Big Bang Blasted

[CraigD]

However, we know that galaxies and stars 'recycle'.

This claim appears central to Mike’s proposed “recycling universe” steady-state model. As I understand the argument, it can be summarized as the following:

• Low atomic number elements (mostly hydrogen) are transmuted into heavier ones (“helium and beyond”) via fusion in stars
  
• Heavy elements “automatically decay back into the original components of hydrogen and helium”
  
• This “recycled” H and He is available for new star formation, allowing the fusion/”automatic decay” cycle to repeat.
  

(Source: Mike C’s post #105 in “Photons have no time”)

 

The first of these claims is well supported by theory and experiment (the successful construction and explosion of hydrogen fusion bombs being a dramatic example).

 

The second, however, is not. I’m aware of no rigorously presented theory predicting that even one atom of any element with atomic number less than that of thallium, 81, decays into a lower atomic mass element in a time period even billions of times greater than that of the longest-lived stars, nor of even one experimental observation of such a decay event. (This is essentially the same response I made to this claim in this post.)

 

With no sound theoretical basis or experimental evidence for a process that the model requires nearly all matter in the universe to undergo, I’m forced to reject the proposed “recycling universe” model. :D

 

While a cosmological model of the universe that does not require the universe to have been “weird” in the distant past or future is emotionally very satisfying, without either sound theoretical explanations or empirical observations of fundamental physical processes supporting such a model, it can’t be scientifically accepted. Mike, to support your claims, you must present such theoretical or experimental evidence, not just state that you reject more popular models (such as the big bang) and present commentary on observed data arguably showing disagreement with these models.

 

PS:

You can find the math describing the epoch of recombination (and earlier) here:

 

http://www.astro.uu.se/~nisse/courses/kos2006/lnotes/ln6.pdf

 

Very well presented isn’t it?

Sorry Modest but I do not have Adobe PDF.

For better of worse, the proprietary Portable Document Format is a common standard in online literature in all disciplines. The inability to view it is a severe handicap to scholarship.

 

You may view most PDF files in a form all browsers support, HTML, via any of several free services, typically provided by search engines. For example, entering “http://www.astro.uu.se/~nisse/courses/kos2005/lnotes/ln6.pdf” in the main lookup form at google.com results in this page. Clicking on the “view as HTML” link will show you the document as HTML.

 

However, since such renderings are often imperfect, I strongly recommend you follow this link to install a free copy of Adobe Reader, or have someone responsible for maintaining your computer do so.

[modest]

The second, however, is not. I’m aware of no rigorously presented theory predicting that even one atom of any element with atomic number less than that of thallium, 81, decays into a lower atomic mass element in a time period even billions of times greater than that of the longest-lived stars, nor of even one experimental observation of such a decay event. (This is essentially the same response I made to this claim in this post.)

 

With no sound theoretical basis or experimental evidence for a process that the model requires nearly all matter in the universe to undergo, I’m forced to reject the proposed “recycling universe” model. :D

 

CraigD, I could not agree more. In point of fact, I was writing a similar reply when you posted yours ;)

Given enough time the processes of fission and fusion find an equilibrium incommensurate with our universe today. This is a big problem for stead-state theory. Fred Hoyle (probably the best known steady state theorist) dealt with this problem by postulating that hydrogen pops-up new and fresh in fountains of magical springs all over the universe. Of course, this is ridiculous and the first law of thermodynamics eats it for breakfast.

 

But, this touches on a bigger truth.

 

Over an infinite time scale so many things approach zero or infinity - not just nucleosynthesis. If the universe has no beginning then it is infinitely old and maybe this is a concept that people are drawn to. I don’t know why, the idea is no more appealing to me than any other. But, there are practical problems with this infinite time - like you just described above. I cannot think of a process in our universe that is not problematic (or at least different from what is observed) over an infinite time scale. Life, for instance. What would happen if life had infinite time to evolve and spread from an infinitely long time ago? Certainly, if our galaxy has always been (in a kind of steady-state) then it would be completely populated by very-very-evolved beings by now. I don’t know if life is the best example - but it demonstrates my point.

 

Instead of inventing an infinite number of ways to keep the universe steady and recycling itself - we could just accept that it’s changing.

 

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

CraigD

 

You said

 

The first of these claims is well supported by theory and experiment (the successful construction and explosion of hydrogen fusion bombs being a dramatic example).

 

The second, however, is not. I’m aware of no rigorously presented theory predicting that even one atom of any element with atomic number less than that of thallium, 81, decays into a lower atomic mass element in a time period even billions of times greater than that of the longest-lived stars, nor of even one experimental observation of such a decay event. (This is essentially the same response I made to this claim in this post.)

 

With no sound theoretical basis or experimental evidence for a process that the model requires nearly all matter in the universe to undergo, I’m forced to reject the proposed “recycling universe” model.

 

 

Do not be too quick to put thumbs down.

You are not forced to reject the proposed recycling universe model.

Doing so, is repeating history through the ages.

 

We are at the door steps of explaining many issues in cosmology. Just beacause you are not aware means very little in the science.

 

Read this link

THE SUN’S ORIGIN, COMPOSITION AND SOURCE OF ENERGY. O.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0411/0411255.pdf

 

FIG 2. Solar abundance of the elements is related to

nuclear stability, as suggested by Harkins17 in 1917.

 

 

COMPOSITION OF THE SOLAR INTERIOR:

INFORMATION FROM ISOTOPE RATIOS

 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0410/0410717.pdf

 

 

AN IRON-RICH SUN AND ITS SOURCE OF ENERGY*

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

 

Abstract: 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 elements that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites – Fe, O, Ni,

Si, S, Mg and Ca – elements made in the deep interior of a supernova. Solar energy arises

from a series of nuclear reactions triggered by neutron-emission from the collapsed

supernova core on which the Sun formed. Solar mass-fractionation, solar neutrinos, and an

annual outpouring of 3 x 1043 H atoms in the solar wind are by-products of solar luminosity.

 

The question

 

Why does the sun produce elements from H to Fe and remain stable, while other heavier elements produced do not? During the phase our sun is going through.

 

Why do the heavier elements remian stable during the expansion of the solar envelope and during the supernova.? Red giants

[Mike C]

This claim appears central to Mike’s proposed “recycling universe” steady-state model. As I understand the argument, it can be summarized as the following:

• Low atomic number elements (mostly hydrogen) are transmuted into heavier ones (“helium and beyond”) via fusion in stars
  
• Heavy elements “automatically decay back into the original components of hydrogen and helium”
  
• This “recycled” H and He is available for new star formation, allowing the fusion/”automatic decay” cycle to repeat.
  

(Source: Mike C’s post #105 in “Photons have no time”)

 

The first of these claims is well supported by theory and experiment (the successful construction and explosion of hydrogen fusion bombs being a dramatic example).

 

The second, however, is not. I’m aware of no rigorously presented theory predicting that even one atom of any element with atomic number less than that of thallium, 81, decays into a lower atomic mass element in a time period even billions of times greater than that of the longest-lived stars, nor of even one experimental observation of such a decay event. (This is essentially the same response I made to this claim in this post.)

 

With no sound theoretical basis or experimental evidence for a process that the model requires nearly all matter in the universe to undergo, I’m forced to reject the proposed “recycling universe” model. :cheer:

 

While a cosmological model of the universe that does not require the universe to have been “weird” in the distant past or future is emotionally very satisfying, without either sound theoretical explanations or empirical observations of fundamental physical processes supporting such a model, it can’t be scientifically accepted. Mike, to support your claims, you must present such theoretical or experimental evidence, not just state that you reject more popular models (such as the big bang) and present commentary on observed data arguably showing disagreement with these models.

 

Craig

The heaviest stable element is Bismuth and it is 100% stable.

Uranium 238 is the heaviest with a half-life in the billions of years.

Since U238 is mined under ground, it may have been fused to that heavier weight down deep in the Earth where the temperatures reach millions of degrees and the pressure is very great.

The same thing could happen to Bismuth if it is buried underground.

It is very stable now because it does not react with oxygen or water.

 

However, what you cite here to refute the SSU is very minor compared to the preponderance of evidence that the BBU violates.

You can always find some way to refute eveything.

 

PS:For better of worse, the proprietary Portable Document Format is a common standard in online literature in all disciplines. The inability to view it is a severe handicap to scholarship.

 

You may view most PDF files in a form all browsers support, HTML, via any of several free services, typically provided by search engines. For example, entering “http://www.astro.uu.se/~nisse/courses/kos2005/lnotes/ln6.pdf” in the main lookup form at google.com results in this page. Clicking on the “view as HTML” link will show you the document as HTML.

 

However, since such renderings are often imperfect, I strongly recommend you follow this link to install a free copy of Adobe Reader, or have someone responsible for maintaining your computer do so.

 

I had Adobe in my past computer until it was destroyed by a HACKER.

 

It cost me $40.00 to install the last time to download my astronomy clubs newsletters. Would I be able to use it for that purpose for free?

I also got newsletters from my Michigan Mushroom Hunters Club.

 

These two newsletters have photos in them. So I may have to download Adobe for that same cost.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Instead of inventing an infinite number of ways to keep the universe steady and recycling itself - we could just accept that it’s changing.

 

Modest

The mathematicians are kind of reluctant in accepting this 'infinity' word.

 

However, it does exist. The Laws of Conservation imply 'everlasting life' and I believe in those laws.

 

Mike C

[modest]

Modest

The mathematicians are kind of reluctant in accepting this 'infinity' word.

Mike C

 

Thank you Mike C - in reading my post, you saw that was the very point I was making. :cheer:

 

-modest

[CraigD]

As I understand the [“recycling universe” steady-state model described by Mike C] argument, it can be summarized as the following:

• Low atomic number elements (mostly hydrogen) are transmuted into heavier ones (“helium and beyond”) via fusion in stars
  
• Heavy elements “automatically decay back into the original components of hydrogen and helium”
  
• This “recycled” H and He is available for new star formation, allowing the fusion/”automatic decay” cycle to repeat.
  

(Source: Mike C’s post #105 in “Photons have no time”)

…

I’m aware of no rigorously presented theory predicting that even one atom of any element with atomic number less than that of thallium, 81, decays into a lower atomic mass element in a time period even billions of times greater than that of the longest-lived stars, nor of even one experimental observation of such a decay event. (This is essentially the same response I made to this claim in this post.)

The heaviest stable element is Bismuth and it is 100% stable.

According to several online references I’ve checked, including this wikipedia article, the most abundant isotope of bismuth, [ce]^{209}Bi[/ce], alpha decays into [ce]^{205}Tl[/ce] at a rate given by a half-life of [math](19 \pm 2) \times 10^{18}[/math] years. While that’s not very radioactive, it’s not “100 % stable”. Mike, if you’ve a reference to the contrary, please post it, but I’d be surprised if you do – nuclear chemistry data is fairly well-tested and established stuff.

 

This minutia, however, distracts from the point I’m attempting to make. For the simple recycling model I outlined above to work, the most common heavy (ie: high atomic mass) elements produced in stellar fusion must decay into elements light enough to sustain fusion in new stars – hydrogen and helium, to account for most observed proto and young stars. A common stellar fusion end product is iron, atomic number 26, the most abundant isotope of which is [ce]^{56}Fe[/ce], which is 100% stable. No commonly occurring process can induce [ce]^{56}Fe[/ce] to make the first step in a decay chain ending in [ce]H[/ce] or [ce]He[/ce], so most iron, once formed in stars, will remain the same element until long after the longest-lived stars have stopped fusing.

 

Were new stars somehow able to continue forming indefinitely – for hypothetical example, due to the “magical fountains” of new hydrogen modest attributes to Fred Hoyle in this post – theses stars would contain increasingly large amounts of iron and other stable metals, and unless these hydrogen fountains constantly increased their output, most of the mass of the universe would eventually be in the form of these stable metals, not [ce]H[/ce] and [ce]He[/ce], as we observe.

 

For an indefinitely recycling universe model to work, it must include decay chains ending in [ce]H[/ce] and [ce]He[/ce]. However, such chains have never been observed, and I’ve seen no theory that explains how such a chain could occur, and why if it can, it is not observed under conditions presently available to observers.

 

Until you either find these decay chains (which have somehow been overlooked by every nuclear chemistry experimentalist yet to publish), or produce a theory describing an experiment that can create conditions under which such a chain can occur, the recycling universe model lacks foundations, and can’t be accepted by anyone adhering to the scientific method.

It cost me $40.00 to install [Adobe] the last time to download my astronomy clubs newsletters. Would I be able to use it for that purpose for free?

Yes.

 

The usual link to get Adobe Reader will allow you to download and run an install program for a full-featured version of the reader.

 

Since Adobe likes to make money, the reader (and maybe the installer) will do it’s best to encourage you to purchase software that allows you to create .pdf files, manage music collections, and anything else they’ve figured out how to sell. Ignore any of these ads, and you’ll be able to install reader and use it for free to read .pdf files containing pictures or any other PDF feature. If you find yourself being asked to pay, you’ve followed an ad link – but they’re pretty clearly marked, and shouldn’t be hard to avoid.

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

MikeC said

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Modest

Instead of inventing an infinite number of ways to keep the universe steady and recycling itself - we could just accept that it’s changing.

 

Modest

The mathematicians are kind of reluctant in accepting this 'infinity' word.

 

However, it does exist. The Laws of Conservation imply 'everlasting life' and I believe in those laws.

 

Observations of recycling is the only way to prove the theory. Ad hoc ideas back Fire Big Bang ways.

 

 

CraigD

 

You said

 

This minutia, however, distracts from the point I’m attempting to make. For the simple recycling model I outlined above to work, the most common heavy (ie: high atomic mass) elements produced in stellar fusion must decay into elements light enough to sustain fusion in new stars – hydrogen and helium, to account for most observed proto and young stars. A common stellar fusion end product is iron, atomic number 26, the most abundant isotope of which is , which is 100% stable. No commonly occurring process can induce to make the first step in a decay chain ending in or , so most iron, once formed in stars, will remain the same element until long after the longest-lived stars have stopped fusing.

 

Mate I do not know where you get your facts from.

 

But! Iron can be broken down in fission reactions producing He. Than H Than Neutrons.

 

I'm not pulling your leg on this.

 

This process is the trigger to a supernova.

 

Google for the information.

 

Got to run and pick up the kids.

 

If unable to find the information I will drop a few links later.

[Mike C]

According to several online references I’ve checked, including this wikipedia article, the most abundant isotope of bismuth, [ce]^{209}Bi[/ce], alpha decays into [ce]^{205}Tl[/ce] at a rate given by a half-life of [math](19 pm 2) times 10^{18}[/math] years. While that’s not very radioactive, it’s not “100 % stable”. Mike, if you’ve a reference to the contrary, please post it, but I’d be surprised if you do – nuclear chemistry data is fairly well-tested and established stuff.

 

The reference I used is a book by John Emsley entitled The Elements.

It is the most complete book on elements I have seen.

 

His data for Bismuth is that it is 100% stable except for 6 isotopes with 4 having very short halflifes of minutes/days long while 2 having HL's of 30 to 3 million years.

These isotopes exist in only 'trace' amounts of, no doubt, less than one percent.

 

This minutia, however, distracts from the point I’m attempting to make. For the simple recycling model I outlined above to work, the most common heavy (ie: high atomic mass) elements produced in stellar fusion must decay into elements light enough to sustain fusion in new stars – hydrogen and helium, to account for most observed proto and young stars. A common stellar fusion end product is iron, atomic number 26, the most abundant isotope of which is [ce]^{56}Fe[/ce], which is 100% stable. No commonly occurring process can induce [ce]^{56}Fe[/ce] to make the first step in a decay chain ending in [ce]H[/ce] or [ce]He[/ce], so most iron, once formed in stars, will remain the same element until long after the longest-lived stars have stopped fusing.

 

Were new stars somehow able to continue forming indefinitely – for hypothetical example, due to the “magical fountains” of new hydrogen modest attributes to Fred Hoyle in this post – theses stars would contain increasingly large amounts of iron and other stable metals, and unless these hydrogen fountains constantly increased their output, most of the mass of the universe would eventually be in the form of these stable metals, not [ce]H[/ce] and [ce]He[/ce], as we observe.

 

For an indefinitely recycling universe model to work, it must include decay chains ending in [ce]H[/ce] and [ce]He[/ce]. However, such chains have never been observed, and I’ve seen no theory that explains how such a chain could occur, and why if it can, it is not observed under conditions presently available to observers.

 

Until you either find these decay chains (which have somehow been overlooked by every nuclear chemistry experimentalist yet to publish), or produce a theory describing an experiment that can create conditions under which such a chain can occur, the recycling universe model lacks foundations, and can’t be accepted by anyone adhering to the scientific method.Yes.

 

I am only concerned with the 'big' picture of the Universe.

The newly forming stars and the remains of these stars like the 'neutron' stars.

 

Neutrons do NOT exist in a free state and I beleve the NS's are decaying also.

Evidence?

Gamma Ray Bursters' detected in our atmosphere as 'high velocity' protons.

These protons can only achieve these high velocities by being propelled by the Coulomb repulsion force if knocked loose by collisions in the NS surfaces. IMHO.

 

They number in the billions and upward throughout space because our planet is a very small target. So if our planet is hit by a small number, then you can realize that the surrounding space throughout the universe would have gigantic numbers of them moving in space.

So these, NS's slowly decay to form new hydrogen gases again.

 

I do not see how the element Bismuth can 'build up' into large numbers over the years. Its density is just one half that of platinum and the reason for its numbers is that it does not react with oxygen or water.

 

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello MikeC

 

Research the formation of the elements in stars and the reason why Hydogen up to Fe and Nickle remain stable and other elements heavier are unsatble, and that during the expansion of a star and supernova phase heavier elements form and remain stable.

 

You need to find the answer for your self.

 

A link that may start you off is

 

Oliver Manuel

 

Formation and evolution of the different stages or phases of stars is part of the key that may explain how matter recycles.

[modest]

But! Iron can be broken down in fission reactions producing He. Than H Than Neutrons.

 

I'm not pulling your leg on this.

 

This process is the trigger to a supernova.

 

Google for the information.

 

Got to run and pick up the kids.

 

If unable to find the information I will drop a few links later.

 

 

Are you suggesting that photodisintegration in supernova is responsible for recycling ALL the universe's stable elements back to H and He? Does this mean that the process from nebula - to massive star - to supernova - back to nebula will result in a reduction of heavy elements and a increase in H and He? We would have to ignore the main function of the star and what it’s doing efficiently throughout most of its lifetime: synthesizing heavier and heavier elements. We would also have to ignore SNR spectra data that describe the aftermath of supernovae as iron and heavy-element rich. I don’t think you are suggesting that photodisintegration does all this recycling. So - if supernovae are not the means by which the universe recycles it’s stable and heavy elements like Fe-54, 56, 57 and 58 then what process is there? Whatever process we invent it would have to clean up not only supernova remnants but less-massive star byproducts as well. I think CraigD's point is valid:

 

This minutia, however, distracts from the point I’m attempting to make. For the simple recycling model I outlined above to work, the most common heavy (ie: high atomic mass) elements produced in stellar fusion must decay into elements light enough to sustain fusion in new stars – hydrogen and helium, to account for most observed proto and young stars. A common stellar fusion end product is iron, atomic number 26, the most abundant isotope of which is ^{56}Fe, which is 100% stable. No commonly occurring process can induce ^{56}Fe to make the first step in a decay chain ending in H or He, so most iron, once formed in stars, will remain the same element until long after the longest-lived stars have stopped fusing.

 

There is nothing factually wrong written here ↑

 

And, the concept is (by everything we know and observe) true. Our universe is one big iron-producing-machine. It balls up everything it can - chews on it, and spits out iron. It does not send it’s recyclables back to the recycling plant to be turned back into raw materials. A cosmos that is ∞ years old would be mostly iron. I wrote this back in post 107 and have seen no evidence to the contrary.

 

If you need help convincing yourself that the universe is less than 15 Gyrs try this article:

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Uncovers Oldest "Clocks" in Space to Read Age of Universe (04/24/2002) - Introduction

 

If you are thinking the universe is ∞ years - meditate on this:

any change in an ∞ universe over ∞ years would become ∞ change

 

does light redshift?

it is infinitely redshifted.

do stars die?

the proportion of dead stars to living is infinite

do elements decay?

the amount of radioactive elements is infinitely small

limit to the observable universe?

infinite

thermodynamics?

infinitely cold

etc… etc… etc…

 

any change in an ∞ universe over ∞ years would become ∞ change

 

-modest

[Mike C]

Hello MikeC

 

Research the formation of the elements in stars and the reason why Hydogen up to Fe and Nickle remain stable and other elements heavier are unsatble, and that during the expansion of a star and supernova phase heavier elements form and remain stable.

 

You need to find the answer for your self.

 

I have. as usual, thought of these formations and can cite that the oldest stars in our universe are contained in the Globular Clusters.

The important thing here is that they are 'metal poor' stars. Do they contain iron? I would say NO.

If these stars have gone through the entire evolutionary life of our galaxy, than why aren't they metal rich stars?

 

And about the 'supernovae? These eruptions are being taught that these heavier elements are created in these eruptions.

But the main components of these Supernova's are shown to be iron and its companion cobalt/nickel elements and isotopes.

So, as usual, I think these supernovas are the result of large bodies such as the asteroids or planets impacting into the stars to create these very large eruptions.

 

These elements are the main ones in the asteroids and comets besides the water content in them.

So I think that the heavier elements are created in the centers of the planets such as our Earth.

The central regions are very hot and the pressures are very great to fuse these heavy elements such as iron, lead and etc into still heavier elements.

 

A link that may start you off is

 

Oliver Manuel

 

Formation and evolution of the different stages or phases of stars is part of the key that may explain how matter recycles.

 

That site you posted did not produce any results.

 

Besides, the 'evolution of stars' is beside the topic of the BBU.

I appreciate your help though.

 

Mike C

[coldcreation]

...snip... A cosmos that is ? years old would be mostly iron...

 

This statement is inaccurate. Metallicity depends on the epoch(s) hydrogen first began produccing heavier elements. For example, it had been shown (Hoyle, Burbidge, ApJ, 509:L1L3, 1998 December 10, 1998) that all the light isotopes, D, 3He, 6Li, 7Li, 9Be, 10B, and 11B, were synthesized in processes involving stars over timescales of 100 Gyr.

 

My calculations move that back further to 250-600 Gyr. In other words the observed abundance of not just light elements and their isotopes but, too, the heavy elements is accounted for within the context of an eternal universes where phase transitions lead to the formation of hydrogen burning stars at some epoch, before which stellar nucleosynthesis was not occuring.

 

Note, this concept differs from the recycling model, but does not exclude it. On the other hand, evidence is being gathered that contradicts predictions made by the standard model...

 

If you need help convincing yourself that the universe is less than 15 Gyrs try this article:

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Uncovers Oldest "Clocks" in Space to Read Age of Universe (04/24/2002) - Introduction

 

Recent evidence from Hubble Space telescope (HUDF) shows that extremely distance galaxies are rich in heavy metals, implying they’re already quit old, that the stars contained in these galaxies (at an epoch where the first stars we thought to have originated) have had billions of years, already, to synthesize heavy elements.

 

That should convince anyone (though we may have to wait for JWST observations to persuade the hardcore clerics) that the universe is far older than 13.7 Gyr. I argue that the universe has no age (no birthday).

 

If you are thinking the universe is ? years - meditate on this:

any change in an ? universe over ? years would become ? change

...

 

Infinite change means little (if nothing). Over cosmological timescales change occurs very, very, slowly. There is no incompatibiliy betwen an infinite spatiotemporal universe and the observed abundance of elements, or between the apparent age of objects since the universe has no age.

 

The same cannot be said of a BBU, where the age problem is far from over.

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

My calculations move that back further to 250-600 Gyr. In other words the observed abundance of not just light elements and their isotopes but, too, the heavy elements is accounted for within the context of an eternal universes where phase transitions lead to the formation of hydrogen burning stars at some epoch, before which stellar nucleosynthesis was not occuring.

How can you say the universe evolved if it's eternal? You are saying that before nucleosynthesis, the universe was around an eternal amount of time and after nucleosynthese started, the universe was around an eternal amount of time. This is mathematically impossible. If the epoch of nucleosynthesis has to wait for eternity before it can begin - then it never will start. If nucleosynthesis started an eternity ago - then it has always been and it is meaningless to say it started after some unit of time.

 

Infinite change means little (if nothing). Over cosmological timescales change occurs very, very, slowly.

Well, "very very slow" cosmological change still doesn't work on infinite timescales. Just like very-very-very-very-slow change doesn't work. Change in your SSU can be show as: (1)

Very Slow Change over infinity = [math]\Delta =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} {\frac{1}{n}} [/math] = infinite change

 

I understand your need to say the universe is changing. The theory, observations and physics say it must be so - but, why the need to say it is timeless? You then have no math, no observations, no physics to build your theory on. This is why BBT makes no attempt to describe what is beyond our light cone (2) There is just no good science to be found beyond the limits of math and observation. That way lies the infinite unknowable space time of the SSU where faith is reason enough and mental reasoning is proof.

 

Recent evidence from Hubble Space telescope (HUDF) shows that extremely distance galaxies are rich in heavy metals, implying they’re already quit old, that the stars contained in these galaxies (at an epoch where the first stars we thought to have originated) have had billions of years, already, to synthesize heavy elements.

 

A link here would have been helpful. If, by chance, you are talking about HUDF-JD2 then I am disappointed. Of all the hubble deep field galaxies that paint a beautiful picture of galaxy evolution - this one has no spectroscopic data. It's redshift is therefore estimated and could be 2.5. Be honest - if this one galaxy supported Big Bang and all the others supported SSU then you would dismiss HUDF-JD2 as erroneous or wishful estimation or bad observation. But instead you hold on to HUDF-JD2 with no spectra data and dismiss the other immature deep field galaxy findings.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/GalaxEvC.jpg

But, there is just no way to know if this is your reference without a name or link or explanation. :shrug:

 

One more time: If over the course of time elements are synthesized from H and He - and the universe is infinite in its past time - then the universe must necessarily have used up all available H and He toward this end. (no matter how "very, very slow" the process)

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

How can you say the universe evolved if it's eternal? You are saying that before nucleosynthesis, the universe was around an eternal amount of time and after nucleosynthese started, the universe was around an eternal amount of time. This is mathematically impossible. If the epoch of nucleosynthesis has to wait for eternity before it can begin - then it never will start. ...

 

Au contraire. There is no reason why the universe cannot be eternal spatiotemporally. There are good physical arguments that show a stationary universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics, GR, QM and classical mechanics goes through phase transitions. In other words, it is not obligatory that hydrogen burning stars always existed, or even that hydrogen always existed. The possibility (or likelyhood) that hydrogen production transpired over cosmological timescales is compelling. So there is at least one tenable world-model that describes a stationary, dynamic, general relativistic, infinite evolving universe within which the laws of nature never break-down at some time t = 0, and where, by definition, there is no change in the scale factor to the metric, no ad hoc initial condition, no dark energy, no DM, no primordial nucleosynthesis, and finally, no boundary condition beyond which (or before which) physics breaks down and metaphysics begins.

 

 

Well, "very very slow" cosmological change still doesn't work on infinite timescales. Just like very-very-very-very-slow change doesn't work. Change in your SSU can be show as: (1)

Very Slow Change over infinity = [math]Delta =sum_{n=1}^{infty} {frac{1}{n}} [/math] = infinite change

 

You no as well as anyone that infinities are meaningless when used as you do above. Infinite change means nothing. Fortunately there is a branch of science that deals with phenomena such as bifurcation points, spontaneous symmetry breaking, critical phase transitions often characterized by long correlation lengths and the appearance of novel states by amplifying or repressing the effects of slight perturbations, thermodynamic limits, irreversible evolutionary processes leading to the complex behavior, complex systems.

 

The laws of nature permit both reversible and irreversible phenomena, but irreversibility is the rule not the exception. Symmetry-breaking brings the universe from a static geometrical configuration to one whereby space and time are shaped by the events and objects in the system. Order and coherence of the system (the universe) are the extraordinary features to emerge.

 

I understand your need to say the universe is changing. The theory, observations and physics say it must be so - but, why the need to say it is timeless? You then have no math, no observations, no physics to build your theory on. This is why BBT makes no attempt to describe what is beyond our light cone (2) There is just no good science to be found beyond the limits of math and observation. That way lies the infinite unknowable space time of the SSU where faith is reason enough and mental reasoning is proof.

 

Au contraire. But you bring up a good point. In cosmology there will always be the need to extrapolate beyond what is our visible horizon. We can't assume that the universe ends there. Fortunately, the limited velocity of light leaves us with the remarkable ability to witness the past, en direct. The obvious downside is that we do not see the universe the way it is today, with the exception of here and now. When speaking about the entire universe we must formulate, and extrapolate ideas that are based on local physics. That is, if you beleive local physics is global physics...

 

 

 

A link here would have been helpful. If, by chance, you are talking about HUDF-JD2 then I am disappointed. ...

 

One more time: If over the course of time elements are synthesized from H and He - and the universe is infinite in its past time - then the universe must necessarily have used up all available H and He toward this end. (no matter how "very, very slow" the process)

 

-modest

 

Simply put, the Hubble deep fields do not offer clear evidence for hierarchical evolution of galaxies from fragmentary star clusters to "pathological" colliding galaxies, to full spirals and ellipticals.

 

There is NO direct visual evidence for cosmological evolution according to a what would be expected in a 13.7 Gyr old universe.

 

So far, the empirical evidence is not consistent with the hot big bang/cold dark matter cosmology where the universe expands from a hot dense state, where matter cools and coagulates while triggering the onset of star formation. Observations have come up to challenge the standard model, observational evidence is inconsistent with this framework.

 

There is no epoch of galaxy formation following the so-called "dark age" in the lookback time: just galaxies, and more galaxies, rich in heavy metals. The JWST should further confirm that conclusion.

 

I will be back with some references.

 

CC

[coldcreation]

 

Recent evidence from Hubble Space telescope (HUDF) shows that extremely distance galaxies are rich in heavy metals, implying they’re already quit old, that the stars contained in these galaxies (at an epoch where the first stars we thought to have originated) have had billions of years, already, to synthesize heavy elements.

 

A link here would have been helpful. If, by chance, you are talking about HUDF-JD2 then I am disappointed. Of all the hubble deep field galaxies that paint a beautiful picture of galaxy evolution - this one has no spectroscopic data. -modest

 

 

Richard S. Ellis (Caltech) has studied the ultra deep images in detail. One of the outstanding features of the ‘early’ universe is that galaxies out to redshift 7 appear to have normal stellar populations. These are not the big, bright, ultra-heavy 500 solar-mass 1st generation stars thought to have reigned at the time. Moreover, galaxies are fairly evolved. This means that those distant galaxies formed, according to Ellis, when the universe was a meager 600 million years old—at an epoch once assumed to be in the Dark Age—detrimental evidence to big bang cosmology. Observations suggest these distant objects are not representative of the first population of galaxies (Ellis, R.S., 2004).

 

Others too have found that distant red galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (Toft et al 2005) present morphological properties that suggest “complex stellar populations, consisting of both evolved populations that dominate the mass and the restframe optical light, and younger populations, which show up as patches of star formation in the restframe UV light; in many ways resembling the properties of normal local galaxies."

 

Isobel Hook (see Hook et al, c2004), head of the UK Gemini Support Group, (Oxford University) is part of the Gemini Deep Deep Survey (GDDS) team whose objective is to capture the faintest galactic light ever detected. Three hundred galaxies were scrutinized. “These highly developed galaxies, whose star-forming youth is in fact long gone, just shouldn’t be there, but are," said Co-Principal Investigator Karl Glazebrook (Johns Hopkins University).

 

Using data obtained with the Frederick C. Gillett Gemini North Telescope on Mauna Kea, Gemini Deep Deep Survey took the deepest spectra ever of very distant galaxies. The galaxy populations encountered look identical to local groups, with astoundingly no sign of evolution during this important era that was believed to be one most significant change. Massive, fully formed galaxies are found at great distances. The huge massive ones should not be there at all according to astronomers. There was simply too little time between t = 0 and then for them to form. Either something is drastically wrong with the standard model (inflationary period included) or we need to entirely rethink the manner in which galaxies formed. Either way the situation is not good for modern cosmology.

 

"It is quite obvious from the Gemini spectra that these are indeed very mature galaxies, and we are not seeing the effects of obscuring dust. Obviously there are some major aspects about the early lives of galaxies that we just don’t understand.” Said Patrick McCarthy (Observatories of the Carnegie Institution).

 

Wait, there’s more: “Studying the chemical composition of the interstellar gas, we discovered that the galaxies in our survey are more metal-rich than expected." Sandra Savaglio (Johns Hopkins University).

 

The supposition that the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational evidence, when redshift and surface brightness are taken into account (Buta & Block 2001, Thomson, R.I, 2000, Ellis 1997, Takamiya 1999).

 

 

---------------------

 

 

Certainly, the resistance of the mainstream astrophysical community has acquired an increasingly defensive hue faced with these observations, issuing communiqués with daubing phrases, hurriedly jumping to age-old broad-brush conclusions under the name of the canonical big bang. The model’s predictions become ever more uncertain with time, but still tend to cluster around the same dark-age tenets.

 

Observations show that the basic model for galaxy evolution seems seriously flawed, and the predictions become less precise the further back we look: A psychophysical stance may be needed to keep the standard model alive and kicking.

 

The cold, hard facts presented here, particularly the lack of a galaxy forming era, and the high metallicity of some of the most distant objects compel continued vigilance, and most importantly, the continued search for a new standard model that does agree with observations.

 

 

 

 

Something has only just begun.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello MikeC

 

Try this link

 

Oliver Manuel

 

I do not understand the previous link worked for me.

 

Again I would advice to keep on reading.

 

If you are like me, I keep reading and the moe I read the more I find I know very little.

 

 

You stated an important point iin the evolution of solar system and the properties of the planets having Iron/Nickel content.

Read through Oliver's papers and you will find more than you may think.