Why To Say Galaxies Could Not Form In Big Bang Framework

[xps13579]

We often say that the galaxies came from agglomerates of highly uniform material after big bang under the action of self-gravity, this sounds plausible, but on reflection this argument is not valid. First of all, we should recognize that in the isotropic space whose material uniformly distribute the gravitational phenomena can not exist . The reason is very simple, in this space the resultant of gravitational force in all directions for any particle is zero, the particle is actually under the free state of thermal motion. In other words, gravitational phenomenon only belongs to the behavior of agglomerate material, and gravitational phenomenon does not exist if universal material does not agglomerate. Note that here the particles can be molecular, atomic, nuclear or other. Secondly, we should also understand the existence of diffusion phenomena between substances, namely material can actively transport from a high concentration’s region to a region of low concentration, the higher temperature is, the more significant diffusion’s trend is. The effect of material diffusion make material distribution more uniform. According to the big bang theory, in the early universe the uniformity of material distribution was very high therefore it was impossible there existed significant gravitational phenomena, actually the gather of matter could not achieve. Even if some accidental factors made the distribution of material somewhere in the universe slightly deviated from the uniform state, this significant effect of diffusion would eliminate the deviation at once, and the distribution tends to balance and the gravitational phenomenon could not appear yet, the effect of diffusion has been in a dominant position all along, so we say the galaxies could not form in the big bang framework.

The effect of diffusion make material distribution tend uniform, and in the uniform space there is no gravitational phenomenon, this is the key basis of understanding material could not agglomerate in the big bang framework. Most of cosmologists are always ignoring the diffusion effect of substances and especially can not understand the destructiveness of diffusion to gravitational action, so the given mechanism of galaxy formation is certainly wrong. Note that the expansion of the universe only can delay the gather of material but not prevent the gather, it is the diffusion effect that fundamentally prevents material gather. That is to say, if the material distribution is uniform, then can only be more even, which is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that any natural process is a process from order to disorder, namely the entropy increase process. And the process of galaxy formation given by big bang theory is a process from the thermal motion of the disordered state to the orderly mechanical motion, so we say that the the process galaxy formation of big bang theory went against the laws of thermodynamics. Then, how did galaxies form after all? We say the galaxy formed from gradual growth rather than the gather of existent material after big bang. Please see the present author’s recent paper ‘Modification of Field Equation and Return of Continuous Creation----- Galaxies Form from Gradual Growth Instead of Gather of Existent Matter’ . In the paper systematically discusses the galaxy formation process, and criticizes the errors in big bang theory from different angles with a large number of facts.

Jian Liang Yang ([email protected]).Professor. Zhengzhou University. China.

 

 

[sanctus]

Sorry, you got a lot wrong, look at the CMB power spectrum, everything above l=1000 is damped, why? Via diffusion damping. So your claim that cosmologists ignore it is completely false. Your claim is true insofar that the anisotropies are damped due to photon diffusion, but where you are wrong is 1) the scale of it and 2)that the diffusion is higher if the temperature is higher (which in the early universe corresponds to the density being higher).

1) The scale of diffusion damping depends on the diffusion length which in turn depends on the mean free path of photons, which until decoupling (and formation of atoms) is very short

2) If the matter density is higher then the mean free path of photons is small hence damping on small scales. You might say the photons have more energy if emitted at higher temperatures so diffusion is stronger, but since the mean free path is small this is cncelled out


For the origin of the anisotropies the accepted answer atm is that they were seeded of quantum fluctuations at pre-inflation era giving rise to over and under- densities in the primordial post-inflation plasma. These anisotropies then gave rise to the BAO (baryon acoustic oscillations), which simply are oscillations going through the primordial plasma due to the opposing forces of the  gravity of an overdense region and the outwards pressure of compressing the plasma. This oscillations happen at al scales on big scales (small multipole moments l in the power spectrum)  they are not damped by difusion damping (the photons were never able to travel that far to make disffusion happen).


And here a link to show I did not make this up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_damping

[xps13579]

You don't understand the author's intention at all. It is immoral to judge casually

 

[sanctus]

Casually? I take you do not understand my post then...I explained why I think it is wrong, what other reason is there to post it on a forum if feedback is not wanted.

Tell me, is there anything in my reply which is not mentioned in your first post of this thread? Am I not discussing what you wrote?

And tell me where I am judging? Pointing out perceived mistakes is not judging, but should be an incentive for you to try to confute what I say. If you don't get this then this is no place for you, a forum is for discussing...

[sanctus]

Btw, in this other thread of yours you said:

 

of course it is admitted to critique mistakes with appropriate wording and adequate reasoning and proofs

So do you want to take back those quoted words of yours?

Don't worry I also saw the end of that sentence:

 

, this requires you deeply to understand author's paper otherwise you don't have the competence to comment the paper

which is simply not true, you make claims in the opening thread I referred to those.

[exchemist]

 

Btw, in this other thread of yours you said:

 

 

So do you want to take back those quoted words of yours?

Don't worry I also saw the end of that sentence:

 

 

which is simply not true, you make claims in the opening thread I referred to those.

 

I noted that the paper (published in a 3rd rate pay-to-publish Indian on-line journal) predicts that life on Earth only began 0.9bn years ago. That strongly suggests he or she may have gone wrong somewhere: the evidence from geology and palaeontology for life back to >3bn years ago is pretty strong now.   

 

There is also an assertion that the sun is becoming brighter and brighter and 2.7bn years ago had only 5% of the luminosity it does today.  Again, one suspects that a number of other disciplines of science would have, er, some  difficulty accepting that, to put it politely. 

 

So it would appear that the theory being put forward makes a number of predictions which are either false, or at the very least in conflict with other disciplines of science, besides cosmology.  

Edited February 21, 2017 by exchemist

[xps13579]

frist one should be aware but all not understand or neglect that in such universal space of absolutely uniform distrubution of matter there are no gravitational phenomena because the gravitational resultant of all directions on any particle is zero, this is equal to that any particle isn't acted be gravitation.Besides, the diffusion effect make the distribution of matter even uniform.So we conclude that if early universe was highly uniform (regarded as initial condition)in the future it was still highly uniform and matter could not gather, gravitation could not resist diffusion trend, galaxies could not form forever. CMB just proved that early universe was highly uniform and so we say galaxies could not form in big bang framwork

[xps13579]

in early universe material distribution was highly uniform due to its density fluctuation was quite slight, so we say that diffusion effect was stronger than gravitational effect and universal material could not gather.at present, new ideas cannot irrigate into mainstream theory, this will hinder the development of science. one should welcome newborn thing with open arms rather than try all the means to suppress them. I hope obtain constructive but not destructive advice around the new truth

[CraigD]

We often say that the galaxies came from agglomerates of highly uniform material after big bang under the action of self-gravity, this sounds plausible, but on reflection this argument is not valid. First of all, we should recognize that in the isotropic space whose material uniformly distribute the gravitational phenomena can not exist . The reason is very simple, in this space the resultant of gravitational force in all directions for any particle is zero, the particle is actually under the free state of thermal motion. In other words, gravitational phenomenon only belongs to the behavior of agglomerate material, and gravitational phenomenon does not exist if universal material does not agglomerate.

I don’t think this claim or the reason for it is correct, if the number and total mass of bodies and the space they occupy is finite, even if they are evenly distributed – that is, isotropic, or un-agglomerated.

 

A simple numeric simulation of a toy universe shows this. In the simplest case of identical mass bodies with zero velocity in a cubic lattice within a given radius of the center of the universe, for example, the only particle that experience no acceleration is the one at (0,0,0), the center of the universe. All others “fall” precisely toward (0,0,0). While their anisotropy remains zero, “the gravitational phenomena” certainly does exists, and is the cause of their motion.

 

The reason for this is that bodies at the edge of the universe experience a greater net gravitational force toward the center of the universe, where there are other bodies, than away from it, where there are no other bodies.

 

I’ve confirmed this with a very small toy universe consisting of 515 1 kg bodies in a 1 m lattice, using a simple stepwise simulation. The code for the simulation is very small – let me know if you would like to see it, and its output.

[exchemist]

frist one should be aware but all not understand or neglect that in such universal space of absolutely uniform distrubution of matter there are no gravitational phenomena because the gravitational resultant of all directions on any particle is zero, this is equal to that any particle isn't acted be gravitation.Besides, the diffusion effect make the distribution of matter even uniform.So we conclude that if early universe was highly uniform (regarded as initial condition)in the future it was still highly uniform and matter could not gather, gravitation could not resist diffusion trend, galaxies could not form forever. CMB just proved that early universe was highly uniform and so we say galaxies could not form in big bang framwork

This is wrong, surely? 

 

Newton's shell theorem states that in a body of uniform density, the gravitational forces due to the shell of material at greater radius from the centre than the point of interest are zero. However there is still a gravitational force at that point, due to the material at lesser radial distance. The gravitational force is only zero at the centre.

 

Isn't it?  

[xps13579]

reply to exchemist.

are you a blind person? Don't you see I am talk about isotropic universal space? and it is in such space that matter distributes is uniform the gravitational resultant in all directions on any particle is zero, Newton's shell theorem deals with spherically symmetric space but not isotropic universal space

[exchemist]

reply to exchemist. are you a blind person? Don't you see I am talk about isotropic universal space? and it is in such space that matter distributes is uniform the gravitational resultant in all directions on any particle is zero, Newton's shell theorem deals with spherically symmetric space but not isotropic universal space

Ah OK thanks for the clarification. 

[sanctus]

So what do you think about inflation? If you agree that there was an inflationary period then my point holds, because the distance between inflated over and under densities is too big to be damped out by diffusion damping; if you do no agree then how do you explain that th CMB measured in opposing directions looks like having been in causal contact?

[sanctus]

And caould you clarify what you mean by "isotropic universal space"? Mainly the "universal space" part, isotropic is clear.

[xps13579]

reply to sanctus

 

I don't think inflat necessary, in the new theory spacetime is infinite, and cosmic expansion and contraction are circulatory, in each circle with cosmic expansion and contraction galaxies change from small to large and then from large to small,not only volume but also mass change,see the published paper"Modification of Field Equation and Return of Continuous Creation----- Galaxies Form from Gradual Growth Instead of Gather of Existent Matter' in which systematically explain galaxies' formation

 

the "isotropic" space not only means its each point is a centre but also means uniform distribution of matter