Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

You say that you think that you have a one sided discussion.

Smile

Are you more interested in an opinion or a science understanding.

The reason why I ask you to read is for you not to be guided by opinion, but rarther from science. If you keep on reading the same explanation you will start forming the same conclusion. As a scientists question, test, read of the alternatives and the update science research conducted by many scientists around the world.

If you think I have all the answer or conclusions, Sorry not so.

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day Speedfreek

You said

You do know that earlier generations of stars had much shorter lives than later generations, as they were comprised of simpler elements, don't you? No? Well you should go and actually study this stuff, rather than continuing to make assertions based on... based on... no, hang on, you haven't said what you base your conclusions on, except for some crackpot ideas with no actual basis in science.

You are assuming that the universe had an origin such as the Big Bang and from this you assume there was early star formation. The point that you do not understand is that there was no start and there will be no end. If you study star formation and galaxy evolution you will find the various phases that stars under go, this is common info and also galaxy evolution and mergers and their various forms.

There you go again, with your "this is common information" line. So, if there was no start and no early star formation, how do we explain the abundances of light elements when we look at the higher redshifted galaxies?

Here is an interesting discussion on the subject (with references):
Elements of the past: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and observation

As for mainstream thinking, is not my concern, science is. I do not like going with the flow unless it is backed by science.

So, what do you think of the science in that article above?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Are you more interested in an opinion or a science understanding.

The reason why I ask you to read is for you not to be guided by opinion, but rarther from science. If you keep on reading the same explanation you will start forming the same conclusion. As a scientists question, test, read of the alternatives and the update science research conducted by many scientists around the world.

If you think I have all the answer or conclusions, Sorry not so.

But I am not guided by opinion, I am guided by science. I keep reading recent, proper, bona-fide scientific papers on the ways our different observations are better described by the Big-Bang model than any other model. I thought it was you who were guided by opinion, since you had resorted to posting the opinions of the skeptics at thunderbolts, rather than any hard science.

I wonder what you think "science" actually means, sometimes. It seems to me that you assume that everything has to make some sort of sense to you, to conform to what you think things should be like. But sometimes, science is not like that. There have been many scientific discoveries made that seem to go against common-sense.

One such discovery is that light in a vacuum is always measured as having the same speed, regardless of the speed of whoever is measuring it. If I am "at rest", I measure light as traveling at 300,000 km/s relative to me. If I then accelerate, it doesn't matter how fast I am going at, if I do the experiment again, I still measure light as traveling at 300,000 km/s relative to me. Light is always measured as traveling at 300,000 km/s relative to whoever is measuring it, regardless of their speed relative to anyone else who is also measuring it. Does that make sense to you? Well, it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not, it is has been scientifically verified in repeated experiments.

Back to the issue at hand. Once again I should stress that it is the science performed on our whole collection of observations that fits a Big-Bang model better than any other. Sure, there are some areas where the fit is better than others but the overwhelming weight of evidence fits BBT better than anything else. There is no other model with anything like as good a fit, that fits as much of our data as BBT. It is the nature of science to question itself, continually.

But none of this is relevant here, as you have made no argument so far against the BBT model. All you have done is question it, but without giving any actual reason as to why it might be wrong. All you have done is give your opinion that we should question it, and when we ask why, you cannot give us a decent answer, all you can say is "I don't think it can happen like that, but I cannot tell you why, it just doesn't feel right" or words along those lines.

You still haven't told us why you think it is impossible that galaxies could have formed within half a billion years. If this is your conclusion, tell us how you came to it. If it is the conclusion of someone else, show us how they say they came to that conclusion. Otherwise, all we have here is an unfounded opinion.
:|

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

You said

You still haven't told us why you think it is impossible that galaxies could have formed within half a billion years. If this is your conclusion, tell us how you came to it. If it is the conclusion of someone else, show us how they say they came to that conclusion. Otherwise, all we have here is an unfounded opinion.

First you need to understand the complexity of the MILKY WAY and its small satelite galaxies and how they form part of a local group of galaxies with M87 at its centre being about 50 odd millon light years away and then how this local group belongs to a cluster of local groups and how this huge monster belongs to a super cluster of these monsters. You are looking at a mass of trillions upon trillions of sun masses within clusters of thousands of galaxies and this is just one super cluster. If you have any idea of distance and complexity there is no known science that can explain how such a super cluster can form in just 13.7 Billion years.
Now this is where the catch is, there are super clusters at 13.2 G light years away, how on Earth can these super clusters form in just 500 million years. Its not rocket science and main stream cannot answer such a problem without using ad hoc theories to make it work.

Oh! Yes we could say that the universe was quite different at its birth and the speed of light could have been much greater. But this is not science.
As for the speed of light. Its pulse may be constant at 300, 000 klm per sec but its speed can be reduced to zero under extreme EM fields, such as condensed matter form trapping horizons preventing EMR from escaping, some people call these black holes that have a contextual meaning.

 

[SpeedFreek]

First you need to understand the complexity of the MILKY WAY and its small satelite galaxies and how they form part of a local group of galaxies with M87 at its centre being about 50 odd millon light years away and then how this local group belongs to a cluster of local groups and how this huge monster belongs to a super cluster of these monsters. You are looking at a mass of trillions upon trillions of sun masses within clusters of thousands of galaxies and this is just one super cluster. If you have any idea of distance and complexity there is no known science that can explain how such a super cluster can form in just 13.7 Billion years.

There is plenty of science that can explain it, but as you have shown in this thread you just do not understand it, nor do you have any comprehension of how long 13.7 billion years actually is.

Now this is where the catch is, there are super clusters at 13.2 G light years away, how on Earth can these super clusters form in just 500 million years. Its not rocket science and main stream cannot answer such a problem without using ad hoc theories to make it work.

We've covered this already, and you are wrong. You are using a straw man here. I only just recently showed you the photos of the most distant galaxies we have seen... where are the super clusters?

Oh! Yes we could say that the universe was quite different at its birth and the speed of light could have been much greater. But this is not science.
As for the speed of light. Its pulse may be constant at 300, 000 klm per sec but its speed can be reduced to zero under extreme EM fields, such as condensed matter form trapping horizons preventing EMR from escaping, some people call these black holes that have a contextual meaning.

As for the speed of light, you really do not know what you are talking about, and as you obviously don't want to learn any actual science, I think this conversation has finally run its course. There is no point in me explaining the scientific viewpoint if you just ignore it.

Anyone who actually wants questions answered about cosmology should post them to either the "Space Science and Astronomy", "Ask the Astronomer", or the "Physics" forums, depending on the context. Anyone who wants to read harrys half baked ideas, continue reading this thread.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Actually, I hear the sound of Taps playing faintly in the distance for this thread. The Dead Horses are beginning to pile up enough to create a sanitation issue, and the same ground has been gone over so often so many times a new Grand Canyon is being formed. Since hc refuses (reteatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly) to answer any direct questions with relevant answers, it may be time to put this thread out of it's misery. I'll wait till the start of the new year for any comments, and/or reason to believe this will change.

 

[vladdrac]

The only way to resolve this is to go there

 

[harrycostas]

G'day all

Hello Meteorwayne

The subject of the Big Bang or no Big Bang has been on the cards for the last 80 years. If you are expecting some solution, there is no way from us or from the scientists around the world.

But! to stop a link because of your line of thinking is not science.

I have answered speedfreeks question in more ways then one.


Speedfreek said:

There is plenty of science that can explain it, but as you have shown in this thread you just do not understand it, nor do you have any comprehension of how long 13.7 billion years actually is.

The problem is that I do understand the explanation given by the BBT as to the creation of the universe in just 13.7 Gyrs. The explanation has no evidence to support any explanation for the formation of over 300 billion galaxies in deep field images in a short period of 500 million years. What do we have here science gone mad because we are in love with a theory. Its sounds like a religion to me.

 

[SpeedFreek]

The problem is that I do understand the explanation given by the BBT as to the creation of the universe in just 13.7 Gyrs. The explanation has no evidence to support any explanation for the formation of over 300 billion galaxies in deep field images in a short period of 500 million years. What do we have here science gone mad because we are in love with a theory. Its sounds like a religion to me.

What do you mean when you sat there is no evidence to support any explanation for the formation of galaxies in the deep field images in half a billion years? What sort of evidence would you accept as support for the explanation then?

Perhaps all we can do is wait for the technology for deeper field images. Then we shall see if there was a time when there were no galaxies yet, as the theory suggests. If we keep finding galaxies with higher and higher redshifts, there comes a point when there is not enough time for them to have formed in a Big-Bang universe, but half a billion years is more than enough time for galaxies to form, seeing as everything at the universal scale was a lot closer together then, than it is now. Especially as there were fewer galaxies in those days, nowhere near 300 billion!

Now, that 300 billion figure you are so fond of using is totally misconceived. It comes from extrapolating the number of galaxies in the deep field images across the whole sky. But... the deep field images contain galaxies with redshifts of z=1 and above. This range covers all the galaxies seen between half a billion years after the Big-Bang and 6 billion years after the Big-Bang. Nobody is saying that all the galaxies in the deep field images existed over 13 billion years ago. Proportionally, the number of galaxies reduces the further we look, so most of the galaxies in the deep field images are shown to exist well after 500 million years - there are relatively few really high redshift galaxies in the images. So please, stop talking about 300 billion galaxies existing within half a billion years. Those 300 billion galaxies cover nearly half the age of the universe.

So, please believe me, you do not know what you are talking about here.

I suddenly had a thought.. perhaps this is where you see your clustering in the deep field images. You think all those galaxies in those images are part of one cluster? That those relatively few, dim, gravitationally lensed blobs are clustering the with bright fully formed foreground galaxies whose light was emitted 6 billion years later?

 

[vladdrac]

Are not these the observations on which "Multiverse Theory" is founded? The "Multiverse" Universe is one very different from "Big Bang Universe". It is "Infinite"...more correctly "at least one dimension of the multiverse is "infinite". Something only crazed science fiction writers and Deities dare speak of in Academe. Whatsa matta you don't want to be a fish in an infinite sea? :lol:

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Hello vladdrac

The observations are direct from deep field images 13.2 G L yrs. These you can find in the NASA hubble site. From observations of the north and south sites the exposure time of a million seconds produced a deep field image of an area of a pea and from this the calculation of over 300 billion galaxies across the sky was calculated.

Hello Speedfreek

If you feel happy being right , then you are right.

The trap that most scientist fall into is te feeling of being right. This stops further research to question and go beyond. I say that the more I read the more I find how little I know.

Speedfreek all I want you to do is keep on reading self discovery. Do not worry about my opinion and I think you are concern that I should understand your concepts and I thank you for that.

You said

I suddenly had a thought.. perhaps this is where you see your clustering in the deep field images. You think all those galaxies in those images are part of one cluster? That those relatively few, dim, gravitationally lensed blobs are clustering the with bright fully formed foreground galaxies whose light was emitted 6 billion years later?

The super clusters are well documented and the local groups of galaxies that form part of a larger group of clusters is also well documented.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

This is an interestig image of a cluster of galaxies where at the centre exists a super massive AGN ( some call BH) and from this a jet is ejecting massive amounts of matter over one million light years from the centre.

PKS 1127-145:
Chandra Scores A Double Bonus With A Distant Quasar

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/1127/

The X-ray image of the quasar PKS 1127-145, a highly luminous source of X-rays and visible light about 10 billion light years from Earth, shows an enormous X-ray jet that extends at least a million light years from the quasar. The jet is likely due to the collision of a beam of high-energy electrons with microwave photons.

The high-energy beam is thought to have been produced by explosive activity related to gas swirling around a supermassive black hole. The length of the jet and the observed bright knots of X-ray emission suggest that the explosive activity is long-lived but intermittent.

On their way to Earth, the X-rays from the quasar pass through a galaxy located 4 billion light years away. Atoms of various elements in this galaxy absorb some of the X-rays, and produce a dimming of the quasar's X-rays, or an X-ray shadow. In a similar way, when our body is X-rayed, our bones produce an X-ray shadow. By measuring the amount of absorption astronomers were able to estimate that 4 billion years ago, the gas in the absorbing galaxy contained a much lower concentration of oxygen relative to hydrogen gas than does our galaxy - about 5 times lower. These observations will give astronomers insight into how the oxygen supply of galaxies is built up over the eons.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Once again, your link has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. You were talking about galactic clusters at > 13 GLY away, now you post a link discussing an AGN at 10 GLY.

With my Mod Hat on, I will strongly suggest that you respond to qustions with specific discussion related to the supposition we think you are making (and clarify if we are wrong, since you never state it clearly), and the questions you are being asked about them.

Your behaviour is becoming more and more spam/troll like.

This will only be tolerated for so long.

Mod Hat Off....

MW

 

[SpeedFreek]

Are not these the observations on which "Multiverse Theory" is founded?

Which observations? Which version of the Multiverse theory?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Hello Speedfreek

If you feel happy being right , then you are right.

I am right when I say you do not understand.

The super clusters are well documented and the local groups of galaxies that form part of a larger group of clusters is also well documented.

Yes, lots of different clusters of galaxies with redshifts of z=1 and above, but no clusters at the highest redshifts, only a few dim gravitationally lensed blobs. When will you listen? Why bother to continue claiming that we have seen superclusters at 13.2 GLy when we have seen no such things? Why argue against something that nobody is claiming except yourself?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

This object is 13 billion light years away

What do you think it is?

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/highzqso/
SDSS 0836+0054, 1030+0524 & 1306+0356:
Chandra Finds Well-Established Black Holes In Distant Quasars
and
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/h ... ptical.jpg

From your writing you have little infromation and understanding of cosmology. There are some interesting cosmo maps of the location of the supercluster known within the visble universe. There are some isolated and some that have merged. I can only ask you to keep on reading and try to understand the images given by Chandra, NASA Hubble, ESA and so on. Although their explanations are more so journal writing in the near future they are going to update their explanations to relate to the science issues.

This maybe my last for Xmas

So! Have a Merry very Xmas and good will to all.

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day Speedfreek

This object is 13 billion light years away

What do you think it is?

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/highzqso/
SDSS 0836+0054, 1030+0524 & 1306+0356:
Chandra Finds Well-Established Black Holes In Distant Quasars
and
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/h ... ptical.jpg

It is not a supercluster of galaxies!! "It" is actually 3 separate QSOs in 3 completely different constellations (Hydra, Sextans and Virgo) as the article says. So, show me a supercluster of galaxies whose light was emitted 13.2 billion years ago, which is what you claim is "common information". Come on, put up or shut up! Where are these images of superclusters, deep field images showing superclusters of galaxies in existence only half a billion years after the Big-Bang?

You won't be able to show me, as they do not exist! Your ultimate argument is a complete straw man, a total fabrication, a gross misrepresentation of the data.

From your writing you have little infromation and understanding of cosmology.

That is possibly the stupidest thing you have said in this thread. I would be deeply insulted if those words weren't coming from someone who themselves shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject! Pot, kettle and black comes to mind.

There are some interesting cosmo maps of the location of the supercluster known within the visble universe. There are some isolated and some that have merged.

Yes, I know them very well, and understand them completely. I am telling you that we have plotted no superclusters out at 13.2 Gy light-travel time, from 500 million years after the Big-Bang. I completely understand what we have actually observed and how those observations compare to the BBT. Why do you keep insisting on this nonsense?

I can only ask you to keep on reading and try to understand the images given by Chandra, NASA Hubble, ESA and so on. Although their explanations are more so journal writing in the near future they are going to update their explanations to relate to the science issues.

I can only ask that, rather than simply looking at photos whose content you obviously do not understand, you go away and actually study the subject you are questioning.

A Merry Christmas to you, too!

 

[ramparts]

Well, I've been out of this for a while, but from a lookover at the last couple of posts (to which Harry hasn't responded in a week), it looks like it's the same problem as always. Harry, it is great you're interested in these subjects, but you really should realize that your knowledge has limitations - as mine does, and as everyone's on this non-expert forum do - and sometimes you will misunderstand what you read. To arrogantly assert what you're claiming to be "common knowledge" is not a productive way of learning.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day ramparts

Just dropped in for a sec or two.

How can I respond, its Xmas and New Year times?

Time to smell the Roses and take the kids out.

Will not be back for another week or so, may be sooner.

Until then

Happy New year to all and good will to all man kind.

PS: Mate knowledge has always had its limitations.
The funny thing is that the more I read to more I realize the limitations.
My next topic of reading is on Axion Cosmology and Supersymmetry and their realtionship to intantons, solitons and dilatons. Thats for the new year.

 

[SpeedFreek]

PS: Mate knowledge has always had its limitations.
The funny thing is that the more I read to more I realize the limitations.
My next topic of reading is on Axion Cosmology and Supersymmetry and their realtionship to intantons, solitons and dilatons. Thats for the new year.

Crikey! Harry is like a cosmological data hoover, vacuuming up some very deep topics and then emptying the bag here!

Happy new year Harry, and have fun!

 

[MeteorWayne]

.

PS: Mate knowledge has always had its limitations.
The funny thing is that the more I read to more I realize the limitations.
My next topic of reading is on Axion Cosmology and Supersymmetry and their realtionship to intantons, solitons and dilatons. Thats for the new year.

MOD HAT ON****

harrycostas:

Don't do that in this thread. It is not directly related to the topic.

In fact, this thread will likely be closed since it has drifted so far off topic, and has killed many dead horses.

Start a new one, and CLEARLY indicate the subject of the topic.

Also, a final warning, when you post, CLEARLY state the point you are trying to make.

When asked questions about the subject of your post, CLEARLY reply to the inquiry.

Failure to follow these instructions will have undesired consequences.

Meteor Wayne

MOD HAT OFF****

 

[donlaw]

I have to agree on the big bang for the reasons I have seen many things in the microscopic world. Under the microscope I have seen threads in the metrics and thought it was a hair but when I tried to remove it it was not attachable. Possibly a thread or black hole. I think of the solution as the dark matter and the different atoms of metals as small worlds. When the right heat and pressures are applied the metals attach to like metals which have the correct pluses or negatives to make the bond or in the universe bang into each other to create a known element or special world which through joging and other forces create a larger element or world. I believe this is how they are formed and each is unique in its making which is like the elements in the Element chart. So through this I have come to the conclusion that worlds are just larger elements and the universe is like a solution with special atomic parts looking for a match to create a new element or world. Dr.Don Law

 

[ramparts]

Dr.? Really?

 

[MeteorWayne]

:lol:

 

[drwayne]

As they say at another science forum:

"Can I have some Thousand Island with that?"

Welcome to the forum Don. You may find that "word salad" approach is not well received in this
venue.