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

[FRIPRO]

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

 

What about the Blue Shift? If red shift is doppler shifter as moving away from Earth, then what about the Blue Shift coming towards the Earth?

 

I still Hypothesize that it means that the Universe is rotating and the source of our Universes gravity.(Gyroscopic)

 

As it Universe turns it is red shifted and as the other side revolves towards us it is Blue shifted?

[Pluto]

G'day Fripro

 

I'm just thinking aloud here, I do not know where its going to take me.

 

Why should everything be moving away?

 

According to the BBT, it occured everywhere from random points infinetly. So logically you would think that expansion is occuring from those points and therefor you would have an equal red and blue shift.

 

Does that work out with maths?

 

Maybe we need to research more of the intrinsic properties.

 

[astro-ph/0408383] The Fueling and Evolution of AGN: Internal and External Triggers

The Fueling and Evolution of AGN: Internal and External Triggers

 

Authors: Shardha Jogee (Space Telescope Science Institute)

(Submitted on 20 Aug 2004 (v1), last revised 10 Jul 2008 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: In this chapter, I review the fueling and evolution of active galactic nuclei (AGN) under the influence of internal and external triggers, namely intrinsic properties of host galaxies (morphological or Hubble type, color, presence of bars and other non-axisymmetric features, etc) and external factors such as environment and interactions. The most daunting challenge in fueling AGN is arguably the angular momentum problem as even matter located at a radius of a few hundred pc must lose more than 99.99 % of its specific angular momentum before it is fit for consumption by a BH. I review mass accretion rates, angular momentum requirements, the effectiveness of different fueling mechanisms, and the growth and mass density of black BHs at different epochs. I discuss connections between the nuclear and larger-scale properties of AGN, both locally and at intermediate redshifts, outlining some recent results from the GEMS and GOODS HST surveys.

[FRIPRO]

Pluto

 

I believe you are geting the message! I accept your premis.

 

Believe me everything in the Universe is not moving away. Deep space photos show red and blue shift. It is the local area that is red shifted away from Earth's arm in the Milky Way.

 

If the Big bang did occur it did not create the Universe--period. Some of us Hypothesis that the Universe is eternal. Thus it could roatate and stay the same size in infinate nothing.

 

If there are other Universes out there (I believe there is only one) we may as well accept that--as we would never see them.

[Pluto]

G'day Fripro

 

Mate you will need to define "The Universe"

 

I take the definition to be "Total"

 

That means that if we start defining objects such as the Local Universe, than we bring in Muti-units. Where do we stop?

Do we stop at super dooper cluster of galaxies or clusters of super dooper clusters of galaxies.

 

So saying if there is another universe out there means universe units that leads to muti-unverse units.

 

I feel that I'm going around in circles.........smile.

 

As for the BBT, what can I say I keep on scratching my head and wonder how it became the standard model. Is there something that I'm missing, am I lacking the brain capacity to undertand.

 

Years gone by I would read papers with assumption that the BBT was correct than they would proceed to fit the data. This is the theory that if one is correct than making it fit is also correct.

 

Recent papers are more scientific although you get the odd paper.

 

Maybe I'm wrong.

[Pluto]

G'day fripro

 

I do not know if you read, but! if you do.

 

This is interesting reading

 

Discovery of a Very Bright Strongly-Lensed Galaxy Candidate at z ~ 7.6

Authors: L. D. Bradley, R. J. Bouwens, H. C. Ford, G. D. Illingworth, M. J. Jee, N. Benitez, T. J. Broadhurst, M. Franx, B. L. Frye, L. Infante, V. Motta, P. Rosati, R. L. White, W. Zheng

(Submitted on 18 Feb 2008 (v1), last revised 13 May 2008 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: Using HST and Spitzer IRAC imaging, we report the discovery of a very bright strongly lensed Lyman break galaxy (LBG) candidate at z~7.6 in the field of the massive galaxy cluster Abell 1689. The galaxy candidate, which we refer to as A1689-zD1, shows a strong z-J break of at least 2.2 mag and is completely undetected (<1 sigma) in HST/ACS g, r, i, and z-band data. These properties, combined with the very blue J-H and H-[4.5] colors, are exactly the properties of an z~7.6 LBG and can only be reasonably fit by a star-forming galaxy at z=7.6 +/- 0.4. Attempts to reproduce these properties with a model galaxy at z<4 yield particularly poor fits. A1689-zD1 has an observed (lensed) magnitude of 24.7 AB (8 sigma) in the NICMOS H band and is ~1.3 mag brighter than the brightest-known z-dropout galaxy. When corrected for the cluster magnification of 9.3 at z~7.6, the candidate has an intrinsic magnitude of H=27.1 AB, or about an L* galaxy at z~7.6. The source-plane deprojection shows that the star formation is occurring in compact knots of size ~<300 pc. The best-fit stellar population synthesis models yield a median redshift of 7.6, stellar masses (1.6-3.9) x 10^9 M_sun, stellar ages 45-320 Myr, star-formation rates ~<7.6 M_sun/yr, and low reddening with A_V <= 0.3. These properties are generally similar to those of LBGs found at z~5-6. The inferred stellar ages suggest a formation redshift of z~8-10 (t~<0.63 Gyr). A1689-zD1 is the brightest observed, highly reliable z>7.0 galaxy candidate found to date.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

Why is there so much confusion between expansion and acceleration and no expansion or acceleration?

 

You would think that the scientists can reslove such simple issues.

 

[0809.0537] Cosmographic Hubble fits to the supernova data

Cosmographic Hubble fits to the supernova data

 

Authors: Celine Cattoen (Victoria University of Wellington), Matt Visser (Victoria University of Wellington)

(Submitted on 3 Sep 2008)

 

Abstract: The Hubble relation between distance and redshift is a purely cosmographic relation that depends only on the symmetries of a FLRW spacetime, but does not intrinsically make any dynamical assumptions. This suggests that it should be possible to estimate the parameters defining the Hubble relation without making any dynamical assumptions. To test this idea, we perform a number of inter-related cosmographic fits to the legacy05 and gold06 supernova datasets. Based on this supernova data, the "preponderance of evidence" certainly suggests an accelerating universe. However we would argue that (unless one uses additional dynamical and observational information) this conclusion is not currently supported "beyond reasonable doubt". As part of the analysis we develop two particularly transparent graphical representations of the redshift-distance relation -- representations in which acceleration versus deceleration reduces to the question of whether the relevant graph slopes up or down. Turning to the details of the cosmographic fits, three issues in particular concern us: First, the fitted value for the deceleration parameter changes significantly depending on whether one performs a chi^2 fit to the luminosity distance, proper motion distance or other suitable distance surrogate. Second, the fitted value for the deceleration parameter changes significantly depending on whether one uses the traditional redshift variable z, or what we shall argue is on theoretical grounds an improved parameterization y=z/(1+z). Third, the published estimates for systematic uncertainties are sufficiently large that they certainly impact on, and to a large extent undermine, the usual purely statistical tests of significance. We conclude that the supernova data should be treated with some caution.

[FRIPRO]

Defining the Universe?

Pluto

A great question. If I were to answer it I would have to write a book on the subject (which I did).

 

Google it!

 

Buffy will not let me reference it--after all I am infamous arround these parts!

 

The confusion between expansion and acceleration and no expansion or acceleration is that we humans here on Earth have a limited number of brain networks.

 

When you consider our size here on earth, we really don't count when it comes to placing in that memory the whole of the Universe.

 

There is just no room in an individual's brain ;however put millions of us on the internet and connect all our brains together we might understand some hypothesis of defining "The Universe"

[modest]

Believe me everything in the Universe is not moving away. Deep space photos show red and blue shift.

 

Your claim contradicts all cosmological observations done since 1920 and earlier. The redshift and brightness of millions of astronomical objects have been measured, all of it agreeing with Hubble's Law and disagreeing completely with what you've just said.

 

Cosmologically distant objects are NOT blueshifted. The whole sky is evenly filled with distant redshifted galaxies. Further and further galaxies are more and more redshifted. The very few examples of blueshifted astronomical objects are those in our own galaxy and those galaxies such as Andromeda which are very near us.

 

~modest

[modest]

Why is there so much confusion between expansion and acceleration and no expansion or acceleration?...

 

[0809.0537] Cosmographic Hubble fits to the supernova data

 

What does this mean? How is the link confused?

 

~modest

[FRIPRO]

Modest

I grant you the scientific community has come a long was with the points that you have mention above;however, it took thousands of human and their thinking brains to get us as far as you have mentioned.

 

Man alone can not comprehend the design of the Universe, it takes a very large team to even get us to where you say we are now. All we have is Hypothesis and trial and error--only to be replaced by more of the same.

 

We have to lean on the team to even understand where we are going and how to get there.

 

The Universe's design is beyond all imagination of man's mine (ID) and his current satellites, telescopes etc.. It has definite limits and is eternal--less we would not be here now.:)

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

Modest said

 

Your claim contradicts all cosmological observations done since 1920 and earlier. The redshift and brightness of millions of astronomical objects have been measured, all of it agreeing with Hubble's Law and disagreeing completely with what you've just said.

 

Cosmologically distant objects are NOT blueshifted. The whole sky is evenly filled with distant redshifted galaxies. Further and further galaxies are more and more redshifted. The very few examples of blueshifted astronomical objects are those in our own galaxy and those galaxies such as Andromeda which are very near us.

 

Mate I think you are mistaken.

 

Lets assume that you are correct.

 

What does redshift mean?

 

That everything is moving away from earth?

 

If the Big Bang occured points everywhere and is expanding from points everywhere, would you not expect to see blue and red shift from earth, assuming Earth not being the centre.

 

I'm just reading through the 2008 papers on Redshift intrinsic.

 

arXiv.org Search

 

I'm no smart cookie but something is cooking in the science community on the reliance of redshift data.

 

[0811.3443] GRB optical afterglow and redshift selection effects: The learning curve effect at work

GRB optical afterglow and redshift selection effects: The learning curve effect at work

 

Authors: D.M. Coward

(Submitted on 20 Nov 2008)

 

Abstract: We show how the observed gamma ray burst (GRB) optical afterglow (OA) and redshift distributions are changing in time from selection effects. For a subset of {it Swift} triggered long duration bursts, we show that the mean time taken to acquire spectroscopic redshifts for a GRB OA has evolved to shorter times. We identify a strong correlation between the mean time taken to acquire a spectroscopic redshift and the measured redshift. This correlation reveals that shorter response times favour smaller redshift bursts. This is compelling evidence for a selection effect that biases longer response times with relatively brighter high redshift bursts. Conversely, for shorter response times, optically fainter bursts that are relatively closer are bright enough for spectroscopic redshifts to be acquired. This selection effect could explain why the average redshift, $<z>approx2.8$ measured in 2005, has evolved to $<z>approx2$, by mid 2008. Understanding these selection effects provides an important tool for separating the contributions of intrinsically faint bursts, those obscured by host galaxy dust and bursts not seen in the optical because their OAs are observed at late times. The study highlights the importance of rapid response telescopes capable of spectroscopy, and identifies a new redshift selection effect that has not been considered previously, namely the response time to measure the redshift.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of oz

 

This link concludes that the bang was not necessarily simulataneous.

 

Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi model: fractality, bang time, and Hubble law I. Initial conditions and compatibility of density and velocity laws

Authors: Alexander Gromov (Sankt-Petersburg State Thecnical University, Russia), Yurij Baryshev (Astronomical Institute of Sankt-Petersburg University, Russia), Daniel J Suson (University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA), Pekka Teerikorpi (Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku, Finland)

 

(Submitted on 11 Jun 1999 (v1), last revised 21 Dec 1999 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: We start a systematic study of the Lema^{i}tre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) model as applied to the large scale structure and its evolution. Here we study three possible initial conditions of the LTB models which are asymptotically FRW at large scales: bang time, fractal density (with fractal dimension D=2), and velocity law. Any two of these determine the third one. Fractal density and simultaneous bang time provide a quantitative estimate for the scale beyond which the deflection from the linear Hubble law is small. This border may be identified with the zero-velocity surface. For fractal density and linear Hubble law it is shown that the bang time is necessarily non-simultaneous

[modest]

Modest

I grant you the scientific community has come a long was with the points that you have mention above;however, it took thousands of human and their thinking brains to get us as far as you have mentioned.

 

Man alone can not comprehend the design of the Universe, it takes a very large team to even get us to where you say we are now. All we have is Hypothesis and trial and error--only to be replaced by more of the same.

 

We have to lean on the team to even understand where we are going and how to get there.

 

I think astronomy has come a long way and also has a long way to go. But, my intention was not to show how much astronomy knows or comment on what astronomy has accomplished, but rather to address this directly:

 

What about the Blue Shift? If red shift is doppler shifter as moving away from Earth, then what about the Blue Shift coming towards the Earth?

Believe me everything in the Universe is not moving away. Deep space photos show red and blue shift. It is the local area that is red shifted away from Earth's arm in the Milky Way.

 

If you look at the data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey or the 2dFGRS or DEEP2, or the many high redshift galaxies captured by Hubble, you will see that there are only a handful of of galaxies (about 100) that are blue shifted and they are the ones closest to us. There are billions upon billions that are red shifted.

 

This observation is explained:

In an expanding universe such as the one we inhabit, the scale factor is monotonically increasing as time passes, thus, z is positive and distant galaxies appear redshifted. This type of redshift is called the cosmological redshift or Hubble redshift. If the universe were contracting instead of expanding, we would see distant galaxies blue shifted by an amount proportional to their distance instead of redshifted.[21]

 

These galaxies are not receding simply by means of a physical velocity in the direction away from the observer; instead, the intervening space is stretching, which accounts for the large-scale isotropy of the effect demanded by the cosmological principle.[22] For cosmological redshifts of z < 0.01 the effects of spacetime expansion are minimal and cosmological redshifts can be dominated by additional Doppler redshifts and blue shifts caused by the peculiar motions of the galaxies relative to one another.[23] The difference between physical velocity and space expansion can be illustrated by the Expanding Rubber Sheet Universe, a common cosmological analogy used to describe the expansion of space. If two objects are represented by ball bearings and spacetime by a stretching rubber sheet, the Doppler effect is caused by rolling the balls across the sheet to create peculiar motion. The cosmological redshift occurs when the ball bearings are stuck to the sheet and the sheet is stretched. (Obviously, there are dimensional problems with the model, as the ball bearings should be in the sheet, and cosmological redshift produces higher velocities than Doppler does if the distance between two objects is large enough.)

 

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[modest]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

Modest said

 

Your claim contradicts all cosmological observations done since 1920 and earlier. The redshift and brightness of millions of astronomical objects have been measured, all of it agreeing with Hubble's Law and disagreeing completely with what you've just said.

 

Cosmologically distant objects are NOT blueshifted. The whole sky is evenly filled with distant redshifted galaxies. Further and further galaxies are more and more redshifted. The very few examples of blueshifted astronomical objects are those in our own galaxy and those galaxies such as Andromeda which are very near us.

 

Mate I think you are mistaken.

 

Lets assume that you are correct.

 

What does redshift mean?

 

That everything is moving away from earth?

 

If the Big Bang occured points everywhere and is expanding from points everywhere, would you not expect to see blue and red shift from earth, assuming Earth not being the centre.

 

I see what you're saying. It is common for people to explain that the big bang is not an "explosion" that happened in one spot in space, but something that happened everywhere. This could, incorrectly, be taken to mean that there are lots of little explosions of matter everywhere. The matter from all those spots would then spread out into space (like the ripples in a pond after throwing in a handful of pebbles). Some of the ripples would then be moving toward a person and some moving away.

 

This is not what BBT describes. It describes a metric where all the points of space (over great enough distances) are moving away from each other. Space itself is expanding between galaxies. This is where the balloon analogy or the muffin analogy comes in handy.

 

If I may suggest, this link:

 

Science and Reason: The Big Bang

 

It explains the concepts of the big bang, how they came to be, and the observations that are associated with the theory.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

Happy New year from the land of ozzzz.

 

Modest said

 

This is not what BBT describes. It describes a metric where all the points of space (over great enough distances) are moving away from each other. Space itself is expanding between galaxies. This is where the balloon analogy or the muffin analogy comes in handy.

 

Mate I agree with you what the BBT says relating to timespace, and expansion of space that I dispute.

 

If you cannot actually see it that the king wears invisble robes.

 

Modest I got to thank you for your time and time discussing the issues.

 

If we think along the lines of the standard theory, there should be an inverse relationship between age and redshift.

 

Morels paper is interesting

 

Abundances of massive stars: some recent developments

[0811.4114] Abundances of massive stars: some recent developments

Authors: T. Morel

(Submitted on 25 Nov 2008)

 

Abstract: Thanks to their usefulness in various fields of astrophysics (e.g. mixing processes in stars, chemical evolution of galaxies), the last few years have witnessed a large increase in the amount of abundance data for early-type stars. Two intriguing results emerging since the last reviews on this topic will be discussed: (a) nearby OB stars exhibit metal abundances generally lower than the solar/meteoritic estimates; (:) evolutionary models of single objects including rotation are largely unsuccessful in explaining the CNO properties of stars in the Galaxy and in the Magellanic clouds.

 

On Redshidt this is quite interesting

 

The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift

[0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift

Authors: Sami-Matias Niemi, Mauri Valtonen

(Submitted on 24 Nov 2008 (v1), last revised 10 Dec 2008 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: Several authors have found a statistically significant excess of galaxies with higher redshifts relative to the group centre, so-called discordant redshifts, in particular in groups where the brightest galaxy, identified in apparent magnitudes, is a spiral. Our aim is to explain the observed redshift excess. We use a semi-analytical galaxy catalogue constructed from the Millennium Simulation to study redshift asymmetries in spiral-dominated groups in the Lambda cold dark matter (LambdaCDM) cosmology. We show that discordant redshifts in small galaxy groups arise when these groups are gravitationally unbound and the dominant galaxy of the group is misidentified. The redshift excess is especially significant when the apparently brightest galaxy can be identified as a spiral, in full agreement with observations. On the other hand, the groups that are gravitationally bound do not show a significant redshift asymmetry. When the dominant members of groups in mock catalogues are identified by using the absolute B-band magnitudes, our results show a small blueshift excess. This result is due to the magnitude limited observations that miss the faint background galaxies in groups. When the group centre is not correctly identified it may cause the major part of the observed redshift excess. If the group is also gravitationally unbound, the level of the redshift excess becomes as high as in observations. There is no need to introduce any "anomalous" redshift mechanism to explain the observed redshift excess. Further, as the Friends-of-Friends percolation algorithm picks out the expanding parts of groups, in addition to the gravitationally bound group cores, group catalogues constructed in this way cannot be used as if the groups are purely bound systems.

 

 

 

Mate, who knows maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.

In the land of ozzzzz we tend to go on a limb and go for the underdog.

 

 

Sydeny Time 2.07PM Monday 30 Dec 2008

 

We have about 34 hrs to 2009

[FRIPRO]

Happy New Year 2009 to you all on this very interesting forum.

 

From down under Pluto, I see the first mention of the Blue shift that I asked about earlier

 

Great

[Pluto]

Happy New Year from the land of ozzzz

 

Hello Fripro

 

You may find this interesting.

 

A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some Theory Developed Over the Last 90 Years

[0811.2402] A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some Theory Developed Over the Last 90 Years

Authors: Geoffrey Burbidge

(Submitted on 14 Nov 2008)

 

Abstract: This meeting is entitled "A Century of Cosmology." But most of the papers being given here are based on work done very recently and there is really no attempt being made to critically review what has taken place in the last 90 or 100 years. Instead, in general the participants accept without question that cosmology equates to "hot big bang cosmology" with all of its bells and whistles. All of the theory and the results obtained from observations are interpreted on the assumption that this extremely popular model is the correct one, and observers feel that they have to interpret its results in terms of what this theory allows. No one is attempting to seriously test the model with a view to accepting it or ruling it out. They are aware, as are the theorists, that there are enough free parameters available to fix up almost any model of the type.

The current scheme given in detail for example by Spergel et al (206, 2007) demonstrates this. How we got to this stage is never discussed, and little or no attention is paid to the observations obtained since the 1960s on activity in the centers of galaxies and what they imply. We shall show that they are an integral part of a realistic cosmological model. In this paper I shall take a different approach, showing first how cosmological ideas have developed over the last 90 years and where mistakes have been made. I shall conclude with a realistic model in which all of the observational material is included, and compare it with the popular model. Not surprisingly I shall show that there remain many unsolved problems, and previously unexpected observations, most of which are ignored or neglected by current observers and theorists, who believe that the hot big bang model must be correct.

 

 

Darn, I think I will hide my computer, everytime I see it, it makes me read, I think they have made a chip that controls the brain wave control. Is thare a word like computaholic?