Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[REASON]

I'm all girl:

 

I'll say! ;)

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

 

Hello Reason, by that reasoning I would say that you are a boy.

 

Buffy you poor child, your daddy left you when you were 3 yrs old.

 

Reading on, its just amazing the work carried on by many scientists.

 

Quantum Condensates in Extreme Gravity:. Implications for Cold Stars and Dark Matter

00 2008

Quantum Condensates in Extreme Gravity:. Implications for Cold Stars and Dark Ma

 

Stable end-point stars currently fall into two distinct classes — white dwarfs and neutron stars — differing enormously in central density and radial size. No stable cold dead stars are thought to span the intervening densities or have masses beyond ~2-3 solar masses. I show, however, that the general-relativistic condition of hydrostatic equilibrium augmented by the equation of state of a neutron condensate at 0 K generates stable sequences of cold stars that span the density gap and can have masses well beyond prevailing limits. The radial sizes and mass limit of each sequence are determined by the mass and scattering length of the composite bosons. Solutions for hypothetical bosons of ultrasmall mass and large scattering length yield huge self-gravitating systems of low density, resembling galactic dark matter halos.

[Buffy]

Buffy you poor child, your daddy left you when you were 3 yrs old.

I guess we now know to try to avoid any levels of indirection in these discussions...

Reading on, its just amazing the work carried on by many scientists.

 

Quantum Condensates in Extreme Gravity:. Implications for Cold Stars and Dark Matter

So Pluto: what did you find interesting in this article? Why do you think it is relevant to BBT?

 

That would be a good thing for them to cut on my tombstone: Wherever she went, including here, it was against her better judgment, ;)

Buffy

[Pluto]

G'day Buffy

 

Understanding the parts of the universe will unlock the origins or the ongoings of the universe and may expalin the Bang or no Bang.

 

I see it a giant puzzel, each piece fitted to make an image, an understanding.

 

Leave out one issue and the image is left standing in a shadow.

 

OOPs my wife came to the computer,,,,,she asks who is buffy?

I think she thinks that Cyber thing.

 

Smile, she is angry.

[Little Bang]

The CMBR has a relatively long wave length. Didn't it have a much higher frequency at it's beginning?

[freeztar]

The CMBR has a relatively long wave length. Didn't it have a much higher frequency at it's beginning?

 

Yes, according to expansion theories.

As the universe expands (expanded), the wavelength of the CMBR becomes longer and the frequency becomes lower.

[Little Bang]

Then doesn't that mean the light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away will also be red shifted?

[Pluto]

G'day

 

Little bang said

 

Then doesn't that mean the light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away will also be red shifted?

 

I agree with you.

 

Lets assume that the origin of CMBR has evolved from similar mechanisms as the BBT model.

 

What than?

 

This is interesting

 

[0806.1742] Impact of Point Source Clustering on Cosmological Parameters with CMB Anisotropies

Impact of Point Source Clustering on Cosmological Parameters with CMB Anisotropies

 

Authors: Paolo Serra, Asantha Cooray, Alexandre Amblard, Luca Pagano, Alessandro Melchiorri

(Submitted on 10 Jun 2008)

 

Abstract: The faint radio point sources that are unresolved in cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy maps are likely to be a biased tracer of the large-scale structure dark matter distribution. While the shot-noise contribution to the angular power spectrum of unresolved radio point sources is included either when optimally constructing the CMB angular power spectrum, as with WMAP data, or when extracting cosmological parameters, we suggest that clustering part of the point source power spectrum should also be included. This is especially necessary at high frequencies above 150 GHz, where the clustering of far-IR sources is expected to dominate the shot-noise level of the angular power spectrum at tens of arcminute angular scales of both radio and sub-mm sources. We make an estimate of source clustering of unresolved radio sources in both WMAP and ACBAR, and marginalize over the amplitude of source clustering in each CMB data set when model fitting for cosmological parameters. For the combination of WMAP 5-year data and ACBAR, we find that the spectral index changes from the value of $0.963 pm 0.014$ to $0.959 pm 0.014$ (at 68% c.l.) when the clustering power spectrum of point sources is included in model fits. While we find that the differences are marginal with and without source clustering in current data, it may be necessary to account for source clustering with future datasets such as Planck, especially to properly model fit anisotropies at arcminute angular scales. If clustering is not accounted and point sources are modeled with a shot-noise only out to $l sim 2000$, the spectral index will be biased by about 1.5$sigma$.

[Little Bang]

If their light is red shifted because of the expansion why doesn't that suggest we may be wrong about their actual distance from us?

[Erasmus00]

If their light is red shifted because of the expansion why doesn't that suggest we may be wrong about their actual distance from us?

 

For very distance objects, the only way we have of inferring distance is redshift. Relativistic effects (doppler+expansion) are built into the models we use to discern distance.

-Will

[Pluto]

G'day

 

Erasmus said

 

For very distance objects, the only way we have of inferring distance is redshift. Relativistic effects (doppler+expansion) are built into the models we use to discern distance.

-Will

 

The question that always pops up is this.

 

Do we have enough information on the intrinsic properties to create a model that is accurate to + or - 5 %?

 

If we assume that we do than all our data would depend on that assumption.

 

The reaon why I question this is because the redshift data places Earth at the centre. This tells me of a common error.

 

History repeats itself through history placing Earth at the centre of the Universe.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

OOPs forgot this link

 

New window on the high-energy universe

Science News / New Window On The High-energy Universe

 

VANCOUVER, Canada — Curtain up! Light the lights! In its first four months of monitoring the heavens from orbit, NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has unveiled the activity of celestial objects that emit powerful gamma rays — photons that pack 20 million to more than 300 billion times the energy of visible light. The orbiting observatory features the first detectors in space capable of recording the most energetic of these photons.

 

The time delay between the onset of high- and low-energy emissions — which amounted to five seconds in a burst discovered on September 19 and dubbed GRB 080916C — suggests that the high-energy gamma rays from bursts might be produced at a different place or by different particles than the lower-energy radiation, says Bouvier.

 

This has been known for the last 20 years if not more.

 

This is the intrinsic property that may effect the data via redshift.

 

Hey! I could be wrong.

[CraigD]

Then doesn't that mean the light from a galaxy 13 billion light years away will also be red shifted?

Yes, the most distant observed objects have very high redshifts. The oldest undisputed observation of a galaxy is the 4/2006 one of IOK-1, redshift z=6.96, distance about 12.88 billion light years. At this redshift, typical (about [math] 500 \,\mbox{nm} = 5 \times 10^{-7} \,\mbox{m}[/math], [math]600 \,\mbox{THz} = 6 \times 10^{14} \,\mbox{Hz}[/math]) visible light is shifted ([math]\lambda_{obsv} = (1 + z)\lambda_{emit} = 7.96 \lambda_{emit}[/math]) into the infrared (about [math] 4 \,u\mbox{m} = 4 \times 10^{-6} \,\mbox{m}[/math], [math]75 \,\mbox{THz} = 7.5 \times 10^{13} \,\mbox{Hz}[/math]).

 

This wikipedia article section, which appears to be at least within a few years of up-to-date, has a summary of similar high redshift objects.

 

Because they emit light in the usual way – by the emission from electrons of hot gas primarily from the photospheres of stars – galaxies and other astronomical objects don’t have the nearly pure black body spectrum of the CMBR, which is theorized to have been released at the “moment” of recombination that the electrons and protons of formerly ionized opaque plasma of the young universe became non-ionized transparent hot gas.

[modest]

The reaon why I question this is because the redshift data places Earth at the centre. This tells me of a common error.

 

History repeats itself through history placing Earth at the centre of the Universe.

 

Redshift data cannot place earth at the center of the universe in and of itself. Only with some explanation or model describing redshift would earth be considered at the center of the universe or not.

 

In relativistic cosmology the universe is expanding such that all cosmic distances are increasing so that all observers will see distant objects redshifted. Earth is not in the center of the universe with this interpretation. This same model (the concordance model) is strongly supported by evidence and observation.

 

The most common analogy given is the surface of a balloon. Consider a very large balloon that has ants crawling around on its surface. If you inflate the balloon then each ant will observe all the other ants get further away. The distance between them will increase—it will expand. The further two ants are from one another, the faster the distance between them will expand. This correlation between distance and speed of expansion is known as Hubble's law.

 

In this example, no ant is at the center even while each ant sees all the other ants moving away from it.

 

This is just an analogy and it should not be taken too literally, but it does demonstrate the idea of an expanding metric in an easily envisioned way.

 

~modest

[maddog]

The reaon why I question this is because the redshift data places Earth at the centre. This tells me of a common error.

 

History repeats itself through history placing Earth at the centre of the Universe.

Fundamental flaw in your logic. As modest was in his last post this says nothing of the kind. No such assumption placing the Earth (or our Universal location) as anything SPECIAL.

 

I can show with this analogy as follows.

 

Imagine a raisin loaf (loaf of bread with raisins spread randomly thoughout) in the

oven. As the loaf is baked it will rise because yeast in the bread say. For our purposes we can assume a fixed rate of expansion of the bread over time.

 

Thus were your to inhabit any raisin in the bread you would view all the raisins receding from you. All raisins would see a "redshift" away. There would be no SPECIAL raisins in the bread.

 

The same for the universe. This is an analogy that is used in all freshman Astronomy courses I have heard of (even lay texts on the subject). This has been a thought process around awhile and does show that Hubble Expansion or Red Shift does not place any universal object (Galaxy, Star, Planet, etc) in ANY SPECIAL light.

 

Pleeezze ! :eek: :shrug:

 

maddog

[Little Bang]

Maybe they have it right but if they do that must mean that they know the rate at which the universe is expanding. I think space is expanding at C.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

 

Yes I know of the baloon and the bread.

 

Your logic assumes spacetime expansion and not actual metric length.

Show me that spcae bodies are expanding from various points throughout the known universe.

 

Session R9 - Non-Doppler Redshift Mechanisms with Possible Cosmological Applications.

 

Session R9 - Non-Doppler Redshift Mechanisms with Possible Cosmological Applications.

 

 

Oct 18, 2004

Fingers of God

The Fingers of God

 

The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe.

 

 

Close-up view of Einstein Cross

Macro and microlensing, coupled with the giant eye of the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope, enabled astronomers to probe regions on scales as small as a millionth of an arcsecond.

Provided by ESO, Garching, Germany

Astronomy.com - Close-up view of Einstein Cross

 

The team of astronomers from Europe and the United States studied the "Einstein Cross," a famous cosmic mirage. This cross-shaped configuration consists of four images of a distant source. The multiple images are a result of gravitational lensing by a foreground galaxy, an effect that was predicted by Albert Einstein as a consequence of his theory of general relativity. The light source in the Einstein Cross is a quasar approximately 10 billion light-years away, whereas the foreground-lensing galaxy is 10 times closer. The lensing galaxy's gravitational field bends and magnifies the quasar's light.

This magnification effect, known as "microlensing," in which a galaxy plays the role of a cosmic magnifying glass or a natural telescope, proves useful in astronomy as it allows us to observe distant objects that would otherwise be too faint to explore using currently available telescopes. "The combination of this natural magnification with the use of a big telescope provides us with the sharpest details ever obtained," said Frederic Courbin, leader of the program studying the Einstein Cross with ESO's VLT

 

It is the intrinsic properties that are not fully understood that may give error to redshift data.

 

The Great Escape: Scientists Detect Black Hole Slowing Flight of Light

By SPACE.com Staff

SPACE.com -- The Great Escape: Scientists Detect Black Hole Slowing Flight of Light

 

Astronomers have watched a black hole drag on light trying to escape its surroundings, causing the light to lose energy just as Einstein predicted in his theory of general relativity.

 

With all the science that we know people except the redshift data without quation.

 

I maybe wrong.