Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[Mee_n_Mac]

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.

Errrr, huh ? Which intrinsic properties are you refering to ? I thought the intrinsic properties of SN1a SN were integral to the time dilation measured.

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.

And that's what we see.

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.

What's funny about the universe expanding away from Mother Earth ? It's exactly what would be expected in a BB universe. Which galaxies are elongated away from Earth ? All, some, most, ??? And how do "we" know this, by visual examination of their shape(s) ?

Something is cooking back at the farm.

Kewl, I hope it's a roast pig. I like baby back ribs !!

 

[SpeedFreek]

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 supernova data is secondary to the redshift data. Even if the increase in the duration of supernova light-curves over distance was not attributable to the expansion of the universe, we still have to explain the redshift-luminosity and redshift-angular-diameter relationships we have observed when we look at distant galaxies. And then we would have to explain why the duration of supernova light-curves changes with distance in a universe that is not expanding.

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.

We do see the process. The most distant galaxies look like their light was emitted when everything was closer to us (angular diameter), they have an abundance of lighter elements when compared to closer galaxies (galactic evolution), they are more irregularly shaped (galaxy formation) and there are less of them! We have also recently found a method to measure the temperature of the CMBR at a great distance and found that, earlier in the history of the universe, the CMBR was hotter.

Everything points to a cooling, expanding and evolving universe.

As for the data, I said before its quite funny that the universe is expanding away from mother Earth.

As predicted with a metric expansion, where all distances increase equally, whatever viewpoint you choose it looks like everything is moving away from you.

Look at the data not only its showing expanding but the galaxies are elongated away from Earth.

Which data, and for which galaxies? If you have posted an abstract in this thread already, could I have a link as I am not prepared to trawl back through 27 pages to find it.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

The intrinsic properties are the problem near and far that affect the redshift data.

Why do you think there is an earlier time?

The Temp of the CMBR can be explained by other processes.

You said

Everything points to a cooling, expanding and evolving universe.

I think you are mistaken, everything points towards a cyclic process of contraction/compaction and the ejection of matter and reformation. When I say read more to understand, I hope you do not take it as an insult. I want you to make decisions with as many facts and information as possible.

You said:

As predicted with a metric expansion, where all distances increase equally, whatever viewpoint you choose it looks like everything is moving away from you.

The BBT theory states space/time expansion not metric or actual distances. One day I will argue for the BBT and you will understand my point.

As for the galaxy showing and odd expansion being elongated from redshift data. This is a common info. I will post it later. Got to go.

I just came in for a sec or two.

 

[SpeedFreek]

There you go again Harry, failing to comprehend what people are saying, once more.

G'day Speedfreek

The intrinsic properties are the problem near and far that affect the redshift data.

You were talking about the intrinsic properties of supernovae. You said:

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

So, how do these supernova intrinsic properties affect the measured redshifts of ALL DISTANT GALAXIES?

Why do you think there is an earlier time?

Because history only moves in one direction, forwards.

The Temp of the CMBR can be explained by other processes.

Go on then - explain these other processes that cause the background radiation today to be cooler than it was in the past.

You said

Everything points to a cooling, expanding and evolving universe.

I think you are mistaken, everything points towards a cyclic process of contraction/compaction and the ejection of matter and reformation. When I say read more to understand, I hope you do not take it as an insult. I want you to make decisions with as many facts and information as possible.

You are mistaken, as everything points to a cooling, expanding and evolving universe. When I say read more to understand, I hope you do not take it as an insult either.

It is utterly apparent that you still do not understand the Lambda-CDM concordance model.

You said:

As predicted with a metric expansion, where all distances increase equally, whatever viewpoint you choose it looks like everything is moving away from you.

The BBT theory states space/time expansion not metric or actual distances. One day I will argue for the BBT and you will understand my point.

See what I mean, folks?

Harry doesn't even understand the nature of an expanding FLRW metric, as described by Big-Bang theory. I think he thinks I was talking about metric (S.I.) units for Petes sake!

:roll:

As for the galaxy showing and odd expansion being elongated from redshift data. This is a common info. I will post it later. Got to go.

I will look forward to seeing what you are talking about, as it could be anything.

There are some forms of "elongation" that are predicted with the Big-Bang, depending on how you translate coordinates between metrics. Cosmological time-dilation, for instance, could be considered as the stretching of the light as it travels through expanding space, which is what causes the apparent increase in the length of SN1a light-curves (how long they seem to shine for) over distance.

Perhaps you are referring to the same principle when applied to the radial size (diameter, directly away from us) of a galaxy when compared to its angular size (diameter across our view) - it could be considered that, as the distance between a photon emitted on this side of a distant galaxy and one emitted on the other side would have increased during that journey due to expansion, whereas angular size remains constant, that all galaxies showing cosmological redshift would show an apparent radial elongation in a direction directly away from us. But perhaps you mean something completely different, it is hard to tell, as you often seem to use evidence for an expanding universe as evidence against it.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

I think you are mistaken, everything points towards a cyclic process of contraction/compaction and the ejection of matter and reformation.

Just to add to SF's comments and to not let this above go undisputed ...

Everything ? What evidence is there for a Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch ? (if indeed that's what you refering to) There was a time when this BB/BC cycle was thought to be a "contender" but since Perlmutter's and Shcmidt's discovery of an accelerating universe I think it's been OBE. So how do you explain away their observations ?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Unfortunately, Harry is referring to something entirely different to a Big-Crunch scenario:

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.

He thinks the universe is somehow constantly recycling itself, with matter ejected by jets from the centres of galaxies causing the creation of new galaxies in an endless cycle. How he thinks that is supposed to explain the various observed redshift relationships, the observed time-dilation of supernova light-curves, the observed cooling of the CMBR over time and the observed abundances of lighter elements in distant galaxies, I have as of yet been unable to ascertain.

 

[vladdrac]

So Immortality might be fun after all. Never is Everything destroyed. Infinite variety. There might be a God after all.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Unfortunately, Harry is referring to something entirely different to a Big-Crunch scenario:

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.

He thinks the universe is somehow constantly recycling itself, with matter ejected by jets from the centres of galaxies causing the creation of new galaxies in an endless cycle. How he thinks that is supposed to explain the various observed redshift relationships, the observed time-dilation of supernova light-curves, the observed cooling of the CMBR over time and the observed abundances of lighter elements in distant galaxies, I have as of yet been unable to ascertain.

Errrr ... OK then. It'll be interesting to hear how he explains the WMAP results with jets from AGN being the source of all "stuff".

 

[MeteorWayne]

That question has been asked, so now we are waiting for the unrelated links that will "explain" it.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

The cyclic process is well documented and the formation of jets and their inpacts is nothing new. This is general information. You can search through google or through NASA ADS or via arXiv or Wiki. I do not have to prove something that is written up.

Firehose-Like Jet Discovered in Action
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/03_rel ... 63003.html

An X-ray movie of the Vela pulsar, made from a series of observations by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, reveals a spectacularly erratic jet that varies in a way never seen before. The jet of high-energy particles whips about like an untended firehose at about half the speed of light. This behavior gives scientists new insight into the nature of jets from pulsars and black holes.

and so on

3C 75 in Abell 400:
Black Holes Determined to be Bound

one explanation compared to

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch ... kholes.htm

To understand the workings of jets one may need to research intantons, axions, solitons and supersymmetry and quantum mechanics and electromagnetic reconnections of fields. In the last 12 months research in these fields has exploded via many experiments and the promise of the LHC.

 

[drwayne]

I thought the question was not whether jets existed, but whether they had a role as a recycling
mechanism?

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

I thought the question was not whether jets existed, but whether they had a role as a recycling
mechanism?

And not only a role but, apparently, the role. Since these jets seem to be associcated with black holes you also have to wonder at their efficiency in "recycling"; that is how much matter is jetted out vs what falls into the BH. The universe would evolve into a lot of BHs and no material to be jetted ... which isn't a static, eternal universe.

Also if HC believes in a static universe, w/o the BB expansion, then I don't see how the observed redshifts result from material being jetted out. One would think the jet's alignment wrt to the Earth would be random resulting in material being jetted towards us, away from us and at all angles in-between. The result of that would be redshifts, no shifts and blueshifts, not related in any way to distance. And no redshifts that would indicate >c recession too.

 

[SpeedFreek]

The cyclic process is well documented and the formation of jets and their inpacts is nothing new. This is general information. You can search through google or through NASA ADS or via arXiv or Wiki. I do not have to prove something that is written up.

Yes, of course. But, I ask once again, what has that got to do with the expansion of the universe?

Why do these jets preclude the expansion of the universe? How do they explain the redshift-distance relationship, which is the same in all directions?

Why do none of the peer-reviewed papers on jets you have posted claim that the Big-Bang is incorrect? They all work within the framework of BBT. What is it that leads you to believe that these jets prove the universe is not expanding, when the authors of the papers come to no such conclusion?

In other words, why are these jets relevant to the question of the "Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang"?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Science evidence is more important than going with the flow.

Drwayne said

I thought the question was not whether jets existed, but whether they had a role as a recycling
mechanism?

This information is available in many papers. The formation of jets small and large from stars to exotic stars to AGN so called BH. Research into the formation of ultra dense matter and its ability to eject matter and its impact on the star formation and evolution of galaxy form.

If you so desire I could post you the science papers.

hello Speedfreek

You said:

what has that got to do with the expansion of the universe?

The Universe as a TOTAL is not expanding. What we see in the observable universe is a processes that is ongoing and evolving. Gravity being the main player in tango with quantum mechanics explaining the properties of condensed matter acting as a gravity sink and the ability to form jets that are able to eject matter reforming near and far galaxies. This has been observed through many images.

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... osetta.htm
Oct 28, 2004
Redshift Rosetta Stone

Three years ago, the XMM Newton orbiting x-ray telescope witnessed a galaxy ejecting two high redshift quasars. Early in the 24- hour observation of the active nucleus of NGC 3516, it recorded a flare, much like a solar flare but ten trillion times as powerful. [See link to Magnetic Reconnection TPOD (below) for Electric Universe explanation of solar flares.] Then two high redshift regions appeared on opposite sides of the galactic nucleus. One side featured a spike in redshift and the other side a similar dip in redshift--as if one spot were moving away from us and the other coming toward us at about one tenth the speed of light.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Another totally unrelated link, and from the Thunderbolts site no less....sheesh :roll:

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Metorwayne

What part of the science do you disagree with?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

Smile, I needed that in English. Please

 

[a_lost_packet_]

G'day

Smile, I needed that in English. Please

Translated ala babelfish:

"Good day to all! I have read hundred of documents on the BBT, saying to me that I have a mind sluice is outside issue. Like for l' attention not to go there also. They are all ears. Regarding my strange questions, than strange tasks l' Universe? It is prayed not to become emotional beyond your opinion. The declaration is made, then has made the question. Therefore this that is found on your mind? As in order to waste your time I cannot make this..."

I imagine they were responding to the OP. Although, why someone would have a debt-consolidation sigline is beyond me..

 

[origin]

G'day Metorwayne

What part of the science [on the Thunderbolts site] do you disagree with?

Oh ho! A trick question. The site does not contain any science so how can you disagree with the science. Very good!

 

[SpeedFreek]

hello Speedfreek

You said:

what has that got to do with the expansion of the universe?

The Universe as a TOTAL is not expanding. What we see in the observable universe is a processes that is ongoing and evolving. Gravity being the main player in tango with quantum mechanics explaining the properties of condensed matter acting as a gravity sink and the ability to form jets that are able to eject matter reforming near and far galaxies. This has been observed through many images.

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... osetta.htm
Oct 28, 2004
Redshift Rosetta Stone

The above link makes no mention of jets ejecting matter reforming near and far galaxies. Where are you getting this idea from, exactly? Where have we observed images of galaxies being reformed from this ejected matter, as you claim?

Also, who is the author of the text in that link (not the editor, the author)? It seems to be unattributed conjecture.

The mainstream interpretation of the event is that the flare was caused by a disc of gas falling into the galaxy's central black hole. The high redshift spots are the remnants of the decaying disc. Their redshift is caused by the effect of the nearby gravitational field of the black hole tugging on the light and reducing its energy. The redshift spike and dip are caused by the orbital velocity of the disc around the black hole, one side rotating toward us, reducing the redshift, and the other side rotating away from us, increasing the redshift.

Is there any way to distinguish between the two interpretations? Actually, there's a simple way. The press release says the researcher "suspects that the highlighted gas fell into the unforgiving black hole just a few days after the measurements." So if we were to point a telescope at NGC 3516 today, we should see nothing left of the event.

That was written (by persons unknown) at the end of 2004. In 2008 we found that, surprise surprise, it was a disc of gas falling into the galaxy's central black hole, using data taken from Chandra in 2006!

The point to consider here is the statement by the unknown author that "today, we should see nothing left of the event". This is a completely false statement. The researcher said they suspect that the highlighted gas fell into the black hole within a few days after the measurements. Yes, that gas was gone, but other gas from the disc was still infalling and still being emitted, as of 2006. A straw man argument by the unknown author, based on his misunderstanding the meaning of the researcher, in other words.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0080 - Tracing a Disk Wind in NGC 3516

X-ray spectra of AGN often contain signatures indicative of absorption in multiple layers of gas whose ionization-state and covering fraction may vary with time. It has been unclear to date how much of the observed X-ray spectral and timing behavior in AGN can be attributed to variations in absorption, versus variations in the strengths of emission or reflection components. Diagnostics of the inner regions of AGN cannot be reliably performed until the origin of observed effects is understood. We investigate the role of the X-ray absorbers in the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 3516. Time-averaged and flux-selected spectroscopy is used to examine the behavior of NGC 3516 observed in Chandra HETG and XMM data from Oct 2006. New H-like and He-like emission and absorption features discovered in the Fe K regime reveal a previously unknown zone of circumnuclear gas in NGC 3516 with log xi ~ 4.3 and column density 1E23 cm^-2. A lower-ionization layer with log xi ~2 and of similar column density is confirmed from previous observations, this layer has a covering fraction around 50%, and changes in covering provide a simple explanation of a deep dip in the light curve that we interpret as an eclipse of the continuum due to passage of a cloud across the sight line within half a day. These inner zones of absorbing gas are detected to have outflow velocities in the range 1000-2000 km/s, this, and constraints on radial location are consistent with an origin as part of a disk wind in NGC 3516.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

The information can be obtained in Chandra and Hubble site. Look up jets large and small. Look in particular the giant jets found in the centre of clusters of galaxies.

Keep reading. Try to find the mechanism in forming jets than look at the mechanism that allows a jet to remain stable for millions of years. The giant jets are galaxy formers they eject matter at such huge amounts that Dwarf galaxies are formed. Discover this through your reading.
Than again that is similar to the logic of the BB nucleosynthesis.

Please do not think that it is my ideas. I cannot get credit for this information. There are some hard working scientists out there paving the way with actual science and not journal writing.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

This maybe of interest to you.

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch ... 9radio.htm

Mar 09, 2006
A Radio Message from Space

This is a great example of jet power. Although they say it is a spiral galaxy and its rear for it to form such powerful jets. It allows us to think an imagine the possibilities of how the Dwarf galaxies were formed by the Milky Way AGN. How they switch off an on is a puzzel.

 

[drwayne]

"Please do not think that it is my ideas."

That's just it. You post links that do NOT say what you indicate. You extrapolate. That is not
inherently wrong, but when you are doing this you need to be clear about where you are
drawing your own conclusions, and why you are.

In this case, you are speaking of the jets as a source of material for new galaxies. OK, fair
enough. A simple example calculation that you might perform to justify this extrapolation would be
to get an estimate of the ejection rate of the jets, as compared to an estimate of the
mass of a proposed galaxy (make it clear how this relates to our own galaxy), and see what timelines
are required to eject that much material. Evaluate that number compared to cosmological
timelines. Showing this kind of work in your post is important, EVEN IF it is done in a link.

Taking the time to show that you can in fact do your own work and to quantify, where you can,
your ideas is a big step in seperating yourself from the "hide behind a word salad and a bunch
of links" folks that are a dime a dozen on the web.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

And to add to the above ...

Why not answer some of the other questions asked IYOW. Let's take it on faith that some (all) galaxies are formed from "jetted material". What would you then expect for redshifts of the galaxies thus formed ? Is this expectation in line with what's been observed ? My simple thinking would be that the jets are at random alignments wrt the Earth and I'd expect the material from these to retain it's momentum thus resulting in random velocities when measured from the Earth. Some would be coming towards us, some moving away, some moving tangentially (and thus displaying no Doppler) and everything in-between. Yet that's not what we see. How do you account for this ? Where did my simple reasoning do wrong according to "your" theory ? Redshifts are a fact. How do you account for them ?

 

[vladdrac]

So whats all this stuff about Black Holes being Galactic Mommas?