enorbet2 Posted May 25, 2009 Report Posted May 25, 2009 Hey Pluto While I am open to change, even sweeping change, I am not "switching horses" here as I do think it is doubtful that the BBT is fundamentally wrong. By that I mean that it seems to me that all of the various so-called problems with BBT hinge on one - Is redshift indicative of an expanding Universe or not? Even though the most recent "Scientific American" explores the "void" hypothesis as a possible explanation as an alternate explanation of redshift, it is very new and has little supporting empirical evidence so far. That may change, possibly even soon, and if it does I may owe you a boilermaker "Salut!", but until then I'm still fairly well convinced The Standard Model is relatively safe. Quote
Pluto Posted May 25, 2009 Report Posted May 25, 2009 G'day enorbet No one is asking you to change horses. Just remove the flaps and see what the other horses are doing. Smile Wahts a boilermaker's salut? Quote
Pluto Posted May 25, 2009 Report Posted May 25, 2009 G'day enorbet If Redshift data is in error, what next? There are a number of papers that are of interest. You make up you own opinion of them [0806.4481] Hubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless UniverseHubble's Cosmology: From a Finite Expanding Universe to a Static Endless Universe [0810.0153] Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological PhysicsExpanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics [0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshiftThe origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913[0812.2470] On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913Authors: Krzysztof Belczynski, Dieter H. Hartmann, Chris L. Fryer, Daniel E. Holz, Brian O'Shea(Submitted on 12 Dec 2008) There is 4 more papers that I was going to post. Science is sharing of information. Quote
modest Posted May 26, 2009 Report Posted May 26, 2009 Continued from Re: How far can we see? [0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshiftThe origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift[0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913[0812.2470] On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913Authors: Krzysztof Belczynski, Dieter H. Hartmann, Chris L. Fryer, Daniel E. Holz, Brian O'Shea(Submitted on 12 Dec 2008)[0812.2470] On The Origin Of The Highest Redshift Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 080913 Could these papers be wrong or is the Big Bang theory in question. The two papers that appear in your quote above (I did not quote the other two) vigorously support big bang theory. Reading the first paragraph of this link: Lambda-CDM is an abbreviation for Lambda-Cold Dark Matter. It is frequently referred to as the concordance model of big bang cosmology, since it attempts to explain cosmic microwave background observations, as well as large scale structure observations and supernovae observations of the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is the simplest known model that is in general agreement with observed phenomena. Lambda-CDM model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Then read the title of the paper you link: The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift What that means is that Lambda-CDM is another name for "Big Bang theory" so that when you read that Lambda-CDM explains some certain data, it is saying that Big Bang theory explains the data. What may have mislead you is the word "anomalous". Usually when you do an arxiv search for "anomalous redshift" or you see the words "anomalous redshift" in the title of a paper it's a good bet that the paper is at least bringing up issues with standard cosmology, but in this case you really need to know what the other words mean. You could also read this sentence from the abstract:...There is no need to introduce any "anomalous" redshift mechanism to explain the observed redshift excess... [0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift ~modest Quote
enorbet2 Posted May 27, 2009 Report Posted May 27, 2009 Well Pluto a "boilermaker salut" would be a shot of whiskey with beer chaser followed by a (Nit!,Nit!) Toast to yer health. Quote
maddog Posted May 27, 2009 Report Posted May 27, 2009 Well Pluto a "boilermaker salut" would be a shot of whiskey with beer chaser followed by a (Nit!,Nit!) Toast to yer health.The way I remember that in college (@ Purdue) was you would drop the "chaser" of whiskeyin your beer. Since I never wanted to taint my Guinness :D I only tried this once. Yechh! :doh: maddog Quote
Pluto Posted May 28, 2009 Report Posted May 28, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz Smile, I do not drink. Tried it, does not make it happen for me. I thought a boilermaker salut maybe from the sweat of a metalworker. Quote
Pluto Posted May 28, 2009 Report Posted May 28, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzz Just sharing this link, I may have posted it before. Problems of Practical cosmologyInternational Conference. Problems of Practical Cosmology 2008 - Text of Proceedings Quote
Pluto Posted May 29, 2009 Report Posted May 29, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz Slowly slowly I'm reading through topics using the search via NASA ADSSAO/NASA ADS: ADS Home Page I was asked to read on this topic Star formation from jets 2009SAO/NASA ADS Abstract Service THis a most exciting topic, I think I'm lost in transit. I have read a few of the papers and feel that I know very little. Quote
modest Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 Continued from Re: Eternal Generation Cosmology? G'day Modest The posts on the Big Bang were not posts in providing evidence they were opinions from others. I totally disagree with the BIG Bang and the formation of singularities that only exist in theory. I said Modest it seems you make statements yourself without supporting evidence. Am I to understand that you think that the universe originated from one singularity? as your words state that its only a theory. Yes, Pluto, I'm saying that big bang theory claims that the universe came from ONE singularity rather than many. "Singularity" is not a good word to use, as it leads to confusion. But, the thing I'm trying to get across is that BBT does not claim that there were multiple singularity points throughout the universe from which the mass of the universe exploded. The best way to think of it is like this: Consider any two points in the universe that are sufficiently far away from one another. Currently they are expanding away from one another. This means that they used to be closer together, and the further and further you look back in time the closer and closer these two points were. If you 'rewind' the 'film' of the universe back far enough then these two points and all other points of the universe used to be touching. This is T=0 (Time=beginning), the singularity, where everything was infinitely close to everything else—the moment of the big bang. I believe you are perhaps confusing this 'big bang singularity' with the singularities that are theorized to exist in black holes throughout the universe today. These are not the same thing. They have theoretical and physical similarities, but they are theoretically and physically different. Notice any page describing the big bang: Big Bang Theory Talks about "a singularity" and "the singularity". ~modest Quote
Pluto Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 G'day Modest I know of and read Big Bang Theory The question is this: Do you know what evidence is and what hear say is? The link talks around the BIG Bang Theory and uses information to support the theory. Not one part is evidence. Quote
Boerseun Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 The Hubble Flow is evidence.Redshift is evidence.Expanding space is evidence. Now take the above and run it backwards in your mind. Quote
Pluto Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 G'day Boerseun I have read all the links provided by this forum and a list from others. You said The Hubble Flow is evidence.Redshift is evidence.Expanding space is evidence. Now take the above and run it backwards in your mind. Think about it for a second, is it evidence? The question: is Redshift reliable. Redshift is taken from supernova candles. Do we know enough of the intrinsic properties causing the Redshift. Secondly is it not funny that the redshift is occuring from a centre point called Earth. This is interesting reading[0806.4085] A review of redshift and its interpretation in cosmology and astrophysics A review of redshift and its interpretation in cosmology and astrophysics Authors: R. Gray, J. Dunning-Davies(Submitted on 25 Jun 2008) Abstract: The interpretation of redshift in cosmology and astronomy yields a great deal of information about the universe in which we live, but much controversy surrounds the correct interpretation of the phenomenon. This article discusses the history of the redshift, and how its interpretation varies between different cosmological theories, including the Big Bang theory and some of its most famous rivals, the Steady State theory and Tired Light theory, and aims to highlight a few of the problems still existing. Some notions not normally associated with astronomy and astrophysics are mentioned also in the hope that a somewhat broader view of this important topic may be investigated. Quote
Boerseun Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 Redshift is taken from supernova candles. Do we know enough of the intrinsic properties causing the Redshift.Yes.Secondly is it not funny that the redshift is occuring from a centre point called Earth.This is a common misconception. If you were to visit any other point in space, the Hubble Flow would seem as if it originated there. It's because every point is moving away from every other point, simultaneously, in all directions. Quote
Pluto Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 G'day from the land of ozzzzz Understanding what happens to AGN and the ejected matter reducing in redshift with distance is an important point. This paper is quite interesting. [0812.0926] A Surprisingly High Pair Fraction for Extremely Massive Galaxies at z ~ 3 in the GOODS NICMOS SurveyA Surprisingly High Pair Fraction for Extremely Massive Galaxies at z ~ 3 in the GOODS NICMOS Survey Authors: Asa F. L. Bluck, Christopher J. Conselice, Rychard J. Bouwens, Emanuele Daddi, Mark Dickinson, Casey Papovich, Haojing Yan(Submitted on 4 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 5 Dec 2008 (this version, v2)) Abstract: We calculate the major pair fraction and derive the major merger fraction and rate for 82 massive ($M_{*}>10^{11}M_{odot}$) galaxies at $1.7 < z < 3.0$ utilising deep HST NICMOS data taken in the GOODS North and South fields. For the first time, our NICMOS data provides imaging with sufficient angular resolution and depth to collate a sufficiently large sample of massive galaxies at z $>$ 1.5 to reliably measure their pair fraction history. We find strong evidence that the pair fraction of massive galaxies evolves with redshift. We calculate a pair fraction of $f_{m}$ = 0.29 +/- 0.06 for our whole sample at $1.7 < z < 3.0$. Specifically, we fit a power law function of the form $f_{m}=f_{0}(1+z)^{m}$ to a combined sample of low redshift data from Conselice et al. (2007) and recently acquired high redshift data from the GOODS NICMOS Survey. We find a best fit to the free parameters of $f_{0}$ = 0.008 +/- 0.003 and $m$ = 3.0 +/- 0.4. We go on to fit a theoretically motivated Press-Schechter curve to this data. This Press-Schechter fit, and the data, show no sign of levelling off or turning over, implying that the merger fraction of massive galaxies continues to rise with redshift out to z $sim$ 3. Since previous work has established that the merger fraction for lower mass galaxies turns over at z $sim$ 1.5 - 2.0, this is evidence that higher mass galaxies experience more mergers earlier than their lower mass counterparts, i.e. a galaxy assembly downsizing. Finally, we calculate a merger rate at z = 2.6 of $Re$ $<$ 5 $times$ 10$^{5}$ Gpc$^{-3}$ Gyr$^{-1}$, which experiences no significant change to $Re$ $<$ 1.2 $times$ 10$^{5}$ Gpc$^{-3}$ Gyr$^{-1}$ at z = 0.5. This corresponds to an average $M_{*}>10^{11}M_{odot}$ galaxy experiencing 1.7 +/- 0.5 mergers between z = 3 and z = 0. My opinion is that we do not know enough about the intrinsic properties and the workings of condensed matter found through out any galaxy and growing larger as it approaches the centre where we find huge condensed matter that we call black holes. Quote
Boerseun Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 Pluto, please understand the following: The Big Bang Theory is a theory, nothing more. It can be overthrown tomorrow with a New! Improved! cosmology that has more explanatory power. To date, no other theory holds a candle to it - stellar or not. For instance, stuff like the large-scale statistics of the universe only makes sense in the Big Bang paradigm. It's not to say it is so, however. It's merely currently the theory that fits the data best. Don't let me stop you looking for a better theory, however. But if we need to kick BB in the teeth, we need some big shoes and lots of kick. Happy huntin'. Quote
maddog Posted July 1, 2009 Report Posted July 1, 2009 Think about it for a second, is it evidence?YES!The question: is Redshift reliable.YES!Redshift is taken from supernova candles. Do we know enough of the intrinsic properties causing the Redshift.YES!Secondly is it not funny that the redshift is occuring from a centre point called Earth.Fallacy, as is "stinkin' thinkin' ". Earth is no "centre" [English/Aussie spelling]. If you havea center [American spelling], then Every point is a center ! maddog Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.