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

[coldcreation]

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.

 

One can continue modifying a theory, ad infinitium, to make it homogeneous with observations. It never really works though. The fact of the matter is, theories make predictions. When those predictions turn out to be erroneous (as they have been ever since the inception of the BB, that's why inflation was invented) a theory should be discarded or modified. Modifying theories endlessly, however, serves no purpose (unless it is just a little fine tuning) to anyone.

 

That by the way goes for any theory: Arp, QSSC, Segal's Chronometric Cosmology and, too, Cold Creation theory (or coldcreation).

 

Example: Coldcreation makes a very definite prediction. If it turns out otherwise, Coldcreation will be dumped in the trash. I hope the same scientific method would apply to all hypotheses.

 

Here are two opposing views, the BB prediction and CC predictions:

The results should come in soon if they are not already here.

 

BB: There is a region near the visible horizon called the redshift desert (or dark ages) where protostar and protogalaxy formation is soon to come, or has only just begun.

(Heavy metals are to be synthesized during main sequence stellar processes, well after the fusing of helium from young hydrogen-burning stars).

 

CC: Stars and galaxies located on the visible horizon are almost identical to those of the Local Group (the cluster of galaxies including our Milky Way). Certainly matallicity increases with time t, thus, 15 Gyrs ago there were fewer heavy elements (the difference is almost insignificant). Galaxies are therefore well formed, including all catagories, spirals, barred spirals, bar galaxies etc. (some of which take several Gyrs to form), with high metallicity from stellar fusion, white dwarfs and supernovea that have spread debrie into interstellar and intergalactic space. Both should be detectable.

 

Note that there is galactic formation locally, viz the Magellan Clouds, so there will be galaxy formation at great distance too. The key is to look for old, metal rich objects that can be used as clocks (some have been located already). If we find a galaxy that is 10 Gyrs old and is 10 Gyrs away, then the universe is at least 20 Gyrs old.

 

My own feeling is that the universe has no age. Galaxies at great distances should have old globular clusters with stellar elements that are 18 to 20 Gyrs old, just as the Milky Way does.

 

More to come, i.e., other prediction for coroboration, soon.

 

Gotta run.......

[Harry Costas]

Hello Coldcreation

 

My own feeling is that the universe has no age. Galaxies at great distances should have old globular clusters with stellar elements that are 18 to 20 Gyrs old, just as the Milky Way does

 

I agree with that.

 

Some of those giant super clusters would take over 100 Gyrs to form. If not more.

 

The BB people somehow are in the mind set that the universe is 13.7 Gyrs.

[coldcreation]

Hello Coldcreation

 

I agree with that.

 

Some of those giant super clusters would take over 100 Gyrs to form. If not more.

 

The BB people somehow are in the mind set that the universe is 13.7 Gyrs.

 

Very true. According to my calculations, the observed superstructures along with the light and heavy metal abundances (too observed) would take anywhere from 250 to 600Gyrs to form.

 

Note that this hypothesis exclude the creation of elements and their isotopes primordially. That is there was no bang a very short time ago from which would sprouted the right quantities of material. The universe evolves like most things, very slowly.

 

We have stars in our own Milky Way that are older than 15Gyrs. In fact some of the ages older stellar components of globular cluster toward the center of the Galaxy were, a while back, estimated between 15 and 18Gyrs (probably an under estimation, the true figure should be around 20 to 25Gyr, possibly much more, say between 25 and 35Gyrs).

 

Even the lower estimate of 15Gyrs blows away the modern cosmology version of universal evolution, with its young age of 13.7.

 

Note also that the 1998 observation of the SNla to determine the rate of expansion placed the age of the universe at around 12Gyrs.

 

Several parameters had to be severely tweaked in order to make sure the universe was older than some of its components: notably, non-baryonic dark matter (supposedly composed of something unobservable, not electron, protons or neutrons) and the infamous dark energy (the combined total; 96% or so of the total mass-energy density of the universe).

 

Mainstream science has invented something more ponderous that itself.

 

CC

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

 

Well coldcreation,,,,,,,,,,,,,I agree with you.

 

Good to see people with a level head.

 

As for the total mass of the universe,,,,,,,,,,its endless.

 

So! tell me more.

 

What do you think of Plasma?

[coldcreation]

Hello All

 

 

Well coldcreation,,,,,,,,,,,,,I agree with you.

 

Good to see people with a level head.

 

As for the total mass of the universe,,,,,,,,,,its endless.

 

So! tell me more.

 

What do you think of Plasma?

 

The mass-energy density of the universe is obviously unknown. What can be measured to some extent is that figure with regards to the visible universe. Beyond that, one has to know the history of the universe (which depends on the model). Certainly according to the mainstream, that figure is very low (with or without 'dark' stuff) because the universe is not much larger than what is observed at the present time.

 

Interestingly Quasi-steady state cosmology QSSC has an infinite universe with galaxies streching as far as one can ponder, then some. There was no first galaxy from what I understand.

 

Plasma is cool. But I would image that gravity is the long-range force that determines how the universe evolves on the large-scale. That is not the case in plasma cosmology. Locally, within our Local Group, it certainly is gravity that controls structures like the galaxy cluster, galaxies, planetary systems, so why not the rest of the universe. If I recall, electromagnetism is the main factor in plasma theory.

 

I do believe the universe is infinite in spatiotemporal extent.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Coldcreation

 

you said

 

Plasma is cool. But I would image that gravity is the long-range force that determines how the universe evolves on the large-scale. That is not the case in plasma cosmology. Locally, within our Local Group, it certainly is gravity that controls structures like the galaxy cluster, galaxies, planetary systems, so why not the rest of the universe. If I recall, electromagnetism is the main factor in plasma theory.

 

Get to know more on plasma.

DownloadPapers

 

Plasma Cosmology

 

Plasma Physics and Astrophysics Research Papers and Proposals

 

 

Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies

Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies

 

THE PLASMA UNIVERSE—THEORY AND BACKGROUND

TPU Intro

 

Extragalactic Astronomy

Centre for Interdisciplinary Plasma Science

 

 

Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster

ESA Science & Technology: Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster

 

30-Jun-06

The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning

News and Views From The Electric Universe

 

 

Most of the universe is plasma in one form or another. Plasma is the way to go in understanding the universe. This does not mean you do not consider gravity and electromagnetic forces.

 

So many people missunderstand what plasma is. Its not just an ion gas composite.

[coldcreation]

Hello Coldcreation

 

you said

 

 

 

Get to know more on plasma.

DownloadPapers

 

Plasma Cosmology

 

Plasma Physics and Astrophysics Research Papers and Proposals

 

 

Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies

Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies

 

THE PLASMA UNIVERSE—THEORY AND BACKGROUND

TPU Intro

 

Extragalactic Astronomy

Centre for Interdisciplinary Plasma Science

 

 

Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster

ESA Science & Technology: Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster

 

30-Jun-06

The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning

News and Views From The Electric Universe

 

 

Most of the universe is plasma in one form or another. Plasma is the way to go in understanding the universe. This does not mean you do not consider gravity and electromagnetic forces.

 

So many people missunderstand what plasma is. Its not just an ion gas composite.

 

Ok, I'll check out these links, eventually.

I did read intentively, "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner and studied some of Hannes Alfvén's papers.

 

Correct me If I'm mistaken, it's been a couple years since I went over this material: According to plasma cosmology the universe is governed on the large-scale not by gravitation according general relativity as Einstein described, but by electromagnetic forces.

 

If that is the case then it is difficult to see how plasma cosmology, at least in its current form, can explain evolution of the large-scale structures (vis the universe in its entirety) when clearly electromagnetism is a short range force.

 

CC

 

CC

[Harry Costas]

Hello Coldcreation

 

 

Keep on reading you will find the answer to your question.

 

Gravity and electromanetic forces are both important.

 

The formation of ultra dense plasma matter is one of the most important steps in the recycling process.

 

Its amazing how the atome breaks down to nuetrons to quarks to preon particals and in so doing increases the density accordingly.

 

Giant stars sometimes go supernova creating a very dence matter that follows the neutrons to quarks to preon process. These particals create electromagnetic convectional currents that are able to create jets so powerful they eject material out from these ultra dense plasma matter either a neutron star or a so called black hole.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Have a look at these

 

The Universe: Cosmology Quest

Universe - the cosmology quest 1 of 2 - Google Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=145881599911703060 (part 1)

Universe - the cosmology quest 2 of 2 - Google Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=584573302505202765 (part 2)

The pleasure of finding things out - RP Feynman - Google Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009

The pleasure of finding things out - RP Feynman - Google Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009

 

Very, very interesting

[coldcreation]

Hello Coldcreation

 

Get to know more on plasma.

DownloadPapers

 

Plasma Cosmology

 

Plasma Physics and Astrophysics Research Papers and Proposals

 

Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies

Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies

 

THE PLASMA UNIVERSE—THEORY AND BACKGROUND

TPU Intro

 

Extragalactic Astronomy

Centre for Interdisciplinary Plasma Science

 

 

Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster

ESA Science & Technology: Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster

 

30-Jun-06

The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning

News and Views From The Electric Universe

 

 

Most of the universe is plasma in one form or another. Plasma is the way to go in understanding the universe. This does not mean you do not consider gravity and electromagnetic forces.

 

So many people missunderstand what plasma is. Its not just an ion gas composite.

 

For the next few days I will be looking into these links, in addition the the one you posted in a new thread. For some reason, these look more interesting.

 

More very soon.

 

Thanks for these links HC.

 

CC

[InfiniteNow]

More very soon.

 

Thanks for these links HC.

 

CC

ColdC,

 

I too look forward to the thoughts you intend to share here as a result of viewing the information in the links submitted by HC. While I commend Harry's enthusiasm, I very often struggle with the manner in which he presents information and the assumptions which are made. Perhaps you will do better generating interest in a topic so derserving of it.

 

 

Cheers. :)

[coldcreation]

ColdC,

 

I too look forward to the thoughts you intend to share here as a result of viewing the information in the links submitted by HC. While I commend Harry's enthusiasm, I very often struggle with the manner in which he presents information and the assumptions which are made. Perhaps you will do better generating interest in a topic so derserving of it.

 

Cheers. :D

 

OK, I think, if we are to have advance on the subject, we should begin with this paper: Magnitude-Redshift Relation for SNe Ia, Time Dilation, and Plasma Redshift, and its reference number 7.

[InfiniteNow]

The paper speaks to the issue of a redshift intrinsic to the galaxy itself, even when corrected for coronal glare, and that using data from multiple studies it appears that cosmological time delation is false, hence, so is the contemporary BB model. What do you mean by "its reference number 7?" :D

 

I noticed also they look at type 1a supernovae (SN Ia) for study. Is this due to type 1b and c, and type 2 being brighter, hence it's more difficult to study/interpret the light curve? I haven't read too many papers on astrophysics, so it may take me a few minutes to pick up the lingo and background.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Re:

 

Magnitude-Redshift Relation for SNe Ia, Time Dilation, and

Plasma Redshift

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0602/0602500.pdf

 

As per the quote

 

4 Conclusions and discussions

The very best data by the supernova researchers are consistent with the magnitude-redshift relations

predicted by the plasma redshift. The data indicate that there is no time dilation; that is, the data

indicate that the contemporary big-bang hypothesis is false.

In Figs. 1, 2, and 3 it is assumed that each galaxy has an intrinsic redshift of about z = 0.000925,

which was derived independently from the density determination in the Galactic corona. [7] Fig. 1 to

3 are consistent with these intrinsic redshift estimates. Fig. 4 indicates that Eq. (1), which eliminates

the time dilation from the magnitude determination, is a good approximation.

The 10 high-redshift supernovae with excessive deviation from the theoretical curve are listed

in Table 2. These 10 supernovae are all at high Galactic latitudes, 9 have positive and 1 negative

deviations. This suggests that a large positive deviation is due to an underestimate of the absorption

in the neutral gas of host galaxy. Fig. 2 shows that when we exclude these supernovae, both the

low and high-redshift supernovae are close to the theoretical curve for plasma redshift. The Hubble

constant derived from the best fit to the remaining 107 supernovae is H0 = 63.2 kms−1Mpc−1.

The overall standard deviation in the magnitude m−M of a single SNIa is only = 0.14.

Using exact calculations, plasma redshift follows from conventional axioms of physics. [7] From

H0 = 63.2, we derive an average electron density of (Ne)av = H0/(3.076 · 105) = 2.05 · 10−4 cm−3 in

intergalactic space (see Eq. (49) in [7]). The energy loss of photons in the plasma redshift is absorbed

in the plasma. The corresponding heating leads to an average plasma temperature of about 3 million

K in intergalactic space. [7] These densities and temperatures of the intergalactic plasma explain

the isotropic CMB and the X-ray background, as shown in sections 5.10 and 5.11 in reference [7].

The plasma redshift cosmology thus gives a coherent prediction of the observations.

 

More evidence for galactic "shells" or "something else"

More evidence for galactic "shells" or "something else"

 

Measurements of periodic red-shift bunching appeared in the literature at least as far back as 1977 in the work of W.G. Tifft. The implications of this phenomenon are apparently too terrible to contemplate, for astrophysicists have not taken up the challenge. They may be forced to take the phenomenon more seriously, because two new reports of redshift bunching have surfaced.

 

First, B. Guthrie and W, Napier, at Edinburgh's Royal Observatory, have checked Tifft's "bunching" claim using accurately known red shifts of some nearby galaxies. They found a periodicity of 37.5 kilometers/second -- no matter in which direction the galaxies lay.

 

(Gribbin, John; "'Bunched' Red Shifts Question Cosmology," New Scientist, p. 10, December 21/28, 1991.) The work of Guthrie and Napier is elaborated upon in the next item.

 

Sec ond, B. Koo and R. Krone, at the University of Chicago, using optical red-shift measurements, discovered that, in one direction at least, "the clusters of galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars, seemed to be concentrated in evenly spaced layers."

 

(Browne, Malcolm W.; "In Chile, GalaxyWatching Robot Seeks Measure of Universe," New York Times, December 17, 1991. Cr. P. Gunkel.)

 

Comment. Explanations for the unexpected bunching vary and are highly controversial:

 

 

There are systematic defects in the radiotelescopes and/or the observational techniques. But, as just reported by Koo and Krone, the phenomenon is also seen with optical instruments.

 

The red shifts are not entirely due to the Doppler Effect and the recessional velocities of galaxies. If this is so, the dimensions and age of the universe would have to be revised.

 

The red-shift bunching occurs because some galaxies are arranged in shells surrounding the earth. To some, this would be philosophically disastrous, because it would place humanity in a favored spot in the cosmos.

 

My question, is

 

Why has the Big Bang remained as the standard model without strong foundations?

 

Noramally a building with weak foundations falls. Unless it is propped up.

 

So what is propping up the Big Bang Theory?

and

 

Why the propping?

[InfiniteNow]

Why has the Big Bang remained as the standard model without strong foundations?

 

Noramally a building with weak foundations falls. Unless it is propped up.

 

So what is propping up the Big Bang Theory?

This is pure speculation, Harry, please bear that in mind, but I suggest the issue is two-fold. 1) Support for counter positions, while slowly showing signs of increase, are lacking in enough magnitude and consistency to change perspectives of those who have seen BBT as the best available theory for years, and 2) BBT explains a whole host of other phenomena which all, thus far, proposed counter theories cannot.

 

In other words, the indications that the theory is broke are too weak to stir the general researcher to fix it.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Infinitenow

Thank you

 

You said

 

This is pure speculation, Harry, please bear that in mind, but I suggest the issue is two-fold. 1) Support for counter positions, while slowly showing signs of increase, are lacking in enough magnitude and consistency to change perspectives of those who have seen BBT as the best available theory for years, and 2) BBT explains a whole host of other phenomena which all, thus far, proposed counter theories cannot.

 

I do not agree.

 

The BBT has failed in every aspect.

 

Better still why even use a model.

 

Work off obseravtions and scientific "what ever".

How stars form

How novas form

How supernovas form

and so on

Work out the parts and put them together into a model that works.

[coldcreation]

The paper speaks to the issue of a redshift intrinsic to the galaxy itself, even when corrected for coronal glare, and that using data from multiple studies it appears that cosmological time delation is false, hence, so is the contemporary BB model. What do you mean by "its reference number 7?" :D

 

I noticed also they look at type 1a supernovae (SN Ia) for study. Is this due to type 1b and c, and type 2 being brighter, hence it's more difficult to study/interpret the light curve? I haven't read too many papers on astrophysics, so it may take me a few minutes to pick up the lingo and background.

Reference number 7 in the above link (Magnitude-Redshift Relation for SNe Ia, Time Dilation, and Plasma Redshift) is found here.

 

Supernovae Type Ia (SNe Ia) are considered 'standard candles' for a variety of tenable reasons.

 

BTW, it is due to data using HST in the 1990s that has led to a supposed acceleration of expansion. Have you heard of that? If so, note that there are other interpretations for the deviations from the Hubble flow observed in the SNe Ia spectra and light curves. (That was the short story.)

 

CC