Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

Page 24 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

harrycostas

Guest
G'day

Hello Drwayne, do you know the amount of work that is involved in calaculating the mass ejected from a black hole. Mate other science people do those calculations who are in the field.


Hello vladdrac

Black holes or AGN (active galactic nuclei) can form huge mommas.

These are big jets thousands of light years.
M87 Core is about 3 billions Sun masses
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/1994/23/

galaxy 0313-192
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/2003/04/

and this is huge

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -suns.html
18 Billion Suns -A Galaxy Classic: Biggest Black Hole in Universe Discovered—and it’s BIG
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
harrycostas":200lvucf said:
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.

Yes, if you actually read my post you will see I explicitly referred to the Chandra data from 2006, analysed in 2008. I know the information and I understand what scientists think the data means. It seems you do not.


harrycostas":200lvucf said:
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.

All science is published in journals and checked by other scientists. Which hard working scientists are paving the way with actual science but not writing it in journals? How can the scientific establishment check their work?

And what has any of this got to do with Big-Bang theory? Why does a mechanism where dwarf galaxies are formed from ejected matter have any bearing on the expansion of the universe? If it is not your idea that jets forming new galaxies precludes the expansion of the universe, then whose idea is it?

Now, for the umpteenth time - how do these "hard working scientists" explain the increase in redshift with distance? What is the mechanism behind redshift, and why do more distant galaxies have higher redshifts?
 
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
Short Version............. I go with Big Bang.


Long Version................

Running Einsteins Universe backwards makes everything gets closer together. Running it forwards everything gets farther apart. Are you saying that galactic jets are fueling this expansion?

Or are you saying that the model of an expanding Universe is wrong? (It could be, but I dont really see how. I have accepted that just because I do not understand something in no way invalidates it, it means I need to study it more and keep an open mind)

Example. I was having a hard time understanding Nuclear Synthesis. Meteor Wayne pointed me to a very informative article about it. THIS IS MY PROOF "IN THE BAG" SO TO SPEAK.

In case your wondering, I dont really get along with Mwayne at all. BUT THAT IN NO WAY INVALIDATES THE INFORMATION THAT HE PROVIDED. It was a very informative article, I did have some trouble digesting it, but that was due to my own limitations and not HIS.

So regardless as to how you may feel about a subject or person "personally", without giving them a chance, without "listening" you may be missing out on a lot. The learning process involves mistakes. If you never made any, then you would never learn. Thats how it works.

MWayne.......I still dislike you.....but that doesn't mean that I don't respect you. Even "I" am capable of learning. And one thing I have learned is that no matter how much I "want" to be correct, I must accept the fact that sometimes I am NOT correct. This is a big admission for a human, and an even bigger one for me.

So here is your PROOF. Here is your EVIDENCE. I offer MYSELF, all imperfections included. If I can put aside my differences with Mwayne long enough to LISTEN and UNDERSTAND what he was saying, then anybody can learn anything!

I fully agree with the need for scientific journals. Also with the need to preserve all relevant data. I may have issues with the "peer review process", but only in one area of science. This does not invalidate the data in all the other sciences.

But the short version.......Big Bang....yes

Star
 
H

harrycostas

Guest
G'day

Hello Speedfreek

You said

And what has any of this got to do with Big-Bang theory? Why does a mechanism where dwarf galaxies are formed from ejected matter have any bearing on the expansion of the universe? If it is not your idea that jets forming new galaxies precludes the expansion of the universe, then whose idea is it?

Understanding the workings and formation of galaxies may give you some understanding of what contraction and expansion means.
There is no expansion of the Universe as a Total. How can infinity expand into infinity?

The BBT states that the origin of the universe occurred every where expanding space/time. Think about it for a sec, where is the evidence? Where is the observations? You may need to define evidence that cannot be disputed.

Cosmology as a science will in the next few years undergo huge changes.

Hello Falling star1971
You said
I go with Big Bang.

Show me the observations that proves the BBT.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
harrycostas":1fvf7qxw said:
Show me the observations that proves the BBT.
I did that on page 10 of this thread.

SpeedFreek":1fvf7qxw said:
harrycostas":1fvf7qxw said:
Ok! you say main stream is correct or a model to follow. Than show me evidence by observation that this model is the one to follow.

The observed large-scale homogeneity shown by the various redshift surveys, including the data from SDSS.

The linearity of the Hubble law:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9604143 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9707260
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9805201 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0402512

The abundances of light elements:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9706069 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9405022 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0407176

And as a result of Big-Bang nucleosynthesis, the existence of the CMBR:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9810373 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0012222

The fluctuations in the CMBR:
http://background.uchicago.edu/
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html

The large-scale structure:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6871
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0209208
http://www.virgo.dur.ac.uk/

The ages of stars:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0407524 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0401443
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0103450 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0403293

Galactic Evolution:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 4/07/text/

In vibrant contrast to the image's rich harvest of classic spiral and elliptical galaxies, there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting. Their strange shapes are a far cry from the majestic spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge.

Time-dilation in supernova light-curves:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9605134
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0104382
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0309368

Tolman tests:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0102213 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0102214
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0106563 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0106566

The "Sunyaev-Zel'dovich" effect:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/B ... rk9_1.html
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/B ... k11_1.html

The "Integrated Sachs-Wolfe" effect:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0307335
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0308260
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0305097

That should do, for starters! ;)
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
Do their odd shapes prohibit solar systems?. Maybe there is a Munchkin Land!
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
harrycostas":jouv7kpe said:
How can infinity expand into infinity?

Leaving the math of infinities aside for the moment ... who claims the above ? Certainly not the BBT.
 
H

harrycostas

Guest
G'day from the lad of ozzzzz

Hello Speedfreek

Thank you for those links. I have read them before. Before I read them again pick one for discussion.

Hello vladdrac

What do you mean?

Hello Mee-n-Mac

Who claims what?
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
harrycostas":10oyk4ea said:
Hello Speedfreek

Thank you for those links. I have read them before. Before I read them again pick one for discussion.

That's the problem you are having - these issues need to be taken as a whole in order to see the overall picture. No single observation can show that the universe is expanding, you have to take all the observations and consider the wider view.

This is why all your talk of jets emitted from Active Galactic Nuclei fails to make an impression - you don't say what the implications of those observations are, for the universe as a whole. Well, actually you do say something, you make a simple assertion that those observations should make us question whether the universe expanded from a hot, dense state to a cooler, less dense state, carrying matter along for the ride in the process (Big-Bang Theory), but you don't say why we should question it, based on those jets.

What aspect of the expansion model do those jets address, and how do they relate to other observations? Do all galaxies have active nuclei, emitting jets that form dwarf galaxies around them? Why does the redshift of all galaxies (outside of our local area) increase, with distance (as luminosity decreases)? Why do we only see blueshifts for galaxies in our own supercluster, whilst all other superclusters show increasing redshift with distance? What have your jets got to do with this? How do your jets relate to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which comes in at the same temperature (with incredibly small fluctuations) from all directions?

Our experiments in particle accelerators have given us a clue what a universe would be like if it was once in a very hot dense state. A theoretical prediction is made, based upon these experiments - nucleosynthesis at a universe scale, which should produce as an end-product a background radiation at a similar temperature throughout the universe.

Any small fluctuations in temperature can be attributed to fluctuations in the density of energy/matter in those regions, so we end up with an almost uniform universe, expanding as it cools. Gravity is the weakest force, and the universe is too energetic for it to take hold at first, but after a while it is cooler and less energetic and gravity takes hold in the denser areas, making them even more dense, whilst there is less gravity in the less dense areas. The matter in the universe "clumps up" as it expands, with the clumps separating, due to that expansion. Eventually those clumps form into clusters of galaxies, so we have denser regions of galaxies with less dense regions around them. The earliest galaxies would have "condensed" in a random way, before they had time to gravitationally interact with other galaxies in a swirling dance that forms spirals or regular looking ellipses. The first galaxies would look strange.

Theory tells us that the early universe was full of only the simplest elements, so the first generations of stars would have been formed from the lightest elements. Theory also tells us that any heavier elements are formed during the highly energetic events at the end of stars lives. So, in a universe expanding from a hot dense state, as time goes on, the ratio between lighter elements and heavier elements will be changing throughout the universe. There should be an abundance of lighter elements earlier on, when compared to later.

These are some of the predictions of the Big-Bang theory, and those links I gave show how our observations match with the prediction. I'll stop here for now, but as you can hopefully see, you have to appreciate the whole picture before you can make sense of how the individual observations are involved.
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
An "infinite" object composed of an "infinite" number of points exerting "infinite" pressure on each point. The pressure causes slight transient deformity on points "boundery" such that each point is rotating in place. Each point is driven to some relativistic velocity which causes changes in the points structure. These "changes" are "Universes"...the matter of each point becoming energy. Thats an odd bit of writing...even for me.... :shock:
 
H

harrycostas

Guest
G'day

Vladdrac I think you lost me back at the ranch.

Hello Speedfreek

In plain english the Universe is not expanding.

What we observe and if you take the time to look at images from various sites Chandra, Hubble, Goddard, ESO and so on you will find the images show a clustering affect.

Not only that, in deep field images about 13 G light yrs they have found galaxies 8 times the size of the Milky Way and if you know anything about the formation of our solar sytem (about 5 Billion yrs) there is no way in hell that a giant galaxy can form in just 700 million years, unless you close your eyes and add a few ad hoc theories. This is general information and can be searched.

Going back to jets, read up on them as to their influence. Their impact holds the secrets to how things expand and reform. Please do not take my word for it. If I post any links you will dispute them on whatever grounds.

I really think that you are a smart cookie.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
harrycostas":1f1uxwfb said:
What we observe and if you take the time to look at images from various sites Chandra, Hubble, Goddard, ESO and so on you will find the images show a clustering affect.
If galaxies are forming into clusters and the universe is expanding, increasing the distance between those clusters over time, what would you expect the images to look like?

harrycostas":1f1uxwfb said:
Not only that, in deep field images about 13 G light yrs they have found galaxies 8 times the size of the Milky Way and if you know anything about the formation of our solar sytem (about 5 Billion yrs) there is no way in hell that a giant galaxy can form in just 700 million years, unless you close your eyes and add a few ad hoc theories. This is general information and can be searched.
I really need to see a link for this one...

harrycostas":1f1uxwfb said:
Going back to jets, read up on them as to their influence. Their impact holds the secrets to how things expand and reform. Please do not take my word for it. If I post any links you will dispute them on whatever grounds.
I have read up on jets. I only dispute links when people, like yourself, are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the data.
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
While perfectly stationary an object spins up to reletivistic velocities: What sort of changes might occur in the physical structure of the object?
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
vladdrac":11urgdgx said:
While perfectly stationary an object spins up to reletivistic velocities: What sort of changes might occur in the physical structure of the object?

That question really deserves a whole thread of its own, as it forms the basis of the Ehrenfest paradox. What is the object made of and why is this relevant to the origins of the universe?

:)
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
it is an infinitely dense point...some kind of "unobtainium" in an infinite sea of points under infinite pressure. Once a certain velocity is reached a Universe pops into being. If one could look from far 'outside' infinity one would see an infinite series of spheres each expanding and contracting slightly showing very different states at each stage of expansion and contraction...the point converts to energy...it is not exactly big bang or big crunch
 
C

CommonMan

Guest
vladdrac":3g5k5awh said:
it is an infinitely dense point...some kind of "unobtainium" in an infinite sea of points under infinite pressure. Once a certain velocity is reached a Universe pops into being. If one could look from far 'outside' infinity one would see an infinite series of spheres each expanding and contracting slightly showing very different states at each stage of expansion and contraction...the point converts to energy...it is not exactly big bang or big crunch


Are you talking about the multiple universe theory? I saw something like that on the TV show the Universe on channel 120 dish network.
 
H

harrycostas

Guest
G'day

Speedfreek said

I have read up on jets. I only dispute links when people, like yourself, are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the data.

Mate this is the most silly statement of them all. If you wish to read up on the subject in the last 12 months there has been some interesting research.

Use science to understand and discuss issues.

You say you have researched jets. Mate, please be honest. I know what you discuss and from that you need to read more.

As for deep field images, it is common information, a press of the key.

The sizes of the galaxies are well documented.


http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... galaxy.htm
Credit: NASA/ESA/R Hurt/Spitzer Science Center
Nov 07, 2005
Just Another Small, Faint Galaxy

Big Bang theorists interpret Hubble telescope images of small, faint galaxies as ultra-big, ultra-bright galaxies seen long, long ago and far, far away. But evidence from outside their narrow field of view indicates that the galaxies are really small and faint.

The image above combines a visible-light image from the Hubble telescope with an infrared image from the Spitzer telescope. Publicists bill it as “a massive galaxy ... about eight times the mass of the Milky Way ... early in the history of the universe, a time when such mature galaxies were not thought [sic] to exist.” (Actually, because its age is estimated to be “a mere 800 million years after the Big Bang,” long before there were thinking human beings, it is a time when such mature galaxies were thought not to exist.)

Read the rest of the paper.
 
O

origin

Guest
harrycostas":26dbss4p said:
G'day

Speedfreek said

I have read up on jets. I only dispute links when people, like yourself, are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the data.

Mate this is the most silly statement of them all. If you wish to read up on the subject in the last 12 months there has been some interesting research.

Use science to understand and discuss issues.

You say you have researched jets. Mate, please be honest. I know what you discuss and from that you need to read more.

As for deep field images, it is common information, a press of the key.

The sizes of the galaxies are well documented.


http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... galaxy.htm
Credit: NASA/ESA/R Hurt/Spitzer Science Center
Nov 07, 2005
Just Another Small, Faint Galaxy

Big Bang theorists interpret Hubble telescope images of small, faint galaxies as ultra-big, ultra-bright galaxies seen long, long ago and far, far away. But evidence from outside their narrow field of view indicates that the galaxies are really small and faint.

The image above combines a visible-light image from the Hubble telescope with an infrared image from the Spitzer telescope. Publicists bill it as “a massive galaxy ... about eight times the mass of the Milky Way ... early in the history of the universe, a time when such mature galaxies were not thought [sic] to exist.” (Actually, because its age is estimated to be “a mere 800 million years after the Big Bang,” long before there were thinking human beings, it is a time when such mature galaxies were thought not to exist.)

Read the rest of the paper.

D'gay mate.

Thunderbolts? Really? Good God man, you are going to have to do better than that! These are the genuises that think tornados are produced from electricity and magnetic fields. :lol:
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
vladdrac":2u68cz8z said:
it is an infinitely dense point...some kind of "unobtainium" in an infinite sea of points under infinite pressure. Once a certain velocity is reached a Universe pops into being. If one could look from far 'outside' infinity one would see an infinite series of spheres each expanding and contracting slightly showing very different states at each stage of expansion and contraction...the point converts to energy...it is not exactly big bang or big crunch

Ahh ok, fine. You didn't mention the infinitely dense unobtanium before, or the sea of points under infinite pressure, I thought you were asking a proper, bona-fide scientific question:

vladdrac":2u68cz8z said:
While perfectly stationary an object spins up to reletivistic velocities: What sort of changes might occur in the physical structure of the object?

In reality, any object would be ripped apart as soon as its transverse velocity was faster than the speed of sound for the particular material it is made of.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
harrycostas":2zl17d8p said:
G'day

Speedfreek said

I have read up on jets. I only dispute links when people, like yourself, are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the data.

Mate this is the most silly statement of them all. If you wish to read up on the subject in the last 12 months there has been some interesting research.

Use science to understand and discuss issues.

You say you have researched jets. Mate, please be honest. I know what you discuss and from that you need to read more.

I have read up on the subject - what is the interesting research you are referring to? You've got to tell me what you are talking about. (No thunderbolts links, I want actual research papers, like the kind you were so fond of posting earlier in this thread) And do not call my statement silly.

At the moment, all I have is an assertion from yourself that jets form and reform galaxies in a cycle, which somehow stop the universe from collapsing, keeping it in a quasi-steady state. You say this is "common information"? Well, where is the research then? Show me the research.

harrycostas":2zl17d8p said:
As for deep field images, it is common information, a press of the key.

The sizes of the galaxies are well documented.


http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... galaxy.htm
Credit: NASA/ESA/R Hurt/Spitzer Science Center
Nov 07, 2005
Just Another Small, Faint Galaxy

If it came from thunderbolts, it might be better referred to as "common misinformation".

Please give me the name of the galaxy, or the name of the paper that the article is referring to (basic info - all science should quote its sources, why doesn't thunderbolts do so?) so I can check their information using reputable sources.

I find it interesting that you start off posting seemingly random (mostly) mainstream papers and asking us to question the Big-Bang, and when we ask what it is about it that we should be questioning, you start posting links to thunderbolts web site, rather than actual mainstream research papers... says volumes.

My advice to you is not to take everything you read at face value - check your sources.

harrycostas":2zl17d8p said:
Read the rest of the paper.
Show me a paper and I will. That is not a paper, it is a link to someone's opinion.
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Still waiting to hear how jets can be congruous with the observed redshifts.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
vladdrac":12u0p08e said:
You have heard of Black Holes spinning at near light velocity?
Yes I have.

What I have not heard of is any kind of star that starts off "perfectly stationary and spins up to relativistic velocities". As you didn't even mention stars, I thought you were proposing some sort of thought experiment.

What is this, some kind of trap you are trying to set? Just say what you want to say, rather than talking in riddles.

Anyway, about black holes spinning at near light velocity - they emit jets of gamma rays that form bow shocks as those jets sweep the interstellar medium in front of them.
 
H

harrycostas

Guest
G'day Speedfreek

Do not be too speedy in your choice of information.

The link from EU has a credit. You can search it through that. Also look at deep field images.

As for Jets and redshift. The understanding of jets is yet to be fully understood and because of this the data from redshift may be in error. There are a dozen odd mechanisms to create redshift and we should not be too quick in placing all our eggs in one basket.

Maybe read Edwin Hubble papers. easy to search
"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination." (Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947)

As for spin of Neutron Stars and so called black hole or AGN. There are two school of thoughts.

1) The Star of BH spin very fast

2) Supersymmetry of ultra condensed matter creates the dipole vortex particularly of interest in the Solitons. A continuous electrommagnetic wave vortex that goes for millions of years carrying with it particles at close to the speed of light. Its stability and its position places the origin within the black hole. This explains the dipole jets created.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
harrycostas":25y5xmuy said:
The link from EU has a credit. You can search it through that. Also look at deep field images.
Err... what is "EU"? I don't know what you are talking about. The article you posted was from a site called thunderbolts.org, and it contains no links stating the name of the galaxy they are talking about in that article, or the data they use to come to their conclusions. All the hotlinks in that article lead to other articles on thunderbolts or Halton Arp's site, and they are all about different galaxies, as far as I can tell.

Please, tell me the name of the galaxy they are talking about in the article you posted, or tell me where they got their data from. How can I find that data by simply looking at deep field images? I need data, not images and as you are the one promoting these ideas it is up to you to provide it. If you want me to evaluate the evidence, I need the data, not peoples opinions about it.

harrycostas":25y5xmuy said:
As for Jets and redshift. The understanding of jets is yet to be fully understood and because of this the data from redshift may be in error. There are a dozen odd mechanisms to create redshift and we should not be too quick in placing all our eggs in one basket.
You do know that the spectra of the jets is measured independently of the spectra for the host galaxy, don't you?

harrycostas":25y5xmuy said:
Maybe read Edwin Hubble papers. easy to search
"It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination." (Edwin Hubble, PASP, 1947)
We have many magnitudes more evidence for the expansion of the universe nowadays.

harrycostas":25y5xmuy said:
As for spin of Neutron Stars and so called black hole or AGN. There are two school of thoughts.

1) The Star of BH spin very fast

2) Supersymmetry of ultra condensed matter creates the dipole vortex particularly of interest in the Solitons. A continuous electrommagnetic wave vortex that goes for millions of years carrying with it particles at close to the speed of light. Its stability and its position places the origin within the black hole. This explains the dipole jets created.
Actually, there are not two schools of thought, there is a mainstream view and a discredited opinion based on a flawed interpretation of the works of Hannes Alfven, whose own cosmological model fails to predict the measured qualities of both the CMBR and the x-ray background.

Now then, if you think I am being terse or belligerent, please understand that, from my point of view, you have come here making all these wild claims and when questioned you keep saying that the information is out there for everyone to see, and yet when I ask for it, you cannot provide it, all you have provided so far is a link to some skeptics opinions.

If you want me to think for myself and evaluate the data, please provide it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.