Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Is there something wrong with your hat.

It goes off and on

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

This paper in my opinion is one of the most imprtant down to Earth explanations of what is actually going on.

Sorry for posting so many papers. I hope you do not take them as spam.

The observations that we see in star formation and galaxy evolutions, shows us matter moving towards a gravity sink and later ejected via jets. This is well documented and is able to be backed by papers and observations.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2965v1
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)

Abstract: In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.
The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He$^3$ and He$^4$). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.In the later parts of the paper we briefly discuss the major unsolved problems of this integrated cosmological and cosmogonical scheme. These are the understanding of the origin of the intrinsic redshifts, and the periodicities in the redshift distribution of the QSOs.

I'm off to bed

 

[MeteorWayne]

Just to be clear, we moderators put our Mod Hat On to be clear when we are speaking in an official capacity as moderators. You would be well advised to listen to any post where we identify ourselves as moderators. Failure to do so will shorten or end your time here at Space.com.

Any comments we make that do not include the word Moderator are just from our position as regular old users just like you.

 

[noblackhole]

Speedfreak's comment is unscientific and so irrelevant.

 

[noblackhole]

Raven's nonsense is typical ineptitude in science, and of no consequence. This thread deals with issues other than black holes, and in my previous posting I clearly requested DrRocket to address the paper cited by harrycostas, not issues on black holes. Now the moderators step in as usual to condone the nonsense by MeteorWayne and DrRocket, both of whom do 'science' by ridicule and abuse, which Raven emulates. DrRocket in particular claims that he can dismiss the paper cited by harrycostas because it was published in the journal Progress in Physics, in which Crothers has been published. In relation to this I pointed out to all readers that in other threads DrRocket and MeteorWayne have ignored scientific facts and demonstrated either technical ignorance or incompetence or both and now apply their same methods here. Their methods are not scientific no matter how often or how vehemently they plead. So once again, DrRocket, tell us all what you find objectionable in the paper cited by harrycostas and why, supported by what evidence, physical or theoretical or both ?

 

[yevaud]

/Mod Hat On

If you think I was joking, then yes, please go and use ad-hominem against another member, immediately following my having warned someone else about the very same thing. That can only be taken as deliberate on your part.

You have now been officially warned, NoBlackHole. Further Moderator action awaits, should you disregard this warning.

/Mod Hat Off

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Why not a cyclic universe?

The following link is on a cyclic universe. There are various forms of the cyclic universe and this is just one. I do not agree with some of the issues, particularly trying to bring into it the BBT. But thats me.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9114
'Cyclic universe' can explain cosmological constant

A cyclic universe, which bounces through a series of big bangs and "big crunches", could solve the puzzle of our cosmological constant, physicists suggest.
The cosmological constant represents the energy of empty space, and is thought to be the most likely explanation for the observed speeding up of the expansion of the universe. But its measured value is a googol (1 followed by 100 zeroes) times smaller than that predicted by particle physics theories. It is a discrepancy that gives cosmologists a real headache.
In the 1980s, physicists considered the possibility that an initially large cosmological constant could decay down to the value measured today. But this theory was abandoned when calculations showed that it would take far longer than 14 billion years - the time since the big bang - for the constant to reach the level seen today.
Now physicists Paul Steinhardt at Princeton University, in New Jersey, US, and Neil Turok at Cambridge University in the UK, are resurrecting the idea. They point out that if time stretches back beyond the big bang, the problem could be solved. At that is just what is predicted by their cyclic model of the universe - an alternative to the Standard Big Bang theory - which the pair first developed in 2002 (see "Cycles of creation").

 

[SpeedFreek]

I have no problems with cyclic universe models like that. The universe is expanding and from our observational viewpoint, it all started very close together. This particular cyclic universe model invokes M-Theory and braneworlds, so it is purely theoretical (and might remain so forever).

Cosmologists are attempting to use things like M-theory or Loop Quantum Gravity to take us back before the big bang and in some cases they find a previously contracting universe.. interesting stuff indeed.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreak

Is the universe expanding?

Show me what ever deep field image 13.2 Grys you can find to show me that the galaxies are moving apart. All the one I see are bound by gravity.

There are a number of papers that are of interest.

You make up you own opinion of them

This is a repeat:
[0806.4481] Hubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe
Hubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4481

[0810.0153] Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics
Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0153

[0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3968

On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913
[0812.2470] On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913
Authors: Krzysztof Belczynski, Dieter H. Hartmann, Chris L. Fryer, Daniel E. Holz, Brian O'Shea
(Submitted on 12 Dec 2008)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2470

After reading the above papers, I'm questioning redshift.

I'm trying to understand the process within a Supernova and the magnetic fields that produce jet formations from compact matter.

as for arXiv

I could post NASA/ADS papers if you wish.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

NoBlackHole, once again you rant instead discuss. You ridicule people, just like your attack on MeteorWayne, Dr. Rocket, and continue to do so with myself. I take offense to your comments. I do not "emulate" anyone. I am merely expressing my opinion to which are MY OWN. I was not referring to this subject having anything to do with black holes, but rather there is no change between the way you spoke to people in that topic and the way you do here. It's like you talk down to everyone. You always base your facts around Crothers and/or Progress In Physics when there have been so many other more reliable resources many people (mainly MeteorWayne, Dr. Rocket and myself) have presented on numerous occasions. But you ignore all of them. What I am asking for is not a repeat of your last topic, but to interact more with others opinions rather then your usual ridicule.

Personally I am open to many theories on the development of the universe because there is so little we know. We could discover something tomorrow that could change our entire outlook on everything. That's what makes it so exciting.

Also, as I previously mentioned, IF there is any change in the Time factor, then that would also change our calculations. However, in my research this is NOT the case. I am just pointing out that we mostly look at the expansion of Space rather then any real change in Time.
I will post more later on the topic. Have to go mow the lawn on my day off

 

[yevaud]

as for arXiv

I could post NASA/ADS papers if you wish.

Not necessary. It was merely informative for all of the participants, that ArXiv abstracts may not be peer-reviewed.

[Damn, I DID transpose letters in my previous mention of "ArXiv," didn't I? Heh.]

 

[MeteorWayne]

The key point is ArXiv is a Pre print server. These are article that have been submitted to journals of all levels of peer review. The typical process is that articles are submitted, peer reviewed, revised and resubmitted, then accepted for publication by the journal or rejected. Thus, it's important to pay attention to the history of the article listed on the page. These can be far from the finished work, or articles that are eventually, or have been rejected.

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day speedfreak

Is the universe expanding?

Show me what ever deep field image 13.2 Grys you can find to show me that the galaxies are moving apart. All the one I see are bound by gravity.

How can you tell those galaxies in that single image are gravity bound? On what do you base your assumption that all the galaxies in the Hubble deep field images are part of a gravitationally-bound system? How do you propose that anyone could prove to you, in this forum, that the distant galaxies are receding, using a single photograph? What could we show you that would be the proof you require? Do you expect to see "motion blur" or something similar?

The galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, for instance, cover a range of redshifts from z<3 to z>7. Some are relatively large and well formed, others are tiny little blobs. Are you claiming they are all close enough to each other to all be part of a gravitationally-bound cluster of galaxies? What do you mean?

There are a number of papers that are of interest.

You make up you own opinion of them

I would prefer to know why you think they are relevant to the discussion, since you are posting them. I will give a very quick synopsis:

This is a repeat:
[0806.4481] Hubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe
Hubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4481

This paper explains why Hubble didn't think the universe was expanding, and suggests that if he were alive today he would be critical of things like dark matter/dark energy and inflation.

[0810.0153] Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics
Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0153

This paper explains why our cosmological model still has some holes in it that require filling in.

[0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3968

This one explains some of the discordant redshifts, using the expanding universe model - it supports the expansion of the universe.

On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913
[0812.2470] On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913
Authors: Krzysztof Belczynski, Dieter H. Hartmann, Chris L. Fryer, Daniel E. Holz, Brian O'Shea
(Submitted on 12 Dec 2008)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2470

And this one proposes some explanations for the high redshift of that GRB, in an expanding universe.

So what is the point you are trying to make?

If you are asking if the universe is expanding, then as far as we can tell, yes it is. As far as we can tell, the universe used to take up less space than it does now. We can only take this view back as far as there is light to see, after which we are into purely theoretical physics. If we extrapolate backwards, we come to a singularity at the beginning of time, where notions of space and time cease to have any meaning, according to our current understanding.

We can never go back and empirically check what actually happened 13.7 billion years ago, so it will always be theoretical. We might speculate, and then see if our speculations have any basis in science as we know it. The science required to examine the universe during that era can only be experimentally confirmed by trying to replicate the early conditions of the universe, in the laboratory, and this is what we are doing with particle accelerators like CERN.

 

[drwayne]

Possible connections between objects of different red shift values rings some bells for me.
When I was in grad school, one of the astronomy professors there was one Dr. Jack Sulentic.
There was a lot of discussion at the time as to whether there were "luminous bridges"
between different objects. I was mostly living in my corner of the universe at the time,
so I just heard bits and pieces through some of the gaduate students.

Wayne

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

You said

If you are asking if the universe is expanding, then as far as we can tell, yes it is. As far as we can tell, the universe used to take up less space than it does now. We can only take this view back as far as there is light to see, after which we are into purely theoretical physics. If we extrapolate backwards, we come to a singularity at the beginning of time, where notions of space and time cease to have any meaning, according to our current understanding.

The evidence suggesting an expansion of the universe is disputed. As for a singularity, it does not exist. The BBT states that it popped up everywhere at the same time. So if you extrapolate backwards: What do you really thing you will find?

Contraction and expansion process exists, this is shown by galaxy evolution with matter being pulled to the centre (gravity sink) and jet formation that eject matter from the centre, that is able to reform galaxies near and far for milions of light years. This information you can google: Giant jets found in the centre of galaxy glusters.

I'm posting the following links as information

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4172
Observations of type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe

Authors: David F. Crawford
(Submitted on 27 Jan 2009)

Abstract: Analysis of type 1a supernovae observations out to a redshift of $z$=1.6 shows that there is good agreement between the light-curve widths and $(1+z)$ which is usually interpreted as a strong support for time dilation due to an expanding universe. This paper argues that a strong case can be made for a static universe where the supernovae light-curve-width dependence on redshift is due to selection effects. The analysis is based on the principle that it is the total energy (the fluence) and not the peak magnitude that is the best `standard candle' for type 1a supernovae. A simple model using a static cosmology provides an excellent prediction for the dependence of light curve width on redshift and the luminosity-width relationship for nearby supernovae. The width dependence arises from the assumption of constant absolute magnitude resulting in strong selection of lower luminosity supernovae at higher redshifts due to the use of an incorrect distance modulus. Using a static cosmology, curvature-cosmology, and without fitting any parameters the analysis shows that the total energy is independent of redshift and provides a Hubble constant of $63.1\pm2.5$ kms$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. There is no indication of any deviation at large redshifts that has been ascribed to the occurrence of dark energy.

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4169
No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data

Authors: David F. Crawford
(Submitted on 27 Jan 2009)

Abstract: Gamma-Ray Bursts have been observed out to very high redshifts and provide time measures that are directly related to intrinsic time scales of the burst. Einstein's theory of relativity is quite definite that if the universe is expanding then the observed duration of these measures will increase with redshift. Thus gamma-ray burst measures should show a time dilation proportional to redshift. An analysis of gamma-ray burst data shows that the hypothesis of time dilation is rejected with a probability of 4.4$\times10^{-6}$ for redshifts out to z=6.6. Traditionally the lack of an apparent time dilation has been explained by an inverse correlation between luminosity and time measures together with strong luminosity selection as a function of redshift. It is shown that the inverse correlation between luminosity and some time measures is confirmed, but using concordance cosmology strong luminosity selection cannot be achieved. It may be possible to explain the apparent lack of time dilation with a combination of gamma-ray burst selection, some luminosity evolution and some time measure evolution. But this requires a remarkable coincidence in order to produce the apparent lack of time dilation. However the data are consistent with a static cosmology in a non-expanding universe.

 

[Saiph]

you may say that universal expansion is disputed, and you'd be right. There are people who disagree. However there has yet to arise any other model that accurately reproduces the redshift observations we get when we image galaxies around us.

As for your 'contraction and expansion' processes using galaxies....have you actually looked at how much matter is expelled in those polar jets? Compared to the mass of a galaxy it's almost zero, zilch, nada! It's expansive, it's bright, it's impressive, but it's just a bunch of hot air There isn't that much there compared to galactic dust clouds or stars. The idea of those jets being the predominate mechanism for the creation of new galaxies is....really hard to buy.

 

[Saiph]

-- Mod Hat On --

Harrycostas, I do believe you've been asked to actually discuss the papers you post. I'm all for supporting one's claims and positions with various sources. However you actually fail to reference the papers you cite. Instead you merely make a claim, and say look at these! Often other posters (such as Speedfreak) are pointing out that the papers fail to say what you claim they do.

Either refrain from spamming various papers, or cite them in a more substantive fashion. To fail to do so is bordering on spamming, and will be dealt with accordingly.

-- Mod Hat Off --

 

[SpeedFreek]

I will wait until I get replies to my previous questions before I continue...

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

I have given the links with ABS. They are for information just like any other links.

I will stop posting these links unless they are discussed.

As for Jet and properties they are well documented. Small and large and huge with various properties and so on.

Hubble has many images of jets and their influence.

Saiph
You said

As for your 'contraction and expansion' processes using galaxies....have you actually looked at how much matter is expelled in those polar jets? Compared to the mass of a galaxy it's almost zero, zilch, nada! It's expansive, it's bright, it's impressive, but it's just a bunch of hot air There isn't that much there compared to galactic dust clouds or stars. The idea of those jets being the predominate mechanism for the creation of new galaxies is....really hard to buy.

Do not buy, read and search for the information.
Before you make statements like these make sure you get your information from the correct place.

Searching for information.
Jets and Nucleosynthesis astrophysics ADS
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... &version=1

and

Astrophysical properties of jets
http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+He ... /0/all/0/1


This is just a tip off the ice block.

 

[yevaud]

While we consider it generally Gauche to mention academic accreditation and experience here, I must state that unless you have degrees in this field, I know Saiph has the better qualifications to judge the veracity and accuracy of this than you. I say this solely because of your comment, "Do not buy, read and search for the information. Before you make statements like these make sure you get your information from the correct place." I rather think he has access to better than you do.

Pray continue...

 

[Saiph]

Thanks Yev. I should point out, as people tend to forget around here eventualy (and new posters never get a chance to find out), that I do have a B.S. in astrophysics, so there is quite a bit of weight behind what I say. I am, by no means, infallible of course but I've hit the books in the subject pretty hard already. I.e. I am no arm-chair astronomer.

Again Harry, throwing up links to search queries doesn't do much. Try quoting the papers in your posts, otherwise you won't get much headway with me or others. I.e. make a claim, then quote a specific passage in a paper. You can't just point to a paper, or in this case even less the search for a paper, and use that to support your point.

Why you ask? because: The searches you post don't even have much relevance to your claim. Some of the papers listed discuss nucleosynthesis in various kinds of high energy jets. Okay, fine. Do you know what nucleosynthesis is? It's merely the formation of heavy atomic nuclei via fusion events. It has nothing to do with forming other galaxies. I'm also not surprised that this occurs in such a high energy environment either, especially as it isn't a self-sustaining chain reaction. The jet is acting like our particle accelerators. And I have no idea what relevance your arvix query has...

 

[drwayne]

"The searches you post don't even have much relevance to your claim."

General observations that might be of use to the community...

We have people who appear here from time to time who appear to believe that posting a number
of links (that are at least partially related to the current point) lends a certain gravitas to the
argument.

On a humorous note...

A while back, I was checking a person's links and found they had nothing whatsoever to do
with the point being discussed. I *gently* suggested that he might not have posted the links
he intended to, and he responded quite profanely, accusing me of getting into a something-or-other
contest. Plainly, he was counting on no one looking at his links.

Back to the semi-point....

I would gently suggest that posting links is something that requires thought. It can easily give the
impression of either (1) Trying to throw as much stuff at the wall as possible, to see is something
sticks (2) Appealing to the "Look at all the links I have found, I must be right!" or (3) Being a person
whose expertise is limited to pointing to the "work" of others to press a pet idea.

If you have reasoning (preferably something beyond an "I really don't think it works that way",
and take the time to lay it our carefully, then you will add a lot of value and fun to the forum.
If on the other hand, you simply want to point at papers/web sites and make proclamations,
then time and experience has shown that discussions with you are a waste of time.

Wayne

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Good afternoon everyone,

I guess then i have a question for you Siaph as you may be one of the most experienced people to answer it. I am kind of a "back yard" amature astronomer. Meaning I built my own 10" F5 Dob by hand to look at planets, moons, and when I finally am able to invest in the auto-tracking tri-pod (EQ6 Equitorial mount) and more eye peices, then I will be more involved. I also do a lot of research online. My question is in regards to the red-shift we often use. Could the red-shift possibly be a bi-produced of light refraction as it passes through the heliosphere? I mean at that point in our solar system we do have a bow shock from galactic cosmic rays. Could this not play a factor in red-shift? or even be cause of it? I suppose you would see variations in the red-shift at various distances even if it were caused by the heliosphere/bow shock affect. It'd be like looking through your telescope at a planet with a dirty mirror. Some what of a "red-shift" affect is caused by that as well, or even a lense being out of alignment. I'm just thinking along a much larger scale.

 

[Saiph]

What you describe would be deemed 'reddening', and not a redshift. A redshift actually takes the spectrum and shifts the blue light towards the red. A reddening is due to any effect that removes the higher wavelengths from the observation. I.e. the blue is scattered or absorbed so that it never gets here.

They have very, very different spectral footprints. They're even measured differently. Reddening by examining the overall intensity of the various colors, redshift by looking at where various spectral lines are found.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

So if I understand you correctly, essentially any affect that may be caused by refraction as light passes through the heliosphere would of course been taken into account and easily detectable and distinguished from any influence on the red-shift of distant galaxies and other object. It was just a thought I had in the back of my mind. I thought it might have been too simple to not have been accounted for or recognized by other far more advanced then myself in Astrophysics

 

[noblackhole]

I note the threats issued by the moderators here. Threats are not scientific method.

The Big Bang was spawned by theory, General Relativity, not observation. Observations have subsequently been deliberately misconstrued by the astrophysical 'scientists' in order to legitimise that theory. However, the Big Bang has no basis in theory at all, since Einstein's field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum, and are therefore in conflict with the experimental facts. Thus, General Relativity is completely invalid.