Stars and Black Holes

[Harry Costas]

Hello Eglogite.

 

Its plain to see you lack knowledge.

 

That is why I gave you those links.

Go through them so when I speak about some topics I will know that you have read them.

It is important that you grasp some knowledge.

 

There is little use of me talking about things when you keep on saying you have not read that knowledge.

 

I do not mind, I'm happy to discuss any subject.

[Eclogite]

Hello Eglogite.

Its plain to see you lack knowledge.

We all lack knowledge. The depth and breadth of my own ignorance is truly mind-boggling.

However, one area in which I am passably knowledgeable is astronomy.

That is why I gave you those links.

Go through them so when I speak about some topics I will know that you have read them.

I have read the links. Here is a brief synopsis of three of them:

 

The Birth of Stars: Herbig-Haro Jets, Accretion and Proto-Planetary Disks

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/ballyj.html

Abstract: On the 200th anniversary of the publication of Laplace's theory for the birth of the Solar System, we finally have the tools needed to directly observe the formation of stars and planets. We can observe the star formation process at virtually all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum from X-rays to radio wavelengths. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) provides us with the highest angular resolution tool with which to investigate the jets produced by stars during their birth and the circumstellar accretion disks where we believe planets might form.

You appear to think that the jets referred to here, in some way justify your claim for the creation of hydrogen. Here is a pertinent point about the jets:

It is apparent that outflows from young stellar objects are an integral part of the star formation process. Most stars undergo a phase that lasts for over years during which energetic mass loss occurs in the form of numerous eruptions. These jets may become less collimated with increasing age.

Harry, the ejected material, which is predominantly hydrogen, is hydrogen that was present in the GMC which collapsed to form the protostar. It is not new hydrogen. It is hydrogen that overwhelmingly, to several decimal percentage places, was formed during the Big Bang. What don’t you understand about this.

 

Astronomy Picture of the Day

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060203.html

 

This contains a picture of a Herbig-Haro jet. The same kind of jet considered in more detail in your first link. We have known about the character of these jets for quarter of a century, and it is almost half a century since they were first observed.

 

Nothing in this link (or the several onward links) addresses the creation of hydrogen.

 

Astronomy Picture of the Day

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030127.html

 

Another pretty picture, this time of binary star formation. What does that have to do with your claim that some hydrogen is created during the process of star formation?

 

These links are bogus. They have no relevance to your position. Please clarify, with factual statements, backed up by citations of peer reviewed articles in reputable journals, the mechanisms you claim are creating hydrogen:

a) When stellar cores collapse

:confused: When ultra-dense stellar matter 'releases' sub-atomic particles

c) In jets from black holes

 

There is little use of me talking about things when you keep on saying you have not read that knowledge.

Please retract this statement. Nowhere have I 'kept on saying' I have not read the knowledge. I have the knowledge.

 

Everything you have posted as links substantiates my view of the situation. Why? Because I am a conventional old bastard and for the most part subscribe to the conventional views, which is exactly what is in your links. Conventional views that simply do not discuss any aspect of your peculiar position regarding the creation of hydrogen, but incidentally and peripherally support mine.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Eglogite

 

You refer to the Big Bang as though it is actual.

 

Lets assume the BBT is correct.

 

From that you can tell me how the Hydrogen was formed I assume.

 

What is the difference between BBT and that hydrogen formed from Ultra dense plasma matter cores.

 

If you are thinking along the lines of being right good on you.

 

I just want to get it right.

In time the evidence that I will give you will prove that Hydrogen is recontructed from the internal ultra dense plasma matter which is also called degenerate matter and ejected by jets and may aslo be released from the surface. This is part of the recyclic process of the universe.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I do not agree with the BBT its amazing that some people do.

I could be wrong.

But many updated scientists have moved away from the BBT because it cannot explain the actual universe observed.

[Eclogite]

You refer to the Big Bang as though it is actual.

No. I refer to the Big Bang as if it were the primary cosmological paradigm in use to day, validated (in detail), by tens of thousands of observations, and subtantiated (in detail) by rigorous mathematical analysis.

 

It happens that I have grave doubts about the Big Bang. However, since I lack your intellectual arrogance I will only challenge it when I have the evidence and the arguments to support such a challenge. In the meantime I shall adhere to its principles until a better theory comes along, or until it is even more firmly established.

From that you can tell me how the Hydrogen was formed I assume.

Your assumption is correct.

What is the difference between BBT and that hydrogen formed from Ultra dense plasma matter cores.

Please clarify, with factual statements, backed up by citations of peer reviewed articles in reputable journals, the mechanisms you claim are creating hydrogen:

a) ......

:confused: When ultra-dense stellar matter 'releases' sub-atomic particles

c) ........

 

Unless you are willing (and able) to share with us this radical and unconvetional mechanism I can hardly compare and contrast with the conditions in the Big Bang.

If you are thinking along the lines of being right good on you.

I just want to get it right.

Good. Then please stop pussyfooting around and respond to direct questions with direct answers.

In time the evidence that I will give you will prove that Hydrogen is recontructed from the internal ultra dense plasma matter which is also called degenerate matter and ejected by jets and may aslo be released from the surface. This is part of the recyclic process of the universe.

Good. Then please stop pussyfooting around and present this evidence now, not in time. This is a science forum, not a Hitchcock film. We don't need, nor desire, dramatic revelations, complex plots, or shady characters.

I do not agree with the BBT its amazing that some people do.

I could be wrong.

But many updated scientists have moved away from the BBT because it cannot explain the actual universe observed.

No, it is not amazing that many do. Given the wealth of supporting evidence it would be amazing if most did not.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Eclogite

I do not mind discussing,

But I do mind the Hitler attitude.

I will respond to the above in due time not on your demand.

[Eclogite]

The attitude would be unnecessary if you were direct and clear in your posts.

Take as long as you like to reply. I shall be away during the next two weeks, invading Poland.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

 

With reference to link

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

What is the evidence against the Big Bang?

 

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities

The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

 

Large-scale Voids are too old

The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

 

Surface brightness is constant

One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

 

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

 

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation

The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

 

No room for dark matter

While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

 

No Conservation of Energy

The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

 

Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster

The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)

 

Evidence for Plasma cosmology

 

Plasma theory correctly predicts light element abundances

Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies. These stars produce and emit to the environment the observed amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.

 

Plasma theory predicts from basic physics the large scale structure of the universe

In the plasma model, superclusters, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments. The plasma cosmology approach can easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts from basic physical principles a fractal distribution of matter, with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects. This fractal scaling relationship has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.

 

Plasma theory of the CBR predict absorption of radio waves, which is observed

The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. It has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from the COBE sattelite. Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption has been demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect. New observations have shown the exact same absorption at a wavelength of 850 microns, just as predicted by plasma theory.

 

The alignment of the CBR anisotropy and the local Supercluster confirms the plasma theory of CBR

If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed.

 

 

see also links

 

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm

 

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm

 

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p15.htm

 

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p17.htm

 

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p10.htm

 

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p23.htm

 

 

Eric Lerner is not alone along these thoughts. Its only a matter of time that scientists will lean to alternative models to explain the observations.

 

other links

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

 

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

 

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm

 

and the works by

Halton Arp

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

 

Like most theories we also have one that will give a different opinion and thats life. Who is correct? Time will tell in the next three years when the new telescope will be outfitted to study blackholes and the so called dark matter.

 

Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened"

Errors in Lerner's Criticism of the Big Bang

Errors in Lerner's Alternative to the Big Bang

Miscellaneous Errors

Top | Criticism | Alternative | Miscellaneous | Bottom

 

Eric Lerner starts his book "The Big Bang Never Happened" (hereafter BBNH) with the "errors" that he thinks invalidate the Big Bang. These are

 

The existence of superclusters of galaxies and structures like the "Great Wall" which would take too long to form from the "perfectly homogeneous" Big Bang.

The need for dark matter and observations showing no dark matter.

The FIRAS CMB spectrum is a "too perfect" blackbody.

Are these criticisms correct? No, and they were known to be incorrect in 1991 when Lerner wrote his book.

 

Read the above link and form your own ideas.

[InfiniteNow]

Hello All -

 

Response like Harry.

 

Referencing your question, see the entire internet. Hope this helps.

[Eclogite]

Harry, I don't know who you think you are fooling with that travesty of a post. Anyone can string a long list of internet links together and pretend they mean something. The pretence wont work on anyone with a brain and a passable education. That means most of the posters here, and a high percentage of the casual readers realise you are waffling.

 

So, would you now care to respond directly to my earlier questions and points, or can we all (yourself included) just accept that you don't know what you are talking about, and aren't even very good at faking it?

[Jay-qu]

Now Now guys play nice!

 

Harry, do please try and keep your posts more direct to the point and I dont see the need to have so many links, just the first few that reference the relative content will suffice.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

The information that I gave and the links are for those who want more info.

[EWright]

Harry,

 

While I don't entirely agree with big bang theory, posting factoids from a site with an obvious agenda doesn't help your cause or argument. Mistakes such as comparing angular anything to the CMB and backing it up with an argument of the origin of the CMB in a particular region of space is a grave error of logic and understanding.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Ok, I understand what you are saying.

 

What else have you got to add?

[sebbysteiny]

Hi guys,

 

Just a quickie to add my 2 cents.

 

This is a high quality discusion. Eclogite is doing a fine job at humiliating Harry, not just in intellect, but also in wit.

 

My favourite quote: "please stop pussyfooting around and present this evidence now, not in time. This is a science forum, not a Hitchcock film. We don't need, nor desire, dramatic revelations, complex plots, or shady characters."

 

And that line about going on holiday to invade Poland was a classic.

 

This is much higher quality than usual for a Science forum.

 

 

On the more intellectual point. All that stuff about dark energy is just wierd. I believe it was intended to explain the shock observation that matter is accelarating away in all directions. I have a sneaking suspicion that dark energy is just a temporary fix to wait for another major influence yet to be discovered.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

I have no time to tango with humiliation.

 

My focus is on learning more of the universe.

 

As for wit,,,,,,smile

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Hydrogen formation,,,,,,,,,,this is just one process.

 

We may have to look at first the process involved in a supernova.

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_3a.html

As the mass of the star's iron core approaches 1.4 solar masses (due to continued silicon and sulfur burning in a thin shell adjacent to the iron core), a dramatic sequence of events is being triggered:

 

Iron Core Collapse

 

Gravity, which up to now was balanced by the outward force of the pressure, decisively gains the upper hand and the iron core collapses.

 

 

In less than a second, the core collapses from a size of about 5,000 miles to one of about a dozen miles, and an enormous amount of energy is released. This collapse happens so fast that the star's outer layers have no time to react and participate in it.

 

 

The amount of energy that is released during core collapse is truly gigantic -- it is equivalent to the energy produced by 100 stars like the Sun during their entire lifetimes of more than 10 billion years!

 

 

Most of the energy released during the collapse of the iron core is carried off into space by elusive particles called neutrinos. A small fraction of the energy is deposited in the lower layers of the envelope surrounding the core and triggers the supernova explosion.

 

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_3acont.html

The energy deposited in the lower layers of the envelope creates a superstrong shock wave that runs outward through the envelope toward the star's surface.

 

 

As the shock wave runs outward, it heats the envelope, induces explosive nuclear burning, and ejects the envelope at speeds of thousands of miles per second (i.e., in excess of 10 million miles/hour).

 

It is during this phase that elements heavier than iron are being manufactured.

 

 

When the shock wave reaches the star's surface, it very quickly heats the surface layers and brightens them. Within a day or two the exploding star becomes brighter than a billion Suns.

 

The result of these events is a compact stellar remnant and a rapidly expanding gaseous shell.

 

The stellar remnant is a neutron star or a black hole.

 

The expanding gaseous shell plows into the surrounding interstellar medium, and pushes, compresses, and intermingles with it. Such regions of the interstellar medium are known as supernova remnants.

 

 

Lets look at our sun as an example.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm

 

The Sun and its planetary system formed from heterogeneous debris1-11 of a supernova (SN) that exploded 5 billion years ago12,13. Meteorites and planets recorded this as decay products of short-lived nuclides and linked variations in elemental and isotopic abundances. Cores of the inner planets grew in the central iron-rich region of the SN debris, and the Sun formed on the collapsed SN core. See Figs. 1-5.

 

The Sun’s radiant energy and protons in the solar wind (SW) come from the collapsed supernova core, a neutron star (NS), on which the Sun formed. The cradle (Figs. 9-12) indicates that the energy of each neutron in the Sun’s central NS exceeds that of a free neutron by @ 10-22 MeV (Figs. 13-15) Solar luminosity and the flux of solar-wind protons are generated by a series of reactions (Fig. 16): a) escape of neutrons from the central NS, :hihi: decay of free neutrons or their capture by other nuclides, c) fusion and upward migration of H+ through material that accreted on the NS, and d) escape of H+ in the SW. An example might be:

 

a) The escape of neutrons from the NS, <1n> –> 1n + 10-22 MeV

 

:eek: The decay of free neutrons, 1n –> 1H+ + e- + nanti + 0.78 MeV

 

c) Fusion of hydrogen, 4 1H+ + 2 e- –> 4He++ + 2 n + 26.73 MeV

 

d) Some H+ reaches the surface and departs in the solar wind

 

 

Reactions like a) and :) produce part of the Sun’s radiant energy and perhaps the luminosity of isolated neutron stars25. Note that reaction a) alone may release more energy per nucleon than is released by the sum of reactions B) and c), the decay or capture of neutrons plus H-fusion. The well-established Solar Neutrino Puzzle26 confirms that reaction c) generates only part of the Sun’s total luminosity. Most 1H+ from B) is consumed by H-fusion, but the anomalous abundance of H (See Fig. 8) shows that 1H+ also leaks from the interior, selectively carrying lighter nuclides to the solar surface (See Fig. 6) before departing in the solar wind at an emission rate of about 2.7 x 1043 1H/yr. Homochirality in living creatures26 was likely initiated by circularly polarized light (CPL) from the Sun’s early NS. Their fate and climate changes of planets27 may depend on the half-life of this massive nucleus at the Sun’s core.

 

We can always workout how hydrogen was formed and if the Big Bang did occur the hydrogen production would be on similar lines.

see

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest2.html

[Eclogite]

Hello All

 

Ok, I understand what you are saying.

 

What else have you got to add?

I have nothing to add until you respond, as repeatedly requested to my questions and points. For example, most recently in post #26: would you now care to respond directly to my earlier questions and points,

 

I do not understand why you are persisitently avoiding direct questions.

 

Eclogite is doing a fine job at humiliating Harry

It is certainly not my intention to humiliate anyone. (That is usually best accomplished by the individual themselves.) I am simply objecting to statements being made in a manner suggesting they represent facts, when they are at best merely opinion and at worst profound misunderstanding. The ratio of lurkers to posters is a high one: some may go away with the wrong impression of what is current thinking in the sciences. Therefore, I believe (quite fervently) that it is the responsibility of posters in science forums to be accurate in their statements, and to clearly distinguish between conjecture, speculation, hypothesis, theory and established fact, supporting the latter categories with appropriate citations, where necessary.

 

Nevertheless, thank you for your kind comments.