NASA Calls on APL to Send a Probe to the Sun

 

Solar Probe will employ a combination of in-place and remote measurements to achieve the mission’s primary scientific goals: determine the structure and dynamics of the magnetic fields at the sources of solar wind; trace the flow of energy that heats the corona and accelerates the solar wind; determine what mechanisms accelerate and transport energetic particles; and explore dusty plasma near the sun and its influence on solar wind and energetic particle formation. Details will be spelled out in a Solar Probe Science and Technology Definition Team study that NASA will release later this year. NASA will also release a separate Announcement of Opportunity for the spacecraft’s science payload.

 

 

Until we get more information about the Sun, I will sit on the fence line, Knowing quite well what the standard model is and what others predict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is most forget what the meaning of the word theory is ..

the big Bang hahahaha very funny,,this only goes to show what some minds will allow in to infect their minds..

orbit alone

should show that could not have happened atleast... (;>))

Hello All

 

With the recent information given to us by the scientific community world wide.

 

Without me influencing?

 

What do you think?

 

Was there a Big Bang?

 

Was there a M- theory ?

 

Was there a String Theory?

 

Was there a steady state theory?

 

Was there a wave theory?

 

Was there a Plasma Theory?

 

Was there a Recycle theory?

 

Was there a GOD theory?

 

Did I miss any out?

 

If I did,,,,,,,,,,just list them

 

Or is there a combination theory?

 

Can someone be right and yet be wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you elaborate on that?

 

it depends on

if you all believe in the big bang or not? but I'll give it a stab..

:) just looking around I can see that could not have happened, it's easy to see .. but

our minds are complex that it won't allow many of us to see other wise but that fact alone should tell us we didn't just happen.. if we did lets make it simple, where did the two big suckers come from in the first place :shrugs:

just happened? I think not.. JMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites
...just looking around I can see that could not have happened, it's easy to see...

Well, its easy to see if you refuse to take a look at the evidence!

 

Reminder Mr. Gray: this is a science forum, and if you do not follow our rules concerning presenting hypotheses backed up with nothing more than "its obvious to me" you will find that you might get unpleasant reactions from the membership.

 

You'll actually find several members who do not agree with the Big Bang theory, but they actually bother to do the work of presenting the evidence supporting their view.

 

To just say "I know" is a cop-out and is actually downright offensive.

 

If broken then, it is no fault of mine, :)

Buffy

Link to post
Share on other sites
it depends on

if you all believe in the big bang or not? but I'll give it a stab..

:) just looking around I can see that could not have happened, it's easy to see .. but

our minds are complex that it won't allow many of us to see other wise but that fact alone should tell us we didn't just happen.. if we did lets make it simple, where did the two big suckers come from in the first place :shrugs:

just happened? I think not.. JMHO

 

Dan,

 

Please review the forum rules. Specifically...

 

Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned.

 

Your opinions are valid only when they can be supported by scientific evidence (in the form of a link or other form of reference). Failure to abide by the forum rules can result in infractions which can limit your ability to make posts here. If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact myself or any other moderator. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

 

Freestar said

 

 

Observational evidence for the Big Bang

 

But I really don't think that will help without an understanding of basic astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology

 

 

Big Bang

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Observational evidence

The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). These are sometimes called the three pillars of the big bang theory. Many other lines of evidence now support the picture, notably various properties of the large-scale structure of the cosmos[35] which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard Big Bang theory.

 

Freestar I hope you do not rely on evidence that is disputed. Reading the link, I have not found evidence that will support the BBT. Only that it states that the data supports the theory. This does not mean that its evidence.

 

If data can be observed or created via other means than it cannot be used to support either theory until those issues have been reolved.

 

Red shift is under dispute due to the intinsic properties of objects.

Temp of the Cosmos is under dispute.

Microwave background is under dispute.

The formation of the elements is under dispute

The formation of the super clusters of galaxies is under dispute.

 

and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Freestar I hope you do not rely on evidence that is disputed. Reading the link, I have not found evidence that will support the BBT. Only that it states that the data supports the theory. This does not mean that its evidence.

 

If data can be observed or created via other means than it cannot be used to support either theory until those issues have been reolved.

 

Red shift is under dispute due to the intinsic properties of objects.

Temp of the Cosmos is under dispute.

Microwave background is under dispute.

The formation of the elements is under dispute

The formation of the super clusters of galaxies is under dispute.

 

and so on.

 

The BBT matches up with observation quite well. I'm unaware of a "competing" theory that so accurately matches observable data. If you are aware of such a theory, please, reveal it! (Hint: SSU is not as robust)

 

I'm not married to the BBT, but I refuse to just drop the idea altogether simply because it does not explain everything. Until a theory comes along that does as good of job, preferably better, of matching observation with theory, then I believe the BBT is the most accurate model of the universe we have at this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

Freestar said

 

The BBT matches up with observation quite well. I'm unaware of a "competing" theory that so accurately matches observable data. If you are aware of such a theory, please, reveal it! (Hint: SSU is not as robust)

 

I'm not married to the BBT, but I refuse to just drop the idea altogether simply because it does not explain everything. Until a theory comes along that does as good of job, preferably better, of matching observation with theory, then I believe the BBT is the most accurate model of the universe we have at this time.

 

Matches up with observations, which ones?

 

You do not have to be awear of competing theories , just be awear or the working parts such as Star formation and galaxy formation.

 

If the BBT is an accurate model. What are its accuracies?

 

I must admit it will take me another two years of reading to understand a scratch of information of the complexity of cosmology. I know I do not have the answers, I also know that nobody else does.

 

I think at this moment in time that a recycling process maybe the key to uncovering many issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matches up with observations, which ones?

 

Hubble noticed everything in the universe was flying apart. The entire astronomical community recognized this might indicate everything used to be bunched up tightly. Einstein's GR agreed. An assortment of enterprising scientists noted that direct evidence of a small, hot universe would still exist in the form of highly redshifted radiation left over from a time when all matter was in a plasma form. Right about the time accomplished scientists started looking for this CMB, a couple guys from the telephone company came upon it by accident and incidentally got themselves an accidental Nobel prize over the whole thing.

 

Some other enterprising scientists noted that if the universe used to be a small and hot place then we'd expect a certain ratio of light elements to come of it. More than that - the ratio of the abundance of certain light elements should match the abundance of photons. All of this was later found true.

 

Then there's the large scale structure and the isotropy... and so on.

 

It is now beyond any real scientific objection that the universe used to be a small and dense place of hot plasma. The earth you're now standing on used to be part of a primordial atom scrunched up tightly and energetically with all the other mass of the universe. ALL modern cosmological evidence was predicted on that basis. All evidence found agrees with that premise.

 

So then we get into questions of why is the universe expanding? How and when was it in a singularity? What was there before the singularity... and a bunch of other questions that are besides the main point of your contention. The big bang in its simplest form is simply saying that the universe was a primordial atom which expanded into its present form. For that simple statement there can be no doubt - not in an unbiased mind.

 

~modest

Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day from the land of ozzz

Modest

Hubble noticed everything in the universe was flying apart. The entire astronomical community recognized this might indicate everything used to be bunched up tightly. Einstein's GR agreed. An assortment of enterprising scientists noted that direct evidence of a small, hot universe would still exist in the form of highly redshifted radiation left over from a time when all matter was in a plasma form. Right about the time accomplished scientists started looking for this CMB, a couple guys from the telephone company came upon it by accident and incidentally got themselves an accidental Nobel prize over the whole thing.

 

CMB has been disputed and Its not evidence supporting the BBT.

 

New cosmic look may cast doubts on big bang theory

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA NEWS RELEASE

Posted: August 2, 2005

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | New cosmic look may cast doubts on big bang theory

 

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

Physics / Physics

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

 

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes:

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

 

Modest

Some other enterprising scientists noted that if the universe used to be a small and hot place then we'd expect a certain ratio of light elements to come of it. More than that - the ratio of the abundance of certain light elements should match the abundance of photons. All of this was later found true.

 

This is not evidence and if it can be explained by other means, how can it be used to supprt the BBT.

 

 

Modest

Then there's the large scale structure and the isotropy... and so on.

 

So! what does this mean?

 

Large structures cannot be explained by the BBT.

 

Modest

It is now beyond any real scientific objection that the universe used to be a small and dense place of hot plasma. The earth you're now standing on used to be part of a primordial atom scrunched up tightly and energetically with all the other mass of the universe. ALL modern cosmological evidence was predicted on that basis. All evidence found agrees with that premise.

 

I disagree and in due time this will be proven wrong. I will keep discussing these issues and later support it.

 

 

Modest

So then we get into questions of why is the universe expanding? How and when was it in a singularity? What was there before the singularity... and a bunch of other questions that are besides the main point of your contention. The big bang in its simplest form is simply saying that the universe was a primordial atom which expanded into its present form. For that simple statement there can be no doubt - not in an unbiased mind.

 

 

I know what the BBT states and the ad hoc ideas used to form the foundations. I can list you 1000 pages supporting the BBT. But thats not evidence.

This is not science. I need to see evidence and supporting data that cannot be disputed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan,

 

Please review the forum rules. Specifically...

 

 

 

Your opinions are valid only when they can be supported by scientific evidence (in the form of a link or other form of reference). Failure to abide by the forum rules can result in infractions which can limit your ability to make posts here. If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact myself or any other moderator. Thanks!

Your opinions are valid only when they can be supported by scientific evidence

fair enouph

but theroy seems to have it's place here, and I would just like to ask why? theroy is not fact?

 

I like Pluto's post below :shrug:

I'm not trying to be a troll here,, so I'll depart here with good will to all..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...