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

[Moontanman]

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..

 

No Dan, you don't understand the scientific definition of a theory, it's not the same as the definition of the word theory in common usage. Look it up and you'll see what I am talking about.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

 

Hello DanGray hang in ther mate.

 

Smile,,,,I need support.

 

 

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

 

So a theory is not a fact, The BBT theory is not a fact, but it has become the standard model that in some ways has restricted the research by some due to cash flow from projects given by people who think that the BBT is correct and worth researching. History tells us the same until the standard model has been proven wrong.

 

The BBT tells us one thing on data and theory , but we observe a completely diffrent picture through the images of deep field shows clustering and huge monsters of cluster galaxies that under normal processes cannot form in the limited time of 500 million years or ten billion years.

[modest]

theroy is not fact?

 

So a theory is not a fact...

 

It is a fact that the sun rises in the sky each morning and that the moon has phases. A theory (such as a theory of gravity) explains such facts (honest and real observations) and it can also predict future facts.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day

 

Modest you are right and when you are right, its hard to argue for the sake or arguing.

[DanGray]

It is a fact that the sun rises in the sky each morning and that the moon has phases. A gravity (such as a theory of gravity) explains such facts (honest and real observations) and it can also predict future facts.

 

~modest

 

give me a brake please

the sun doesn't rise, we rotate into it..:hihi: 4th graders know that..

 

gravity is a man made term.. long after the force was in place..

 

theory has a long range of meaning you can't just nail it to a few terms like that and think you covered it all.

 

observation might predict future facts but theory not in some cases.

 

say you have a piece of glass, I have a theory that if all the molecule happen to travel in one direction at the same time you'd be able to put your hand thought it with out braking it, it don't meant it will ever happen..

 

phases and gravity , don't forget the suns pull..

 

 

the earth dosn't have gravity anyway,

the earth just sucks B)

[freeztar]

Here's another definition of scientific theory:

 

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

 

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[DanGray]

Here's another definition of scientific theory:

 

 

 

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

another one why is there not just one definition ?

perhaps because it's left up to mans, interpretation maybe ?

 

is there nothing else but what we read and nothing left to discover? for if this were so we'd be still in the dark-ages, would we not? ..

[Moontanman]

give me a brake please

the sun doesn't rise, we rotate into it..:doh: 4th graders know that..;)

 

gravity is a man made term.. long after the force was in place..

 

theory has a long range of meaning you can't just nail it to a few terms like that and think you covered it all.

 

observation might predict future facts but theory not in some cases.

 

say you have a piece of glass, I have a theory that if all the molecule happen to travel in one direction at the same time you'd be able to put your hand thought it with out braking it, it don't meant it will ever happen..

 

phases and gravity , don't forget the suns pull..

 

 

the earth dosn't have gravity anyway,

the earth just sucks :hihi:

 

Dan, I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on the browns gas thing but now you are just trolling. Using these stupid statements to try and ridicule people who are here to seriously discuss this issue is wrong. If you don't know what you are talking about stay out of the discussion. You'll get no support from me by using ridicule to further your ignorance.

[DanGray]

Dan, I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on the browns gas thing but now you are just trolling. Using these stupid statements to try and ridicule people who are here to seriously discuss this issue is wrong. If you don't know what you are talking about stay out of the discussion. You'll get no support from me by using ridicule to further your ignorance.

 

not a problem, just throwing little light humor in that's all.

I'll step out.

[modest]

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

 

CMB was predicted by BBT... to say that it isn't evidence of the theory that predicted it is - well, it's a bit odd of a thing to say.

 

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."

 

The study in question is mischaracterized by your linked article. It is better characterized here:

Afshordi, the Harvard astrophysicist, suggested that a more likely explanation for Lieu's findings is that there is something about galaxy clusters scientists don't yet understand.

 

"I think that even if Lieu were correct, it would teach us about clusters rather than the Big Bang theory," Afshordi said in a telephone interview. "Clusters are complicated things and there's still a lot to learn about them."

 

Lieu concedes this is a possibility. "That I do buy," he said. "I myself am not at this point prepared to accept that the CMB is noncosmological and that there was no Big Bang. That would be doomsday."

 

Lieu said that one unlikely, but possible explanation is that the galaxy clusters he examined are unusually strong emitters of radio waves, which could have prevented the shadows from being seen.

 

SPACE.com -- Study Questions Big Bang (Scientists Question the Study)

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes:

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

 

This link is unscientific propaganda.

 

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.

 

Once again it is odd at the least to say this isn't evidence of BBT when it was correctly and quantitatively predicted by BBT. If you have another theory that correctly predicted all these observations before they were made then they would be evidence of that theory as well - but you don't and it isn't.

 

Modest

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

 

So! what does this mean?

 

It means that Lemaître's solution to Einstein's GR that predicted BBT also predicted the universe to be homogeneous and isotropic. This is taken for granted today, but when the prediction was made it was by no means known. There are a thousand and one theories of cosmology that would tell you the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic. For example, if I said the universe is a white hole you could object and say that white holes aren't isotropic and you'd be correct. This means homogeneity and isotropy are evidence of FLRW and BBT. Surveys of the large scale structure of the universe and the CMB itself attest the fact of this prediction.

 

Large structures cannot be explained by the BBT.

 

As far as BBT attempts to explain the large scale structure, observation agrees. The fact that it isn't a theory of galaxy formation is not an objection to the theory. If you had a good and confirmed theory of galaxy formation that disagreed with BBT in some way then that would we an objection. But, your single sentence above is inadequate in that regard.

 

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.

 

You can't disagree that the evidence found has confirmed predictions. That is simply true. If you want to reinterpret those confirmed predictions then go ahead, but the fact remains they were so predicted and they were so confirmed.

 

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.

 

The few examples I've given above along with many others has convinced a statistically unanimous collective of astronomy. Your knee jerk reaction to this would be to say "science has been wrong before - even when everyone agreed". And, that's fine. Give us a better theory that we can all agree to that doesn't include BBT. When, if, and however that would ever happen would be fine. But, it's far more likely (given all the current evidence) that future cosmological theories will contain BBT as a fact or a footing in a wider and more complete explanation.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'say from the land of ozzzz

 

Modest said

 

The few examples I've given above along with many others has convinced a statistically unanimous collective of astronomy. Your knee jerk reaction to this would be to say "science has been wrong before - even when everyone agreed". And, that's fine. Give us a better theory that we can all agree to that doesn't include BBT. When, if, and however that would ever happen would be fine. But, it's far more likely (given all the current evidence) that future cosmological theories will contain BBT as a fact or a footing in a wider and more complete explanation.

 

It is much more complicated than it looks. To me the BBT is a theory supported by not evidence but! by the thought that maybe its right. Than ideas were made to fit the Big Bang theory.

 

Yes you state that main stream agrees with it and that the data fits the BBT.

But! Disputed evidence

SPACE.com -- Study Questions Big Bang (Scientists Question the Study)

 

The discussion within that link leaves the shodow test in limbo.

 

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

 

You said

Once again it is odd at the least to say this isn't evidence of BBT when it was correctly and quantitatively predicted by BBT. If you have another theory that correctly predicted all these observations before they were made then they would be evidence of that theory as well - but you don't and it isn't.

 

I disagree, but that does not mean I'm correct.

 

Rather than pin it on the BBT. Lets look at the formation of the elements from ultra dense plasma matter such as Neutron, quarks and the black holes.

Matter changes to degenerate matter than ejected and reformed into normal matter.

Also the formation of the elements within the solar envelope and during supernova.

There exist scientific processes that can show and explain the production of all the elements.

 

Ok, I'm not the smartest guy off the block and I do not have all the answers.

 

I know that I have alot to read up and in due time I will have better supportive evidence.

 

To me the recyling process can explain all the features that we see without talking about expansion and dark matter and dark energy.

 

You said

 

This means homogeneity and isotropy are evidence of FLRW and BBT. Surveys of the large scale structure of the universe and the CMB itself attest the fact of this prediction.

 

How can this be used as evidence and back up the BBT

 

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

 

Must do more reading something does not add up back at the ranch.

 

Faint galaxies: evolution and cosmological curvature

 

Faint galaxies: evolution and cosmological curvature

 

RECENT observations of faint galaxies at near-infrared wavelengths1–3 reveal a surprisingly low surface density when compared to the excess of blue galaxies seen at optical wavelengths4. Attempts to determine the cosmological curvature from the asymptotic surface density of faint galaxies thus produce conflicting results3,5–7. We propose to resolve this conflict with an evolutionary model in which galaxies merge at recent look-back times. The contrast between optical and infrared galaxy counts then follows from the very different lifetimes of stellar types contributing to emission in the galactic rest-frame. Together with evidence we present an increased star formation rate in galaxies at moderate redshift, the merging model can account for both the number–magnitude relations and available redshift distributions. A clear prediction is that there should be an absence of high-redshift galaxies in deep infrared-selected surveys. If correct, the model confirms earlier suspicions that galaxies cannot be used as reliable tracers of the geometry of the Universe.

 

 

The elemental abundance pattern in a galaxy at z = 2.626

 

Access : : Nature

 

The discovery of metal-poor stars1, 2 (where metal is any element more massive than helium) has enabled astronomers to probe the chemical enrichment history of the Milky Way3, 4. More recently, element abundances in gas inside high-redshift galaxies has been probed through the absorption lines imprinted on the spectra of background quasars5, 6, 7, 8, but these have typically yielded measurements of only a few elements. Furthermore, interpretation of these abundances is complicated by the fact that differential incorporation of metals into dust can produce an abundance pattern similar to that expected from nucleosynthesis by massive stars9. Here we report the observation of over 25 elements in a galaxy at redshift z = 2.626. With these data, we can examine nucleosynthetic processes independent of the uncertainty arising from depletion. We find that the galaxy was enriched mainly by massive stars (M > 15 solar masses) and propose that it is the progenitor of a massive elliptical galaxy. The detailed abundance patterns suggest that boron is produced through processes that act independently of metallicity, and may require alternative mechanisms for the nucleosynthesis of germanium.

 

 

This is interesting

[astro-ph/9905213] Cosmological Luminosity Evolution of QSO/AGN Population

Cosmological Luminosity Evolution of QSO/AGN Population

 

 

 

Modest, again I need time to understand as many issues.

 

While that is happening, I'm thinking aloud and maybe one day in the next few years, my understanding will get better.

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

 

The super clusters cannot be expalined by the BBT,nut ! the question is: why should it?

 

So far I have not read anywhere of how super monsters of galaxies can be formed in a very short period of time whether it be 500 million years (deep field images 13.2 Gyr) or 5 Gyrs.

 

Some of these black holes are over 16 Billion solar masses.

 

 

Modest thank you for your time, I know I'm a pain.

[Little Bang]

Pluto it is very easy for you to prove the BBT wrong. All you have to is explain another testable way that all the matter we see in the observable universe got here and your jets don't cut it.

[Pluto]

G'day little Bang

 

Jets form part of a recycling process. Once we understand more of jets than one day we will understand more of a recycling process that alter matter from one phase to the next.

 

The study of compact matter and their jets is the key to many issues.

 

As for the production of all the elements, these days you only have to google for it, there are varies theories and proven experiments. I do not have to prove something that is being done.

 

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

 

 

[0807.0740] The role of jets in the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies

 

The role of jets in the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies

 

Authors: Ralph E. Pudritz, Robi Banerjee, Rachid Ouyed

(Submitted on 4 Jul 2008 (v1), last revised 21 Aug 2008 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: Astrophysical jets are associated with the formation of young stars of all masses, stellar and massive black holes, and perhaps even with the formation of massive planets. Their role in the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies is increasingly appreciated and probably reflects a deep connection between the accretion flows - by which stars and black holes may be formed - and the efficiency by which magnetic torques can remove angular momentum from such flows. We compare the properties and physics of jets in both non-relativistic and relativistic systems and trace, by means of theoretical argument and numerical simulations, the physical connections between these different phenomena. We discuss the properties of jets from young stars and black holes, give some basic theoretical results that underpin the origin of jets in these systems, and then show results of recent simulations on jet production in collapsing star-forming cores as well as from jets around rotating Kerr black holes.

 

 

[0808.1227] A Semi-Analytic Model for the Co-evolution of Galaxies, Black Holes, and Active Galactic Nuclei

 

A Semi-Analytic Model for the Co-evolution of Galaxies, Black Holes, and Active Galactic Nuclei

 

Authors: Rachel S. Somerville, Philip F. Hopkins, Thomas J. Cox, Brant E. Robertson, Lars Hernquist

(Submitted on 8 Aug 2008)

 

Abstract: We present a new semi-analytic model that self-consistently traces the growth of supermassive black holes (BH) and their host galaxies within the context of the LCDM cosmological framework. In our model, the energy emitted by accreting black holes regulates the growth of the black holes themselves, drives galactic scale winds that can remove cold gas from galaxies, and produces powerful jets that heat the hot gas atmospheres surrounding groups and clusters. We present a comprehensive comparison of our model predictions with observational measurements of key physical properties of low-redshift galaxies, such as cold gas fractions, stellar metallicities and ages, and specific star formation rates. We find that our new models successfully reproduce the exponential cutoff in the stellar mass function and the stellar and cold gas mass densities at z~0, and predict that star formation should be largely, but not entirely, quenched in massive galaxies at the present day. We also find that our model of self-regulated BH growth naturally reproduces the observed relation between BH mass and bulge mass. We explore the global formation history of galaxies in our models, presenting predictions for the cosmic histories of star formation, stellar mass assembly, cold gas, and metals. We find that models assuming the "concordance" LCDM cosmology overproduce star formation and stellar mass at high redshift (z>2). A model with less small-scale power predicts less star formation at high redshift, and excellent agreement with the observed stellar mass assembly history, but may have difficulty accounting for the cold gas in quasar absorption systems at high redshift (z~3-4).

 

 

 

[0808.1927] Blazing trails: Microquasars as head-tail sources and the seeding of magnetized plasma into the ISM

 

Blazing trails: Microquasars as head-tail sources and the seeding of magnetized plasma into the ISM

 

Authors: S. Heinz, H.J. Grimm, R.A. Sunyaev, R.P. Fender

(Submitted on 14 Aug 2008)

 

Abstract: We discuss the dynamics of microquasar jets in the interstellar medium, with specific focus on the effects of the X-ray binaries' space velocity with respect to the local Galactic standard of rest. We argue that, during late stages in the evolution of large scale radio nebulae around microquasars, the ram pressure of the interstellar medium due to the microquasar's space velocity becomes important and that microquasars with high velocities form the Galactic equivalent of extragalactic head-tail sources, i.e., that they leave behind trails of stripped radio plasma. Because of their higher space velocities, low-mass X-ray binaries are more likely to leave trails than high-mass X-ray binaries. We show that the volume of radio plasma released by microquasars over the history of the Galaxy is comparable to the disk volume and argue that a fraction of a few percent of the radio plasma left behind by the X-ray binary is likely mixed with the neutral phases of the ISM before the plasma is removed from the disk by buoyancy. Because the formation of microquasars is an unavoidable by-product of star formation, and because they can travel far from their birth places, their activity likely has important consequences for the evolution of magnetic fields in forming galaxies. We show that radio emission from the plasma inside the trail should be detectable at low frequencies. We suggest that LMXBs with high detected proper motions like XTE J1118+480 will be the best candidates for such a search.

[coldcreation]

Pluto it is very easy for you to prove the BBT wrong. All you have to is explain another testable way that all the matter we see in the observable universe got here and your jets don't cut it.

 

 

 

 

Greetings gentlemen,

 

I've been following this thread from afar (from deep Spain where I've been on a fossils hunting expedition: 450-210 Myr old objects), but have not much participated due to the slow internet connection.

 

Little Bang, it has been shown that another approach leads to the conclusion that not just the light elements, but all of the chemical elements of the periodic table were generated astrophysically, explicitly synthesized in stellar processes (Hoyle and Burbidge, 1998 ApJ), which conceptually is in diametrical opposition to the generally acknowledged primordial creation (or big bang nucleosynthesis). Hydrogen may be the only exception.

 

In order for this theory to be in accord with element abundance calculations a time-scale is required that exceeds 100 Gyr. For the proponent of this type of model this time-scale is without problem since the universe is infinite spatiotemporally. Even if it took 250 or 650 Gyr to produce these elements (including hydrogen) there would still be no problem at all.

 

This approach is in agreement (more or less) with what Pluto is expressing.

 

The problem Pluto correctly refers to is the rather short time-scale required by the BB theory, not just for the production of the light elements and their isotopes, but for the formation of the observed large-scale structures (galaxies, clusters and superclusters). This problem was compounded when (1998) it was stipulated that the universe was not 15 Gyr old but only 13.7 Gyr old. This problem also affected the supposed age of stars since at that time there were calculations that gave ages between 16 and 20 billion years. (Sandage, The Deep Universe, 1993, p. 161).

 

 

Finally, the BBT is not proved wrong with the existence of alternative testable way to explain 'how all the matter we see in the observable universe got here.'

 

The BBT will be proved untenable when (and if) it is confirmed that objects in the universe are older than the supposed age of the universe itself, when it is recognized that the large-scale structures formation time-scales dwarfs 13.7 Gyr, when it is shown that redshift z is not an indication of cosmological expansion, when it is exposed that the SNe Ia data is not due to an accelerated expansion, when it is shown that the CMBR is not a relic of a hot dense state in the past, and so on.

 

Right now there exist alternative explanations for all of these observations. What is missing is the willpower and the manpower to explore these issues to the full extent that has been accorded the BB model. My guess is that it would be well worthwhile to do so regardless of which theory eventually prevails.

 

Certainly, until the outwardly impenetrable mystery that surrounds the visible universe (with or without its elusive DE and DM components) is resolved, until the difficulties related to the unification of the extremely large, massive and the ridiculously small are surmounted, until it is understood the nonconformist gravitational force in relation to the other forces of nature, the opposition will not rest.

 

It is this quest that has enabled the inquisitive human mind to reach the transient summit of knowledge where we proudly plant the flag of wisdom, and it is this quest that will lead us to an all-embracing understanding of the essence of the physical universe, its constituents and its evolution in time.

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

Coldcreation you should have ben a poet.

 

You write with wisdom

 

You said

 

It is this quest that has enabled the inquisitive human mind to reach the transient summit of knowledge where we proudly plant the flag of wisdom, and it is this quest that will lead us to an all-embracing understanding of the essence of the physical universe, its constituents and its evolution in time.

 

 

I still feel like a hill billy in the outback of ozzzzzzzzz.

 

 

I just keep on reading, to hope that one day I will understand.

 

Reading papers on Star formation by jets, I feel that this is a key process in many aspects of star formation and galaxy evolution and the production of the elements. I would not say the only key.

 

arXiv.org Search

 

Query Results

 

 

and star formation papers year 2008

 

SAO/NASA ADS Abstract Service

 

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

 

As for the Hydrogen production.

 

Neutrons to hydrogen is very common.

 

Also Quarks to Neutrons.

 

Compact matter is another few thousand papers.

[modest]

Good to see you well, CC.

 

I'm going to unfairly pick out one sentence from your post and make an unfair comparison to it. I totally apologize

 

Right now there exist alternative explanations for all of these observations.

 

I was reading an old thread and noticed someone else saying the same thing:

 

Everything you people have presented, such as the number of people involved in the Apollo program, has plausible alternative explanations.

 

claiming that there was no evidence people had ever been to the moon and all the evidence had alternative explanations.

 

I realize this isn't a fair comparison and I honestly don't mean to juxtapose anybody in this thread to cosmored and his crazy Apollo hoax nonsense... And, I also mostly agree with your post above CC. I just wanted to point out that it is always possible to claim alternative explanations no matter how solid something is. That approach (by itself) doesn't hold water.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

 

Modest you said

 

And, I also mostly agree with your post above CC. I just wanted to point out that it is always possible to claim alternative explanations no matter how solid something is. That approach (by itself) doesn't hold water.

 

I kind of understand what you mean?

 

But! for the holding of water?????

 

Mate, I used to think along the lines of the Big Bang Theory, because that's what we were taught.

 

But! The times now are different and different times present new observations and understanding. I know the Big Bang will be around for a few more years. But! I also Know that one day in the near future it will be dropped.

 

I hope that you will do a bit of research into the working parts of the universe.