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

[coldcreation]

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 :doh:

 

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

 

...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

Hello modest,

 

Good to see you're still alive and kicking, as well.

 

Your comparison is fair. However, you conclusion that "it is always possible to claim alternative explanations" is misleading, since good alternatives should stand up to empirical evidence. Observations will tell them apart.

 

There are way to determine empirically whether the reflection occurs as a result of a retroreflector placed by Neil and Buzz, a moon rock or the eyes of moon-cat. :cat:

 

Likewise there are ways to determine empirically (at least in principle) whether or not observational evidence points towards the BB interpretation or some other interpretation.

 

It is possible to claim solid alternative explanations without that approach (by itself) taking on water. And it should be left to observations to validate or invalidate a model.

 

 

About taking on water:

 

Unfortunately, invalidation of a model, especially when it is the standard model, is seen as retreating, a renunciation, a withdrawal not dignified of mankind, as if it was dignified of man to follow-the-leader into obscurity, to tread inextricably in muddy waters, to drown in something he doesn’t understand (e.g., DE and CDM) and will never understand.

 

A plain pattern has emerged. There are without doubt enormous volumes of spurious publications whose lovely hieroglyphic inscriptions remain undeciphered, and whose meanings are doused in confusion. It is when looking into these multifarious pictorial cryptograms and murky metaphors through the muddy waters with prolonged reflection that the systematic errors invariably ascend to the surface effortlessly. With forethought it sounds almost easy.

 

An exit option appears on the horizon. While the situation is encouraging, it is still highly superfluid. From 1998 on, the numerous inflationary models are in dry dock with busted propellers, though many astronomers still shy away from using the symbol “[math]{\Lambda}[/math]” at all, others have brought it back. Every time someone tried to ditch it for some reason it would show up again, in some equation, in some theory, on some internet science fora. It was the old mud-hole dilemma: the water runs out of the mud-hole when you step into it, but once you’re out of the mud-hole the water flows right back in it. That’s what happened in 1998 with the supernovae Type Ia observations.

 

 

Before the 1998 SNe Ia data (i.e., before DE and CDM ruled the universe), modern cosmology had already begun taking on water. Since then, modern cosmology has capsized.

 

 

That is why it is important to look at alternatives seriously, particularly when they pass empirical testing; and especially when they are less tenuous than the nonrepresentational portrait painted by modern cosmology, more scrutable, capable of being understood by careful observation, examination, or study.

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

 

 

Coldcreation said

 

That is why it is important to look at alternatives seriously, particularly when they pass empirical testing; and especially when they are less tenuous than the nonrepresentational portrait painted by modern cosmology, more scrutable, capable of being understood by careful observation, examination, or study.

 

You hit the nail on the head.

 

One of my Mentors encouraged me to read some papers on star formation by jets to get some understanding. He said its only a few papers, read the lot and I will see you in 4 weeks.

 

This is the link

 

arXiv.org Search

 

Here are some of the links

 

[astro-ph/0512351] Multi-Generational Star Formation in L1551

Multi-Generational Star Formation in L1551

 

Authors: Gerald H. Moriarty-Schieven (1,2), Doug Johnstone (1,3), John Bally (4), Tim Jenness (2) ((1) National Research Council of Canada, (2) Joint Astronomy Centre, (3) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, (4) Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado)

(Submitted on 13 Dec 2005)

 

Abstract: The L1551 molecular cloud contains two small clusters of Class 0 and I protostars, as well as a halo of more evolved Class II and III YSOs, indicating a current and at least one past burst of star formation. We present here new, sensitive maps of 850 and 450 um dust emission covering most of the L1551 cloud, new CO J=2-1 data of the molecular cloud, and a new, deep, optical image of [sII] emission. No new Class 0/I YSOs were detected. Compact sub-millimetre emitters are concentrated in two sub-clusters: IRS5 and L1551NE, and the HL~Tauri group. Both stellar groups show significant extended emission and outflow/jet activity. A jet, terminating at HH 265 and with a very weak associated molecular outflow, may originate from LkHa 358, or from a binary companion to another member of the HL Tauri group. Several Herbig Haro objects associated with IRS5/NE were clearly detected in the sub-mm, as were faint ridges of emission tracing outflow cavity walls. We confirm a large-scale molecular outflow originating from NE parallel to that from IRS5, and suggest that the "hollow shell" morphology is more likely due to two interacting outflows. We confirm the presence of a prestellar core (L1551-MC) of mass 2-3 Mo north-west of IRS5. The next generation cluster may be forming in this core. The L1551 cloud appears cometary in morphology, and appears to be illuminated and eroded from the direction of Orion, perhaps explaining the multiple episodes of star formation in this cloud. The full paper (including figures) can be downloaded at this http URL, or viewed at this http URL

http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~gms/l1551/l1551-apj641.pdf

Multi-Generational Star Formation in L1551

 

 

and

 

[astro-ph/0506024] Massive Star Outflows

Massive Star Outflows

 

Authors: D.S. Shepherd (NRAO)

(Submitted on 1 Jun 2005)

 

Abstract: Molecular outflows in the form of wide-angle winds and/or well-collimated jets are associated with young stellar objects of all luminosities. Independent studies have established that the mass outflow rate is proportional to L_bol^0.6 for L_bol = 0.3 to 10^5 L_sun, suggesting that there is a strong link between accretion and outflow for a wide range of source luminosity and there is reasonable evidence that accretion-related processes are responsible for generating massive molecular flows from protostars up to spectral type B0. Beyond L_bol ~ 10^4 L_sun, O stars generate powerful wide-angle, ionized winds that can dramatically affect outflow morphology and even call into question the relationship between outflow and accretion.

Recently Beuther & Shepherd (2005) proposed an evolutionary scenario in which massive protostellar flows (up to early B spectral type) begin collimated. Once the star reaches the Main Sequence, ionizing radiation may affect the balance between magnetic and plasma pressure, inducing changes in the flow morphology and energetics. Here I review the properties of outflows from young OB stars, discuss implications and observational tests of this proposed evolutionary scenario, and examine differences between low-mass and massive star formation.

 

 

This process maybe the key to the workings of star formation and galaxy evolution. THis may explain the origins of the parts within the universe and not the universe itself.

 

Although reading some of the papers, some scientists first assume that the BBT is correct than proceed to fit the data.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

People keep on asking me why I do not agree with the BBT. Simple, I cannot accept the evidence supporting while it is disputed by some, although main stream agrees with the BBT.

 

I came across this link, and thought maybe of interest to some.

 

 

The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe

The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe

 

Abstract

 

The present paper outlines a cosmological paradigm based upon Dirac’s large number hypothesis and continual creation of matter in a closed static (nonexpanding) universe. The cosmological redshift is caused by the tired-light phenomenon originally proposed by Zwicky. It is shown that the tired-light cosmology together with continual matter creation has a universal Hubble constant H 0=(512π 2/3)1/6(GC 0)1/3 fixed by the universal rate C 0 of matter creation, where G is Newton’s gravitational constant. It is also shown that a closed static universe has a finite age τ 0=(243π 5/8GC 0)1/3 also fixed by the universal rate of matter creation. The invariant relationship H 0 τ 0=3π 261/2 shows that a closed static universe is much older (≈one trillion years) than any expanding universe model based upon Big-Bang cosmology. It is this property of a static universe that resolves any cosmic age crisis provided that galaxy formation in the universe is a continual recurring process. Application of Dirac’s large number hypothesis gives a matter creation rate C 0=4.6×10‑48 gm cm‑3 s‑1 depending only on the fundamental constants of nature. Hence, the model shows that a closed static universe has a Hubble constant H 0=70 km s‑1 Mpc‑1 in good agreement with recent astronomical determinations of H 0. By using the above numerical value for H 0 together with observational data for elongated cellular-wall structures containing superclusters of galaxies, it is shown that the elongated cellular-wall configurations observed in the real universe are at least one hundred billion years old. Application of the microscopic laws of physics to the large-scale macroscopic universe leads to a static eternal cosmos endowed with a matter-antimatter symmetry. It is proposed that the matter-antimatter asymmetry is continuously created by particle-antiparticle pair annihilation occurring in episodic cosmological gamma-ray bursts observed in the real universe.

[buddyzen]

well the big bang in my opinion is a well thought of theory that is probably accurate or somewhat accurate and pluss WOOO FOR LHC it might be able to prove the big bang theory i really hope so atleast

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

 

Buddyzen said

 

well the big bang in my opinion is a well thought of theory that is probably accurate or somewhat accurate and pluss WOOO FOR LHC it might be able to prove the big bang theory i really hope so atleast

 

How would it prove the BBT?

 

If they prove the basic atomic particles exist. Than it opens doors to understanding many issues, particularly the formation maybe of compacted matter.

[buddyzen]

they are suppose to make a mini recration of the big bang to prove that it was possible on a smaller scale that is one of the many things they are going to do with LHC if it does not work we are only 1 step closer

[Pluto]

G'day Buddyzen

 

You said

 

they are suppose to make a mini recration of the big bang to prove that it was possible on a smaller scale that is one of the many things they are going to do with LHC if it does not work we are only 1 step closer

 

 

How can you create or mimic something that is very theoretical. Unless you assume what it is an than fit the data?

 

Its amazing how some information fits the theory regardless if it fits or not.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

 

The Future US Cosmology Program

The Future US Cosmology Program

Bernstein,*Gary

American Physical Society, 2008 APS April Meeting and HEDP/HEDLA Meeting, April 11-15, 2008, abstract #S2.003

 

 

Abstract:

There is now a standard cosmological theory that is consistent with all extant data, including for the first time cosmological measurements of very high accuracy. The ``concordance model,'' however, contains three elements with weak theoretical motivation and no laboratory verification: a dark matter particle, a non-zero cosmological constant, and a field to drive inflation. Where do we go from here? I will describe observational opportunities that exist in several areas:

(1) Testing General Relativity on large scales, where it underlies the concordance model;

(2) Detecting signals that originate during cosmological epochs that are presently unobserved: gravity waves from the early Universe, and 21-cm signals from redshifts 6--50;

(3) High-precision measures of the expansion and matter-clustering history of the Universe, to gain further information on the ``dark'' phenomena;

(4) More detailed understanding of the paradigm that galaxies form by collapse of baryons into dark-matter potential wells. I will describe US facilities proposed to exploit these observational opportunities.

 

Sounds like good research.

[Pluto]

G'day from th eland of ozzzzzz

 

I was just thinking aloud, and could not keep this thought from my mind.

 

Black holes not only suchk in matter but also put out.

 

Than I stated reading Steven Hawking works. I see that he keeps on changing his understanding of the workings of black holes.

 

This is a key issue in recycling and maybe the end to the Big Bang theory.

 

Hawking cracks black hole paradox

14/07/2004 19:00

Hawking cracks black hole paradox - 14 July 2004 - New Scientist

 

 

Quote:

After nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole destroys everything that falls into it, Stephen Hawking is saying he was wrong. It seems that black holes may after all allow information within them to escape. Hawking will present his latest finding at a conference in Ireland next week.

 

Hawking concedes black hole bet

21/07/2004 19:26

Article Error - New Scientist

 

Black holes turned 'inside out'

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Black holes turned 'inside out'

 

Quote:

Stephen Hawking has put forward a new theory that changes the way scientists view black holes, saying he was wrong about them in the past.

 

 

Stephen Hawking, Black

Holes And Alex Collier

Stephen Hawking, Black Holes And Alex Collier

 

Quote:

In his lecture he says that the Andromedans told him that: "Everything in our universe, including us, came from a black hole."

 

 

Hawking Loses Bet; Changes Mind on Black Holes

Hawking Loses Bet; Changes Mind on Black Holes

 

Quote:

"I've been thinking about this problem for the last 30 years, and I think I now have the answer to it," Hawking told the British Broadcasting Corp.'s "Newsnight" program.

 

"A black hole only appears to form but later opens up and releases information about what fell inside. So we can be sure of the past and predict the future."

 

 

Stephen Hawkins revises his opinion about black holes.

Stephen Hawkins revises his opinion about black holes by Ajoy Roy

 

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

 

 

Cosmology in the last 8 years has opened the doors to greater understanding and with great respect to Steven Hawkings and other great scientists new understanding have evolved.

[maddog]

Pluto,

 

This turnabout by Hawking in 2004 does not deflate nor kill the Big Bang

Theory (BBG). Yes Hawking did an about face, had to pay the professor

from Caltech (Berkenstein I think) a baseball encyclopedia for his error.

It turns out a Black Hole can yield information through the event horizon

(temperature), thereby solving the Hawking paradox.

 

This has nothing to do with the initial creation.

 

maddog

[maddog]

Pluto,

 

Buddyzen (I think) is referring to how LHC can help to verify the Big Bang in

this way -- by recreating a quark plasma. This would have been in the very

early period of the history of the universe before actual baryons formed like

protons, neutrons and mesons from the their quark constituents. Actually,

this has already been demonstrated by Brookhaven where they collided two

beams of Gold ions together to attain a brief quark plasma. So all CERN will

have to do is verify the effect. Initial tests will only be doing proton beams

though at much higher energy (multiple Tev). Another product of the

collision might be are mini-black holes that then radiate away. This was not

well determined by Brookhaven.

 

You do not have to recreate the hole universe to verify the effect. You just

have to demonstrate how at high enough energy quarks can disassociate

to overcome gluons binding energy. If they can verify at Tev energy scales

that a quark plasma can form, that is enough.

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day maddog

 

You said

 

You do not have to recreate the hole universe to verify the effect. You just

have to demonstrate how at high enough energy quarks can disassociate

to overcome gluons binding energy. If they can verify at Tev energy scales

that a quark plasma can form, that is enough.

 

Enough for what?

 

It just gives us evidence that may confirm a recycling process.

 

As for the previous post. If we solve the problem with black holes that they are unable to eject matter. Than we can research into the recyling process without the need for the BBT or expansion or dark matter and so on.

 

I have no love for any theory. I just want to understand what the heck is going on, without the influence of BB people restricting the information flow.

 

If the BBT is correct, well an good.

[maddog]

Enough for what?

Enough to validate plausability for early universe.

 

It just gives us evidence that may confirm a recycling process.

My comment does nothing of the kind. In any case "recycling"

presupposes a "before" for the Big Bang. The Big Bang has no "before",

at least within the same universe or model.

 

If we solve the problem with black holes that they are unable to eject matter.

All current Black Holes models (rotating singularities) have light able to be

ejected out the poles. Light is in the form of X-Rays and Gamma Rays,

 

Than we can research into the recyling process without the need for the BBT or expansion or dark matter and so on.

No need.

 

:eek: :D

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

 

We know what mainstream thinks.

 

You say "NO NEED"

 

This limits research to explain the workings of star formation and galaxy evolution where we do have a cyclic process. Matter been sucked in and ejected and reforming not only matter but reforming stars and galaxies.

 

You can always read up on star formation and the varies stages.

 

Also galaxy evolution and the dependence on the size and mass of the black hole determing the form and structure of the galaxy

 

use the search in arXiv and ADS for cyclic universe.

 

 

SPACE.com -- In New Theory of Universe, Time Never Ends

In New Theory of Universe, Time Never Ends

 

 

NO SECRETS: Scientific American

A Recycled Universe

 

 

Edge: THE CYCLIC UNIVERSE

THE CYCLIC UNIVERSE: PAUL STEINHARDT [11.21.02]

 

 

 

"The cyclic universe model is a simple mechanism for solving the cosmological constant problem" - Scitizen

"The cyclic universe model is a simple mechanism for solving the cosmological constant problem"

 

 

The search for a single theory of everything has led scientists to propose a surprising, new and non-intuitive description of our Universe. Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog have just proposed a model based on the no-boundary hypothesis, in which the Universe is a closed surface and has no beginning in time [1]. Before the summer break, we interviewed Paul Steinhardt, physicist at the Department of Physics at Princeton University, USA, and co-author of a report published in Science in which he shows that the small and positive value of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy, can be understood within a cyclic Universe model [2].

 

 

 

 

CYCLIC UNIVERSE

Cyclic Universe

 

[361] "Turnaround in Cyclic Cosmology" by L. Baum and P.H. Frampton.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 071301 (2007). hep-th/0610213.

[365]"Entropy of Contracting Universe in Cyclic Cosmology" by L. Baum and P.H. Frampton.

hep-th/0703162.

[367]"Cyclic Universe and Infinite Past" by P.H. Frampton. arXiv:0705.2730.

 

 

 

http://www.ias.ac.in/jaa/junsep2007/JAA521.pdf

J. Astrophys. Astr. (2007) 28, 67–99

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Jayant V. Narlikar1,∗, Geoffrey Burbidge2 & R. G. Vishwakarma3

 

 

The Cyclic Universe by WARDELL LINDSAY (Book) in Medicine & Science

 

 

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

 

 

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

 

For many years we have had a restriction because of main stream thinking.

The idea was that we had a standard model, why do other research.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

I like to share this link, to me in my opinion is a door way to explaining how matter can recycle via black holes.

 

[gr-qc/0510083] Production and decay of evolving horizons

Production and decay of evolving horizons

 

Authors: Alex B. Nielsen (University of Canterbury), Matt Visser (Victoria University of Wellington)

(Submitted on 18 Oct 2005 (v1), last revised 27 Jun 2006 (this version, v3))

 

Abstract: We consider a simple physical model for an evolving horizon that is strongly interacting with its environment, exchanging arbitrarily large quantities of matter with its environment in the form of both infalling material and outgoing Hawking radiation. We permit fluxes of both lightlike and timelike particles to cross the horizon, and ask how the horizon grows and shrinks in response to such flows. We place a premium on providing a clear and straightforward exposition with simple formulae.

To be able to handle such a highly dynamical situation in a simple manner we make one significant physical restriction, that of spherical symmetry, and two technical mathematical restrictions: (1) We choose to slice the spacetime in such a way that the space-time foliations (and hence the horizons) are always spherically symmetric. (2) Furthermore we adopt Painleve-Gullstrand coordinates (which are well suited to the problem because they are nonsingular at the horizon) in order to simplify the relevant calculations.

We find particularly simple forms for surface gravity, and for the first and second law of black hole thermodynamics, in this general evolving horizon situation. Furthermore we relate our results to Hawking's apparent horizon, Ashtekar et al's isolated and dynamical horizons, and Hayward's trapping horizons. The evolving black hole model discussed here will be of interest, both from an astrophysical viewpoint in terms of discussing growing black holes, and from a purely theoretical viewpoint in discussing black hole evaporation via Hawking radiation.

 

 

Some of you have responded to some of the links above via my private email. Thats ok, but I prefer if you responded here even though your opinion may not be main stream.

Some of the moderators will pull you up if your go into the deep end.

 

 

Slowly slowly I'm starting to understand the workings of the universe.

[maddog]

We know what mainstream thinks.

You say "NO NEED"

I said that to your earlier comment -->

Than we can research into the recyling process without the need for the BBT or expansion or dark matter and so on.

There is "no need" of research as Big Bang is the prevailing theory.

Your article by Narlikar, Burbidge, etc is interesting yet is based upon earlier

work of Hoyle which is a Steady State Model. I respect their opinion, just

don't agree based upon what evidence I am aware. So do most other

Cosmologists that are in the field.

 

This limits research to explain the workings of star formation and galaxy evolution where we do have a cyclic process. Matter been sucked in and ejected and reforming not only matter but reforming stars and galaxies.

Maybe I was mistaken I thought the "recycling" you were referring to was

on a universal scale not Galactic or Stellar. I admit to not always staying up

with the most recent reserch.

 

You can always read up on star formation and the varies stages.

I graduated from Purdue in Physics (BS), though my original major Astrophysics at IU.

 

For many years we have had a restriction because of main stream thinking.

The idea was that we had a standard model, why do other research.

I wasn't even implying this. It may very well work out that Steady State

may be valid in the end. More evidence lies with Big Bang as far as I am

aware of. Dark Matter has strong implication as well. Take, missing mass,

gravitational lensing issues, etc. Don't take my word -- look up author

Lawrence Krauss of Case Western University. He has a book "Quintessance".

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

 

This may be of interest, If you are interested in reading.

 

Trapping Horizons

arXiv.org Search

 

From the link above I picked some links.

 

[0802.3422] Black Holes without Event Horizons

Black Holes without Event Horizons

 

[astro-ph/0408323] A new proof for non-occurrence of trapped surfaces and information paradox

A new proof for non-occurrence of trapped surfaces and information paradox

 

[gr-qc/0404022] Simulation of gravitational objects in Bose-Einstein condensates

Simulation of gravitational objects in Bose-Einstein condensates

 

[astro-ph/0307438] Do Black Hole Candidates Have Magnetic Moments Instead of Event Horizons?

Do Black Hole Candidates Have Magnetic Moments Instead of Event Horizons?

 

 

[astro-ph/0111421] Does The Principle Of Equivalence Prevent Trapped Surfaces From Being Formed In The General Relativistic Collapse Process?

Does The Principle Of Equivalence Prevent Trapped Surfaces From Being Formed In The General Relativistic Collapse Process?

 

 

[gr-qc/0005119] Modified Black Hole with Polar Jet and Vortex

Modified Black Hole with Polar Jet and Vortex

 

The key issue here is that the core of the black hole can take part in the recyling process.