Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[harrycostas]

G'day origin

I have read hundreds of papers on the BBT, telling me I have a closed mind is out of the question.

As for paying attention do not even go there. I'm all ears.

As for my strange questions, how strange do you think the Universe is?

Please do not become emotional over your opinion.

You made the statement, then I asked the question.

So what is on your mind?

As for wasting your time I cannot help that.

 

[ramparts]

And yet, Harry, you refuse to answer the very simple points that speedfreak laid out in response to what you had said. He took the time to respond to your points - can't you do the same?

 

[SpeedFreek]

These larger clusters, cluster once again and form a larger cluster a super cluster and it goes on.

This is reality that can be observed.

Let's address this one thing specifically. The clustering does not go on at the largest scales. Galaxies form into local clusters and local clusters can form into superclusters, but all the superclusters in the universe are not themselves clustering together, i.e. getting closer to each other. If they were, it would mean the universe was collapsing.

The universe is not collapsing, it flies in the face of mainstream cosmology which has the supercluster our Milky-Way is part of (the Virgo cluster) receding from a cluster on the other side of the universe, due to the expansion of the universe.

Do you not agree, Harry? If not, why not? Did you not understand those 100's of BBT papers you read?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Apparently not

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Hello Speadfreek

I do not know where you get your information from.

The super clusters actually do cluster. Its one of the basic laws of cosmology.

Now! you can get this information from many places. Me agreeing or disagreeing is not important.

As for the 100 odd BBT papers, mate add a few more on that. I know where they are coming from. if you wish to discuss the BBT in detail, more then happy.

My advice keep reading or wait till the information hits the mainstream.

Hello MeterWayne

Please do not think for one sec that my opinion is based on crank pot theories.

Cosmology is getting better and better with true scientists coming into the picture.

The understanding of cosmology has its roots in Quantum Mechanics and electromagnetic reconnections.

 

[CommonMan]

Question for harrycostas: So what I understand you are saying is that there were no big bang. I will admit I have not read all of the posts in this thread and if you have allready explained this question excuse me for asking. But if the BBT didn't happen, How did the universe begin? Where did it come from? I am no scientist, I only read and try to understand what other real scientist have wrote and studied. If the BBT is wrong, why is it accepted by so many.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Hello Speadfreek

I do not know where you get your information from.

The super clusters actually do cluster. Its one of the basic laws of cosmology.

So, are all the superclusters becoming closer together, over time? Is the universe shrinking? (crackpot theory)

Or is a supercluster on the other side of the universe apparently receding due to the expansion of the universe? (mainstream theory)

If you think the former, you will have to provide the source of your information, as it flies in the face of modern cosmological theory. Of course, some superclusters might merge if they are close enough to each other, but on average the distance between supeclusters is increasing across the universe.

If you agree that a supercluster on the other side of the universe is not apparently moving towards us, what is your point about clustering? You always seem to imply it precludes the expansion of the universe and the only way for that to happen would be if the whole universe were clustering up, i.e. everything was getting closer together at the largest scales.

Either we are talking about different things, or I don't know what you are talking about, or you don't know what you are talking about. But rest assured, I know what I am talking about!

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

Spedfreek I just want you to keep on reading. What I think is not important what you research is.

Keep on reading Galaxy clusters and collisions.

Also research into the huge jets formed from the centres of AGN particularly from the centres of clusters of galaxies.

The explanation that you want is not as simple as it seems.

What prevents the collapse to one point is the consistent formation of jets from the centre of galaxies ejecting matter millions of light years. Jets are jets regardless of their origin stars or AGN. The main is the huge jets that are able to reform galaxies near and far.
Now! this information is available and easy to google.
Also visit NASA Hubble site many images showing the same.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Harry, you probably won't understand this, but your interpretation of the data is misconceived.

I have read quite a lot about the evolution of galactic clusters and galactic collisions, I have read about galactic jets, too - the most energetic jets yet observed reach only hundreds of thousands of light-years at best, as far as I am aware. They have an incredibly low density, lower than the interstellar medium! This is because they sweep the interstellar medium out of the way and in front of them it forms into a "bow shock". The jet loses energy as it has to force its way through the accumulating gas and dust. With the densities and scales involved, you might get a few stars out of the accumulated interstellar medium.

But when it comes to the difference between galaxies, local clusters and superclusters, I don't think you quite appreciate the scales involved.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

Harry, you probably won't understand this, but your interpretation of the data is misconceived.

I do not think so

Look I will be back in a few days. I have this project to complete and then I will post you some giant jets that go for millions of light years.

there are various types of jets smalll and large. The large have a property of a soliton wave.

You said

I have read quite a lot about the evolution of galactic clusters and galactic collisions, I have read about galactic jets, too - the most energetic jets yet observed reach only hundreds of thousands of light-years at best, as far as I am aware. They have an incredibly low density, lower than the interstellar medium! This is because they sweep the interstellar medium out of the way and in front of them it forms into a "bow shock". The jet loses energy as it has to force its way through the accumulating gas and dust. With the densities and scales involved, you might get a few stars out of the accumulated interstellar medium.

Speed freek you have limited your information. Please do not think I trying to put you down. Those bow shocks apply mostly to jets from small to medium distance of a few thousand light years. Now search for the giant jet movers and the knots they form.

I can just take the easy way out and just agree with you, if thats going to make you happy.

I want you to keep on searching and reading.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

I went into my comp, quickly here is some examples. When I have more time I will post a jet from the cetre of a cluster of galaxies reaching millions of light years.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/cenajet/
Centaurus A Jet:
Energetic Jet Meets Resistance In Nearby Galaxy

Jets such as the one in Centaurus A Jet are widespread phenomena in the cosmos, and represent one of the primary means for extracting energy from the vicinity of a black hole. Some jets extend over distances of a million light years. They represent a major energy source for the galaxy and are thought to affect the evolution of the host galaxy and its surroundings. The Centaurus A Jet image will help scientists to understand the effects of jets on their environment.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2001/0134/
M87 Jet:
Chandra Sheds Light on the Knotty Problem of the M87 Jet

Quasars & Active Galaxies :: Galaxies with unusually energetic activity, including high-energy jets, that is related to a central supermassive black hole.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/category/quasars.html

 

[SpeedFreek]

Okay, they have discovered jets a million light-years in length, rather than a few hundred thousand light-years, since I last looked into this subject. I can go with that, it's not such a large difference in size.

So, how far apart are the superclusters that you allege would collapse into each other without these jets? (clue - a hell of a lot more than a million light years - more like 100 million light-years).

By what mechanism do these jets hold all the mass of these superclusters apart, considering that the jets are losing energy as they propagate?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

You said

Okay, they have discovered jets a million light-years in length, rather than a few hundred thousand light-years, since I last looked into this subject. I can go with that, it's not such a large difference in size.

This is the part that you will need to read up on it's complexity. You discovering is more important then me saying so.

So, how far apart are the superclusters that you allege would collapse into each other without these jets? (clue - a hell of a lot more than a million light years - more like 100 million light-years).

Some super clusters have already started to merge and some are billions of light years apart and thats the known superclusters.

By what mechanism do these jets hold all the mass of these superclusters apart, considering that the jets are losing energy as they propagate?

You are mistaken jets do not keep the superclusters apart.

You will need to read up on the formation of jets small and large. The complexity of the subject requires you to read. The answer is not simple.

 

[SpeedFreek]

You said the superclusters were themselves clustering up, implying that the whole universe is clustering up (i.e. things are getting closer together, everywhere). I asked if that meant the universe is collapsing.

What prevents the collapse to one point is the consistent formation of jets from the centre of galaxies ejecting matter millions of light years.

You are mistaken jets do not keep the superclusters apart.

:|

Some super clusters have already started to merge and some are billions of light years apart and thats the known superclusters.

Correct. So, are the superclusters that are billions of light-years apart getting closer to each other, staying at the same distance from each other, or receding from each other?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

It's not a closed shop situation.

The objects in the Universe do obey the laws of Physics and gravity. A more complicated situation is when you introduce a gravity matrix to expalin the movements.

The universe as total cannot collapse.

The individual parts do have a limiting size and degree of collapsing. In addition to that you may read some papers on the so called size of black holes and the maximum size that they may reach due to their ability to eject matter away.

I was whatching the TV show with S Hawking and his associates in the unification of cosmology and the intense research in quantum mechanics as the possible unification.

oops got to go be back later.

Have to pick up the kids.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

The following link ABS does not fully explain the paper which is 54 pages. The paper is informative and not very biased.
It discusses various models with down to Earth explanations and not complicated maths. I have read it once and will read it again in a few days so that I can absorb its meanings.

The main point is the unexplained 95% of matter that is unknown.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4333
What kind of science is cosmology?

Authors: Hubert F. Goenner
(Submitted on 22 Oct 2009)

Abstract: In recent years, by theory and observation cosmology has advanced substantially. Parameters of the concordance or $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model are given with unprecedented precision ("precision cosmology"). On the other side, 95% of the matter content of the universe are of an unknown nature. This awkward situation motivates the present attempt to find cosmology's place among the (exact) natural sciences. Due to its epistemic and methodical particularities, e.g., as a mathematized historical science, cosmology occupies a very special place. After going through some of the highlights of cosmological modeling, the conclusion is reached that knowledge provided by cosmological modeling cannot be as explicative and secure as knowledge gained by laboratory physics.

 

[origin]

G'day

The following link ABS does not fully explain the paper which is 54 pages. The paper is informative and not very biased.
It discusses various models with down to Earth explanations and not complicated maths. I have read it once and will read it again in a few days so that I can absorb its meanings.

The main point is the unexplained 95% of matter that is unknown.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4333
What kind of science is cosmology?

Authors: Hubert F. Goenner
(Submitted on 22 Oct 2009)

Abstract: In recent years, by theory and observation cosmology has advanced substantially. Parameters of the concordance or $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model are given with unprecedented precision ("precision cosmology"). On the other side, 95% of the matter content of the universe are of an unknown nature. This awkward situation motivates the present attempt to find cosmology's place among the (exact) natural sciences. Due to its epistemic and methodical particularities, e.g., as a mathematized historical science, cosmology occupies a very special place. After going through some of the highlights of cosmological modeling, the conclusion is reached that knowledge provided by cosmological modeling cannot be as explicative and secure as knowledge gained by laboratory physics.

Instead of just posting links, it might help if you just stated what you think. So far all I get from you is that you disagree with pretty much all of what you might call mainstream science. I don't have any idea what your views are.

 

[SpeedFreek]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4333
What kind of science is cosmology?

I completely agree with the conclusions of that paper.

Throughout history mankind has tried to picture the world and to understand its origin and its features (Cf. Kragh 2003). Today, through the Lambda CDM-model, physical cosmology provides an image of the universe not in conflict with the wealth of data gained by painstaking observation and intelligent theoretical interpretation. The achieved scientific description of “the world as a whole” is a remarkable cultural endeavor. In view of the haziness of the universe’s extension in time and space, and due to its methodological and epistemic problems, knowledge coming from cosmological models cannot be as secure and explicative as knowledge from laboratory physics. Silk called cosmology a falsifiable myth (Silk 1987). Certainly, a tremendous number of additional empirical data concerning the large scale structure obtained since has been used to strengthen the cosmological model. Yet, with almost all of the universe’s matter content unexplained, the situation still is the same: We modestly conclude that mathematical modeling, in particular when dealing with the early and earliest epochs of the universe, cannot produce but the cosmological myths adequate for our time.

The Lambda-CDM concordance model is the best we can do with the limited tools we have at our disposal. We know that cosmological models cannot considered in the same way as models we can test in a laboratory, but they are all we have.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

I know your a smart cookie

Please keep on reading so that one day you will "KNOW" what needs to be known.

I was given this homework yesterday.

I was told to understand the subject and its affect on the evolution and form of star bodies.

Phase transitions astrophysics 2009
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+20 ... /0/all/0/1

I have read 10 papers so far and find that I need to read more.

 

[vladdrac]

Last I heard the new twist is something that brings "big crunch" into question. Anyway "Multiverse" theory puts new twist on everything. "Big Bang" US our universe may be just part of infinite series

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Vladdrac

You said

our universe may be just part of infinite series

I agree with you to a degree.

I see the parts within the universe able to contract and expand via several processes known to science today.

We see this in star formation and galaxy evolution.

 

[Earth360]

I'm curious as to what the church's opinion has to say because all I find is a bunch of research that goes 95% nowhere with alot of contradiction. The Big Bang theory is only a theory which should not have ever been published as this is only a guess and we should not mislead the public based on an assumption.

We are dealing with theories and not facts like most astrological findings. There is no possible way to guess how many fish and living organisms there are in Earth's sea's, so how can we assume creationism of our Universe?

Better off asking the church. :lol:

Earth360

 

[mykemykemyke]

I'm curious as to what the church's opinion has to say because all I find is a bunch of research that goes 95% nowhere with alot of contradiction. The Big Bang theory is only a theory which should not have ever been published as this is only a guess and we should not mislead the public based on an assumption.

We are dealing with theories and not facts like most astrological findings. There is no possible way to guess how many fish and living organisms there are in Earth's sea's, so how can we assume creationism of our Universe?

Better off asking the church. :lol:

Earth360

Then again, how can you prove otherwise? Which part of the astrological fact then will prove how the Universe was created?

 

[SpeedFreek]

he Big Bang theory is only a theory which should not have ever been published as this is only a guess and we should not mislead the public based on an assumption.

Do you understand the difference between a scientific theory, and a guess?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

The BBT is a theory based on ad hoc ideas and redshift data that does not take in consideration the intrinsic properties of supernovas.

The BBT states that the universe popped up everywhere at the same time expanding. If this is the case we should be able to see such a process, considering we can look into deep space 13.2 Gys.

As for the data, I said before its quite funny that the universe is expanding away from mother Earth. Look at the data not only its showing expanding but the galaxies are elongated away from Earth.

Something is cooking back at the farm.