Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[drwayne]

I fail to see why people still respond to Harry, after 34 pages.

I certainly understand that.

I think many have had the experience in the past with the argumentative pseudoscientist types who
seek simply to - outlast - his opponents by virtue of the fact that they hang around for long enough
that people get frustrated by evasive non-sense and word salads and quit, and they declare
that they won the day.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Drwayne

You said

ramparts wrote:
I fail to see why people still respond to Harry, after 34 pages.

I certainly understand that.

I think many have had the experience in the past with the argumentative pseudoscientist types who
seek simply to - outlast - his opponents by virtue of the fact that they hang around for long enough
that people get frustrated by evasive non-sense and word salads and quit, and they declare
that they won the day.

Won what day?

Is it a crime to share reading that I come across particularly from NASA The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System.
Would it make people happy if I read what you want only.

Hello speedfreek, mate you have no idea of cosmology and the little you know is so out of date.
If you have a science response to what I say than I'm all ears, rather than trying to dictate some form of understanding.

As for Axion and related subatomic particles, Wikipedea has a good write up.

 

[origin]

Is it a crime to share reading that I come across particularly from NASA The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System.
Would it make people happy if I read what you want only.

Hello speedfreek, mate you have no idea of cosmology and the little you know is so out of date.
If you have a science response to what I say than I'm all ears, rather than trying to dictate some form of understanding.

With that nonresponsive and inflamatory reply I can say that after only 34 pages I have finally figured out that Harry is nothing more than one of those beasts that live under bridges and accosts goats.

I'm must be afrigging genuis. G'by silly thread....

 

[MeteorWayne]

And explain directly, in the post you make the assertion that it is related, in no uncertain terms how it is related to the topic of this discussion.

Anything less will result in moderation.

That's what I said immediately before your post which consisted of a search list.

You failed to provide DIRECTLY how that is related IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS to the topic of the discussion.

I believe therefore that you have violated the terms of my warning.

I'll give you 24 hours to correct it before action is taken

(BTW, I knew you couldn't do it )

 

[SpeedFreek]

Hello speedfreek, mate you have no idea of cosmology and the little you know is so out of date.
If you have a science response to what I say than I'm all ears, rather than trying to dictate some form of understanding.

I can only respond to what you say when you actually say something. What is it you are saying that you want me to respond to?

 

[ramparts]

Okay, my big heart has forced me to give Harry one more chance.

Harry, it is certainly not a problem to read whatever you want. But if you're going to make a point on this discussion, then you HAVE TO JUSTIFY THAT. That's how science works. Those are the terms. Go to any physics department's lecture and you'll see this; if someone asks the speaker a question, they will *never* just say "go read up on it." They will do their best to answer the question directly.

That's what we're asking you to do. This happens repeatedly, but in this case you made some claim - and a fairly vague and confusing one at that - about how axions are important for deciding whether or not there was a Big Bang. NOT every paper about axions makes this abundantly clear, so instead of telling us to skim through 70-something mostly-unrelated papers to figure out what you're talking about, please TELL us, explain yourself, what you mean. Just saying "go read papers about it" is *never* the right answer to a question unless you say which precise papers, and supplement that by explaining yourself what the paper says (in detail) and why it's relevant.

Does that make sense, Harry?

Because what you're doing now makes a healthy discussion impossible. A discussion is a communication of ideas, not unexplained links, between people.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day ramparts

In a nutshell

Compact matter has properties that allow it to form a vortex, the stability of the vortex is dependent on the size and type of matter. This vortex is able to eject matter from the core of the compact matter as subatomic particles carried in a magnetic field close to the speed of light, we also know that atoms form from a memory property. This process can explain the formation of supernovas and the giant jets of AGN that are able to eject matter and reform galaxies near and far. What ever images that we see can be explained without using the BBT that relies on ad hoc theories to make it work.
Some people think that I'm trying to prove a point. Far from it. I'm several years from really even thinking of proving any points.
The next Ten years are very promissing from NASA to research compact matter and the various frequencies of phase transition during a supernova and AGN.

This may be of interest:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.4201
Symmetry breaking patterns and collective modes of spin-one color superconductors

Authors: Tomas Brauner, Jin-yi Pang, Qun Wang
(Submitted on 23 Sep 2009)

Abstract: Spin-one color superconductor is a viable candidate phase of dense matter in the interiors of compact stars. Its low-energy excitations will influence the transport properties of such matter and thus have impact on late-stage evolution of neutron stars. It also provides a good example of spontaneous symmetry breaking with rich breaking patterns. In this contribution, we reanalyze the phase diagram of a spin-one color superconductor and point out that a part of it is occupied by noninert states, which have been neglected in literature so far. We classify the collective Nambu--Goldstone modes, which are essential to the transport phenomena.

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3043
The Meissner Effect and Vortex Expulsion in Color-Superconducting Quark stars, and its Role for Re-heating of Magnetars

Authors: Brian Niebergal, Rachid Ouyed, Rodrigo Negreiros, Fridolin Weber
(Submitted on 16 Jun 2009)

Abstract: Compact stars made of quark matter rather than confined hadronic matter, are expected to form a color superconductor. This superconductor ought to be threaded with rotational vortex lines within which the star's interior magnetic field is confined. The vortices (and thus magnetic flux) would be expelled from the star during stellar spin-down, leading to magnetic reconnection at the surface of the star and the prolific production of thermal energy. In this Letter, we show that this energy release can re-heat quark stars to exceptionally high temperatures, such as observed for Soft Gamma Repeaters (SGRs), Anomalous X-Ray pulsars (AXPs), and X-ray dim isolated neutron stars (XDINs). Moreover, our numerical investigations of the temperature evolution, spin-down rate, and magnetic field behavior of such superconducting quark stars suggest that SGRs, AXPs, and XDINs may be linked ancestrally. Finally, we discuss the possibility of a time delay before the star enters the color superconducting phase, which can be used to estimate the density at which quarks deconfine. We find this density to be five times that of nuclear saturation.

 

[origin]

G'day ramparts

In a nutshell

Compact matter has properties that allow it to form a vortex, the stability of the vortex is dependent on the size and type of matter. This vortex is able to eject matter from the core of the compact matter as subatomic particles carried in a magnetic field close to the speed of light, we also know that atoms form from a memory property. This process can explain the formation of supernovas and the giant jets of AGN that are able to eject matter and reform galaxies near and far. What ever images that we see can be explained without using the BBT that relies on ad hoc theories to make it work.
Some people think that I'm trying to prove a point. Far from it. I'm several years from really even thinking of proving any points.
The next Ten years are very promissing from NASA to research compact matter and the various frequencies of phase transition during a supernova and AGN.

This may be of interest:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.4201
Symmetry breaking patterns and collective modes of spin-one color superconductors

Authors: Tomas Brauner, Jin-yi Pang, Qun Wang
(Submitted on 23 Sep 2009)

Abstract: Spin-one color superconductor is a viable candidate phase of dense matter in the interiors of compact stars. Its low-energy excitations will influence the transport properties of such matter and thus have impact on late-stage evolution of neutron stars. It also provides a good example of spontaneous symmetry breaking with rich breaking patterns. In this contribution, we reanalyze the phase diagram of a spin-one color superconductor and point out that a part of it is occupied by noninert states, which have been neglected in literature so far. We classify the collective Nambu--Goldstone modes, which are essential to the transport phenomena.

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3043
The Meissner Effect and Vortex Expulsion in Color-Superconducting Quark stars, and its Role for Re-heating of Magnetars

Authors: Brian Niebergal, Rachid Ouyed, Rodrigo Negreiros, Fridolin Weber
(Submitted on 16 Jun 2009)

Abstract: Compact stars made of quark matter rather than confined hadronic matter, are expected to form a color superconductor. This superconductor ought to be threaded with rotational vortex lines within which the star's interior magnetic field is confined. The vortices (and thus magnetic flux) would be expelled from the star during stellar spin-down, leading to magnetic reconnection at the surface of the star and the prolific production of thermal energy. In this Letter, we show that this energy release can re-heat quark stars to exceptionally high temperatures, such as observed for Soft Gamma Repeaters (SGRs), Anomalous X-Ray pulsars (AXPs), and X-ray dim isolated neutron stars (XDINs). Moreover, our numerical investigations of the temperature evolution, spin-down rate, and magnetic field behavior of such superconducting quark stars suggest that SGRs, AXPs, and XDINs may be linked ancestrally. Finally, we discuss the possibility of a time delay before the star enters the color superconducting phase, which can be used to estimate the density at which quarks deconfine. We find this density to be five times that of nuclear saturation.

 

[ramparts]

Hi Harry - thanks for the explanation, I really do appreciate it.

Can you please explain why our observations of AGN jets have anything to do with whether or not the big bang theory is right? I'm unaware of any major connection between them. Again, this is something you can certainly do in your own words, without pointing to arXiv papers.

 

[MeteorWayne]

And again, failing to DIRECTLY relate it to this topic:

"Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang."

Will result in action you have been repeatedly warned about, harry.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day MeteorWayne

If you understand the workings of the universe you would know what I say is directly related to this topic.

Hello Ramparts

All compact matter within stars whether Neutron, Quark or AGN that some call black holes have similar properties. It is the research into the compact matter that will explain to us how supernovas and AGN work. Research into axion and smilar particels is the key factor.

The BBT relies on redshift and its velocity factor to explain the expansion of the universe. Hubble himself questioned the velocity.

What does the expansion?
The actual distance are not affected. To work around this the, BBT states that its space/time that expands. When you think of it, it has nothing to do with reality.

If actual distance was affected than we would by observations see our own MW expand, we would see the 60 odds saterlites of the MW be moving away, we would see the local group of galaxies moving apart. This is not the case they are gravity bound and moving towards a gravity sink related to each.

One more thing, Black holes are contextual, the classical black hole with a singularity and an Event Horizon does not exist.

 

[neuvik]

G'day MeteorWayne

If you understand the workings of the universe you would know what I say is directly related to this topic.

....

wow....

Can you provide a link to an paper abstract? I have a hard time relating to anything unless I have to buy the actual paper. I'm sure you can jury rig something up on him...you do for everything else.

 

[SpeedFreek]

If actual distance was affected than we would by observations see our own MW expand, we would see the 60 odds saterlites of the MW be moving away, we would see the local group of galaxies moving apart. This is not the case they are gravity bound and moving towards a gravity sink related to each.

Is our Milky-Way gravitationally bound to a cluster of galaxies on the other side of the universe? NO. Due to the inverse squared law of gravity, across that distance the influence is infinitesimally small. This was all explained to you during the first few pages of this thread.

Your assertion that we should see our own Milky-Way expand is completely and utterly incorrect and does not conform to the Big-Bang theory, and yet you insist it is part of the Big-Bang model and thus disproves the Big-Bang model! Yet another straw man argument. You blithely state that we don't understand cosmology when it is YOU that keeps misinterpreting the standard model for an expanding universe.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

The background (the fabric of space, or space-time) expands, and where the gravitational influence between things is large enough to counter that expansion, things cluster together due to gravity, but due to the inverse squared law there is a distance where the rate of expansion beats the gravitational influence. That distance is not inside our Milky-Way, nor is it inside our local-cluster, nor is it inside the supercluster that our local cluster is a part of. That distance is larger than the distance between galaxies in a supercluster, but is smaller than the distance between superclusters. This is what the various redshift relationships tell us, when those relationships are compared to each other. You have not addressed any of these arguments.

Your assertion that redshifts might be due to some process involving the jets from AGN is patently ridiculous, as has been explained to you, repeatedly. You have not addressed any of these arguments either. Now you are also asserting that those jets might somehow be involved with our observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation through some process involving axions. Utter nonsense, unless you care to prove otherwise, and tie that in with all those previously unresolved arguments to produce a cohesive model of what you think is really going on and then tie that in with all our observations.

But you will not be able to do any of that, because you have no understanding of cosmology, AT ALL. I don't think you even understand the meaning of the word cosmology itself. You speak of ad hoc theories, but you are using your ill conceived and misinterpreted understanding of astrophysics in a completely ad hoc way yourself! Your whole argument is ad hoc and, from what we have seen so far, has absolutely no bearing on cosmology.

"Never argue with an idiot - they just bring you down to their own level and then beat you with experience"

 

[MeteorWayne]

And again, failing to DIRECTLY relate it to this topic:

"Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang."

Will result in action you have been repeatedly warned about, harry.

Your response " G'day MeteorWayne

If you understand the workings of the universe you would know what I say is directly related to this topic."

Is not sufficient. Time to get you attention in a more forceful manner.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day speedfreek

You said

Is our Milky-Way gravitationally bound to a cluster of galaxies on the other side of the universe? NO. Due to the inverse squared law of gravity, across that distance the influence is infinitesimally small. This was all explained to you during the first few pages of this thread.

Mate you need to read more.

The (extended) Local Group of galaxies
http://www.astro.utu.fi/EG/ELG/

Galaxy groups stay together as groups, and are defined as groups, due to the gravitational interaction, i.e. dynamics, they impose on each other. Usually a group has two or three massive galaxies that dominate the dynamics of the group and a variety of smaller galaxies which more or less orbit the massive ones or are exchanged between them, or in some cases are flung out of the system altogether when they fly close to a massive galaxy. It is also possible that the massive one devours a dwarf galaxy that comes too close.

An Atlas of the Universe - Links
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/links.html
Maybe by reading a bit more you may gain some understanding.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Meteorwayne

What do you want from me?

The secrets of the universe when we only know a scratch of a scratch.

I like to see a positive response rather than all these negatives. Particularly from a moderator.

 

[csmyth3025]

Harry,
I think what we would like to see is a coherent statement from you on the subject of the Big Bang Theory (aka the Standard Model of the Universe). Posting links to abstracts of obscure research papers in which the authors themselves make no claims that their findings lead them to conclusions similar to yours is not useful. Posting links to abstracts that are totally off-subject to your claims is simply irritating.

There are more than a few people in this forum who have misgivings about the completeness - or even the correctness - of the Standard Model. Flatly stating that the currently accepted theory is wrong without providing (in your own words) a rigorous argument supporting your point of view will not convince even the doubters among us.

I personally am uncomfortable with the multitude of patches that have been added to the Standard Model so that it conforms to observations. It's beginning to look like a rusted out old car which has more Bondo in the body than metal. That said, I'm not prepared to claim that the Standard Model is wrong until I better understand why those who are a lot smarter than me (and a whole lot more knowledgeable about cosmology) think it's right.

On one issue you've raised I cannot agree. I believe firmly the the Universe is, indeed, expanding, and that there have been many verified (and verifiable) observations supporting this conclusion. I've seen nothing to the contrary in your posts or links that make any sense.

Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

You said

Is our Milky-Way gravitationally bound to a cluster of galaxies on the other side of the universe? NO. Due to the inverse squared law of gravity, across that distance the influence is infinitesimally small. This was all explained to you during the first few pages of this thread.

Mate you need to read more.

The (extended) Local Group of galaxies
http://www.astro.utu.fi/EG/ELG/

You need to read more of the links you post. That link says nothing about the gravitational interaction between our extended local group of galaxies and a cluster of galaxies on the other side of the universe, which is what I asked.

You do not know what you are talking about.

An Atlas of the Universe - Links
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/links.html
Maybe by reading a bit more you may gain some understanding.

Ok.. let's read.. http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/redshift.html

This is the problem of defining a distance in an expanding universe: Two galaxies are near to each other when the universe is only 1 billion years old. The first galaxy emits a pulse of light. The second galaxy does not receive the pulse until the universe is 14 billion years old. By this time, the galaxies are separated by about 26 billion light years; the pulse of light has been travelling for 13 billion years; and the view the people receive in the second galaxy is an image of the first galaxy when it was only 1 billion years old and when it was only about 2 billion light years away.

None of the links from that site say anything different. You just posted a site that supports the Big-Bang and explains the expansion in the same way I do. Nothing in any of that sites links disagrees. If this is meant to be an argument against the Big-Bang, then...

You do not know what you are talking about.

Further down that page, the angular diameter - redshift distance relationship is explained! :lol:

 

[marcel_leonard]

Ultimately no one knows what the Space/Time continuum really is; which ultimately makes me feel justified believing in a creator of this universe...

Does that mean if we come up with a good definition of space-time you will become an atheist?

What it means is that we really don't know what we're talking about when we use words like God, The Universe, or Time/Space for that matter

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Or "singularity".

 

[marcel_leonard]

Or "singularity".

Correct!!!

"The beginnings of true understand is realizing what one doesn't understand"...

Marcel Leonard 2010

The Haitians are people that have everything from Books, Dance, Painting, Music, and Motion Pictures to support. If you truly wish to support Haitian artist; buy their craft (Paintings, Photographs, Manuscripts, Music CDs, and yes Poetry)....

http://www.lulu.com/content/2446920

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

I just read this link, understanding condensed matter made up of sub atomic particles may give us a better understanding of how electromagnetic fields form in addition to the formation of jets. The paper is informative although I do not agree with parts of it, particularly the reheating of the universe as a total.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2996
Cosmological Condensation of Scalar Fields -- Making a dark energy

Authors: Houri Ziaeepour
(Submitted on 15 Mar 2010)

Abstract: Our Universe is ruled by quantum mechanics and its extension Quantum Field Theory (QFT). However, the explanations for a number of cosmological phenomena such as inflation, dark energy, symmetry breakings, and phase transitions need the presence of classical scalar fields. Although the process of condensation of scalar fields in the lab is fairly well understood, the extension of results to a cosmological context is not trivial. Here we investigate the formation of a condensate - a classical scalar field - after reheating of the Universe. We assume a light quantum scalar field produced by the decay of a heavy particle, which for simplicity is assumed to be another scalar. We show that during radiation domination epoch under certain conditions, the decay of the heavy particle alone is sufficient for the production of a condensate. This process is very similar to preheating - the exponential particle production at the end of inflation. During matter domination epoch when the expansion of the Universe is faster, the decay alone can not keep the growing trend of the field and the amplitude of the condensate decreases rapidly, unless there is a self interaction. This issue is particularly important for dark energy. We show that quantum corrections of the self-interaction play a crucial role in this process. Notably, they induce an effective action which includes inverse power-law terms, and therefore can lead to a tracking behaviour even when the classical self-interaction is a simple power-law of order 3 or 4. This removes the necessity of having nonrenormalisable terms in the Lagrangian. If dark energy is the condensate of a quantum scalar field, these results show that its presence is deeply related to the action of quantum physics at largest observable scales.

 

[CommonMan]

Hi Harry, glad to see you are still around. I can not comment on this thread much because Quantum Physics are out of my education I'm afraid. I have tried to read books on it to educate myself, but it only made my head hurt. But I think there is much more to it we don't understand yet. The miroverse is yet to be explored and understood.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Commonman

Thank you for your comment.

Hi Harry, glad to see you are still around

I'm still around big time, non stop reading and the more I read the more I find that scientists are focusing on the properties of condensed matter to explain many observations of the universe.

I posted that link as an informative link, no need to comment.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

I was reading this paper and thought it maybe interesting to read.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/1003.0291
Astrophysical Black Holes in the Physical Universe

Authors: Shuang-Nan Zhang
(Submitted on 1 Mar 2010)

Abstract: In this chapter I focus on asking and answering the following questions: (1) What is a black hole? Answer: There are three types of black holes, namely mathematical black holes, physical black holes and astrophysical black holes. An astrophysical black hole, with mass distributed within its event horizon but not concentrated at the singularity point, is not a mathematical black hole. (2) Can astrophysical black holes be formed in the physical universe? Answer: Yes, at least this can be done with gravitational collapse. (3) How can we prove that what we call astrophysical black holes are really black holes? Answer: Finding direct evidence of event horizon is not the way to go. Instead I propose five criteria which meet the highest standard for recognizing new discoveries in experimental physics and observational astronomy. (4) Do we have sufficient evidence to claim the existence of astrophysical black holes in the physical universe? Answer: Yes, astrophysical black holes have been found at least in some galactic binary systems, at the center of almost every galaxy, and as the central engines of at least some long gamma-ray bursts. (5) Will all matter in the universe eventually fall into black holes? Answer: Probably "no", because "naked" compact objects, if they do exist with radii smaller than the radii of event horizons for their masses but are not enclosed by event horizons, can rescue the universe from an eternal death by re-cycling out the matter previously accreted into astrophysical black holes. Finally I also discuss briefly if we need a quantum theory of gravity in order to further understand astrophysical black holes, and what further astronomical observations and telescopes are needed to make further progress on our understanding of astrophysical black holes.

Point 5 has an interesting point in recycling.