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

[maddog]

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.

Welcome to your opinion. It is yours. It is just we may not agree with you. Period.

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

Opinion without science is like doodling in the wind.

 

 

 

Boerseun said

 

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.

 

Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).

 

 

=======================

Hello

 

Maddog

Centre or center to me is the same, being a dislexic is does not matter.

 

=============================

 

This link is quite interesting, it was emailed to me:

 

[0812.0537] Sociology of Modern Cosmology

Sociology of Modern Cosmology

 

Authors: Martin Lopez-Corredoira

(Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.

 

 

At the end of the day I just want to know which theory is backed by science evidence and not by ad hoc evidence to support what ever.

 

Yes I do read the papers that I post, yet I hold back to express their meaning for the simple reason that it expresses its own meaning.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Here down under we sometimes see things upside down and inside out, be that it may.

 

This following paper is very interesting.

 

 

[0902.4759] Non-Gaussianity as a Probe of the Physics of the Primordial Universe and the Astrophysics of the Low Redshift Universe

Non-Gaussianity as a Probe of the Physics of the Primordial Universe and the Astrophysics of the Low Redshift Universe

 

Authors: E.Komatsu, N.Afshordi, N.Bartolo, D.Baumann, J.R.Bond, E.I.Buchbinder, C.T.Byrnes, X.Chen, D.J.H.Chung, A.Cooray, P.Creminelli, N.Dalal, O.Dore, R.Easther, A.V.Frolov, K.M.Gorski, M.G. Jackson, J.Khoury, W.H.Kinney, L.Kofman, K.Koyama, L.Leblond, J.-L.Lehners, J.E.Lidsey, M.Liguori, E.A.Lim, A.Linde, D.H.Lyth, J.Maldacena, S.Matarrese, L.McAllister, P.McDonald, S.Mukohyama, B.Ovrut, H.V.Peiris, C.Raeth, A.Riotto, Y.Rodriguez, M.Sasaki, R.Scoccimarro, D.Seery, E.Sefusatti, U.Seljak, L.Senatore, S.Shandera, E.P.S.Shellard, E.Silverstein, A.Slosar, K.M.Smith, A.A.Starobinsky, P.J.Steinhardt, F.Takahashi, M.Tegmark, A.J.Tolley, L.Verde, B.D.Wandelt, D.Wands, S.Weinberg, M.Wyman, A.P.S.Yadav, M.Zaldarriaga

(Submitted on 27 Feb 2009 (v1), last revised 19 Apr 2009 (this version, v4))

 

Abstract: A new and powerful probe of the origin and evolution of structures in the Universe has emerged and been actively developed over the last decade. In the coming decade, non-Gaussianity, i.e., the study of non-Gaussian contributions to the correlations of cosmological fluctuations, will become an important probe of both the early and the late Universe. Specifically, it will play a leading role in furthering our understanding of two fundamental aspects of cosmology and astrophysics: (i) the physics of the very early universe that created the primordial seeds for large-scale structures, and (ii) the subsequent growth of structures via gravitational instability and gas physics at later times. To date, observations of fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (LSS) have focused largely on the Gaussian contribution as measured by the two-point correlations (or the power spectrum) of density fluctuations. However, an even greater amount of information is contained in non-Gaussianity and a large discovery space therefore still remains to be explored. Many observational probes can be used to measure non-Gaussianity, including CMB, LSS, gravitational lensing, Lyman-alpha forest, 21-cm fluctuations, and the abundance of rare objects such as clusters of galaxies and high-redshift galaxies. Not only does the study of non-Gaussianity maximize the science return from a plethora of present and future cosmological experiments and observations, but it also carries great potential for important discoveries in the coming decade.

 

 

Although there are terms that I disagree with particularly early and late universe implying fact that has no evidence but theories. The paper has logic.

[enorbet2]

Hello Pluto

I honestly don't yet understand what you're "on about" since often you seem to contradict yourself and resort to non-sequitur.

 

Authors: E.Komatsu, N.Afshordi, N.Bartolo, D.Baumann, J.R.Bond, E.I.Buchbinder, C.T.Byrnes, X.Chen, D.J.H.Chung, A.Cooray, P.Creminelli, N.Dalal, O.Dore, R.Easther, A.V.Frolov, K.M.Gorski, M.G. Jackson, J.Khoury, W.H.Kinney, L.Kofman, K.Koyama, L.Leblond, J.-L.Lehners, J.E.Lidsey, M.Liguori, E.A.Lim, A.Linde, D.H.Lyth, J.Maldacena, S.Matarrese, L.McAllister, P.McDonald, S.Mukohyama, B.Ovrut, H.V.Peiris, C.Raeth, A.Riotto, Y.Rodriguez, M.Sasaki, R.Scoccimarro, D.Seery, E.Sefusatti, U.Seljak, L.Senatore, S.Shandera, E.P.S.Shellard, E.Silverstein, A.Slosar, K.M.Smith, A.A.Starobinsky, P.J.Steinhardt, F.Takahashi, M.Tegmark, A.J.Tolley, L.Verde, B.D.Wandelt, D.Wands, S.Weinberg, M.Wyman, A.P.S.Yadav, M.Zaldarriaga

(Submitted on 27 Feb 2009 (v1), last revised 19 Apr 2009 (this version, v4))

 

This, for example is simple name dropping because without explaining what contribution each made it means nothing on it's own. Even if every one were a bona fide, peer reviewed, respected scientist the mere mention of their names means nothing. On top of that it isn't even stated that they all agree on something or if that something is a "fishing expedition" (still quite valid but not yet even theory, merely data gathering) or actually on some theory and predictions that can be tested and falsified.

 

 

 

Although there are terms that I disagree with particularly early and late universe implying fact that has no evidence but theories. The paper has logic.

 

Here you baffle me since you seem to be using theory in the popular sense which is barely above "what if?" as in the way zealots who have no understanding of what it takes to be a theory snigger at Evolution as "just a theory" as if it were mere opinion or a dream sequence.

 

Earlier in this thread you mentioned that (paraphrasing, so please correct me if I am inaccurate) "everywhere, even in Deep Field, galaxies are the same" which is patently false ( see The Birth and Formation of Galaxies ) where it states (as do numerous other sources)

 

Looking beyond our galaxy with current telescopes, astronomers can study both middle-aged and mature galaxies. When NASA's Hubble Space Telescope was pointed at one tiny speck of sky for 10 days, the resulting image provided the most detailed view of the early universe ever obtained. The image contains a bewildering assortment: 1,500 galaxies at various stages of evolution, some dating back to the time when the universe was only a billion years old.

 

Within this deep-field image are recognizable shapes: spherical galaxies called ellipticals, reddish in color by virtue of their light from mature stars, and crystal blue spiral galaxies, blazing from the glow of their hot, young stars. There are also strange, "tadpole"-like objects, disturbed and apparently merging galaxies dubbed "train wrecks," as well as a multitude of faint, "dwarf" galaxies. Some of these objects may date back to the first generation of galaxies and stars. Did these cosmic shards and fragments evolve into today's recognizable galaxies? Are they as small as they appear, but bright from great bursts of star formation? Or, are they massive, with much of their stellar population hidden from view by clouds of dust?

 

You also asked

 

Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).

 

This hasn't changed much in over 30 years! Consider this old gem, still unsuccessfully challenged. Cosmos: Shape of the Universe : Video : Science Channel

 

Just because the phenomenon of galaxy formation is not yet well understood doesn't mean any opinion will do nor does it mean there is some gaping hole in the Standard Model since after all this time with so many advances, nothing yet explains so much so well.

 

You still seem to be chipping away at the edges, at the least well understood stuff, as if that is going to defeate the entire thing and there just isn't a deal-breaker yet. It may be possible soon with some of the new amazing experiments in progress as we speak, but it is going to have to "beat the champ" so style alone won't cut it. It's going to have to be a knockout blow and after nearly 100 years, it really isn't likely, absent some major technological breakthrough so far non-existant.

[Pluto]

G'day enorbet

 

At the end of the day, who cares what theory is the standard theory just as long as the theory is supported by science.

 

I posted these links before. This may add a bit of light.

 

[0809.1084] Practical cosmology and cosmological physics

Practical cosmology and cosmological physics

 

and

 

[0810.0153] Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics

Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics

[maddog]

Opinion without science is like doodling in the wind.

I would then request you quit doodling sooo much ! :)

Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).

With inflation taken into account BBT attempts to explain galaxy formation (w/ not all

things worked out). Latest addition (I saw this on Discovery a few weeks ago) that it is

now common to think of the center of galaxies having Black Holes at their centers at or

near their formation. Recently astronomers are discovering BH at center of galaxies at

all scales (near as well as far). Some things I haven't understood is the anisotropy of

matter to antimatter. This is claimed to have been worked out. I have not seen or read

these papers.

 

It is clear to me Pluto that you would like to discount BBT (you have said so). So far

what you have presented does not shoot the theory down.

 

Centre or center to me is the same, being a dislexic is does not matter.

NP. ;) I just was wondering whether Aussies spell like the Brits. ;) Great Britain's

English does spell Center as Centre. Just like Colour for Color, etc.

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

 

We spell both ways.

 

But! my wife says, centre and colour.

 

 

Rather than thinking what ever model.

 

Look at the formation of star and phase changes and evolution of galaxies.

 

How matter is attracted to the centre and how matter is ejected and how all this is directly related to the size and mass of the central Nucleon that some call a Black Hoole that determines the form of the galaxy. You can refer to the Hubble Tuning Fork or the modern explanation of galaxy evolution.

[modest]

Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years

 

How many times has this been explained to you Pluto? See post 82 or 85.

 

If 100 billion things happen at the same time and they each take 500 million years to happen then the total time it takes is 500 million years. The number of galaxies does not disprove the time frame.

 

If one galaxy can form in 500 million years in a small area then many billions can form in a much larger area. From you previous posts on this subject it seems clear that the concept giving you trouble is simultaneity. When events happen in parallel the total time is *not* affected by the number of events. When things happen in series the total time is affected by the number of events because they happen one after the other rather than at the same time.

 

Galaxies formed in parallel.

 

100 million raindrops can form from water vapor over a city in 10 seconds.

 

A better objection that you could make would be to ask how a mature galaxy could form in 500 million years... so long as you had evidence of a mature galaxy at that time period.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

 

I do not have to make an objection of a statement that is not scientific. You have got to be joking with that type of an explanation. It tells me how little you know.

 

Maybe the next time I come back I will go through the evolution and morphology of galaxy form.

 

As for mature galaxy, it has no meaning, since evolution plays a part.

 

Than you go a step further an explain the formation of clusters of clusters of galaxies having thousands of galxies forming these super dooper unit structures.

[maddog]

As for mature galaxy, it has no meaning, since evolution plays a part.

Actually, the phrase mature galaxy does have meaning. The notion of the maturing of a

galaxy is the transition from Elliptical Galaxies to Spiral Galaxies. It has been thought that

Ellipticals are young and Spirals of all types are older. There is a lot of evidence. First,

the younger ellipticals are only found far away during a younger universe. Spirals are found

closer to here. So galactic evolution and the Maturing process are addressing the same

process.

Than you go a step further an explain the formation of clusters of clusters of galaxies having thousands of galxies forming these super dooper unit structures.

The farther up hierarchy of galaxies you go ("clusters of clusters" vs "clusters") the less

is known of why they form. I would say that Gravity is definitely a component.

 

maddog

[modest]

I don't quite follow any of that, Pluto. I'll revisit the problem,

 

I came across this deep field image

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies (03/09/2004) - Introduction

 

If this deep field image is 13.2 Gyrs

 

We see 10,000 Galaxies in one spot.

There are 12.7 million spots

If there was 10,000 galaxies per spot than the total number of galaxies in deep field would be.

 

10,000 * 12,700,000 = 127,000,000,000 galaxies in deep filed images if we covered the sky with spots.

 

Now! Imagine making all these galaxies in just 500 million years.

 

This is one reason why I cannot support the Big Bang.

 

The reason 100 billion galaxies could form in "just 500 million years" is because they all formed at the same time. "At the same time" means that the number of galaxies is independent of the total time taken for them to form.

 

If you care to change the subject to galaxy clusters then you can no longer use the time frame "500 million years" as the earliest clusters observed were when the universe was approximately 5 billion years old.

 

Largest ever survey of very distant galaxy clusters completed

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

 

I understand the logic of a mature galaxy.

 

The problem is this, when you have a cyclic event of morphology, its like the chicken and the egg. What came first?

 

Than you have the logic of Hubble tuning fork and the logic of the modern main stream evolution that do not see eye to eye

 

You said

Actually, the phrase mature galaxy does have meaning. The notion of the maturing of a

galaxy is the transition from Elliptical Galaxies to Spiral Galaxies. It has been thought that

Ellipticals are young and Spirals of all types are older. There is a lot of evidence. First,

the younger ellipticals are only found far away during a younger universe. Spirals are found

closer to here. So galactic evolution and the Maturing process are addressing the same

process.

 

 

The evolution of galaxies has no ruling as to local or further away.

 

 

As for clusters of galaxies we have a good idea of how they form.

 

Right now I'm off to bed. I will carry this on later.

[maddog]

I understand the logic of a mature galaxy. The problem is this, when you have a cyclic event of morphology, its like the chicken and the egg. What came first?

Common notion of distance being equated with time. Far things are older by definition.

Time of light travel to get here. This is what points ellipticals to being older than spirals.

Than you have the logic of Hubble tuning fork and the logic of the modern main stream evolution that do not see eye to eye

What about modern main stream evolution does not "see eye to eye" with Hubble ??? ;)

I assume we are speaking of evolution of galaxies. Red Shift is used infer ellipticals age

over spirals. Where is the disagreement ?

The evolution of galaxies has no ruling as to local or further away.

Yes it does. Older == Farther away. See above.

As for clusters of galaxies we have a good idea of how they form.

Clusters, maybe. ==> Gravity.

I was thinking of the large structures like the Wall, etc. I have seen models where Dark

Energy is brought in to explain it. I go queezy with this explaination. Using a theoretical

uncorroborated effect to explain phenomena.

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

The Hubble Tuning Fork

 

The Hubble Tuning Fork

 

The Hubble Tuning Fork

In the early 1900s, Edwin Hubble looked at galaxies like the ones you saw in the last few pages. Hubble classified the galaxies using a "tuning fork" system. The elliptical galaxies made up the fork's handle, and spiral galaxies and barred spiral galaxies make the fork's prongs. So his classification system looked like this:

 

 

 

Hubble believed that galaxies started at the left end of the tuning fork when they were young, and moved toward the right as they aged. Therefore, he called elliptical galaxies "early galaxies" and spiral galaxies "late galaxies".

 

We now know he was mistaken in this belief. Spiral galaxies have a great deal of rotation and elliptical galaxies do not. There is no way an elliptical galaxy could spontaneously begin rotating, so elliptical galaxies cannot turn into spiral galaxies. Although Hubble was wrong about his theory of galaxy evolution, the confusing names have stuck: today, elliptical galaxies are still referred to as early galaxies and spirals as late galaxies.

 

In actual fact in my opinion the events are cyclic. We see spiral galaxies having a AGN and forming huge jets that eject matter and reform the galaxy. The size of the Nucleon determines the size of the jet and the outcome of the form.

 

Chandra :: Photo Album :: Centaurus A :: 09 January 08

Centaurus A:

Jet Power and Black Hole Assortment Revealed in New Chandra Image

 

 

Chandra :: Photo Album :: Centaurus A :: 30 January 09

Centaurus A:

Black Hole Outflows From Centaurus A

 

 

Chandra :: Photo Album :: Centaurus A :: 06 Aug 01

Centaurus A:

A Nearby Elliptical Galaxy With An Active Galactic Nucleus

 

and

 

NASA - A Black Hole Overflows From Galaxy Centaurus A

[Pluto]

G'dya from the land of ozzzzzz

 

 

 

Modern Research

 

Modern Research - Galaxy Formation and Evolution

 

Some galaxies are referred to as early type and some as late type. This is a somewhat awkward way to name them since it can lead to the misunderstanding that some galaxies are previous forms of others. There is much debate how galaxies evolve and whether they change type during their lifetime. Today it is safe to say that at least some ellipticals are results of mergers with other galaxies.

 

 

Why should one form dominate in time before any other?

 

It seems logical that a sequence of events is possible.

[Boerseun]

Why should one form dominate in time before any other?

 

It seems logical that a sequence of events is possible.

So, a sequence of events is possible.

 

Let's say you have one helluva big hydrogen cloud ten billion light-years away from Earth. Let's say you have a nearly identical cloud ten billion light-years away from Earth in the other direction. These two clouds are now twenty billion light-years apart.

 

Give enough time, and they will evolve almost identically. Without any transfer of information between the two.

 

Because the laws of physics hold the same for both, regardless. And whatever discernable differences there might be, points to tiny differences in initial conditions, magnified over time.

 

Cluster galaxies might not be stable over time, spirals might well be because all stars involved have found stable orbits around the galactic centre. Clusters could very well fall together (and miss each other completely, because even though magnificent and impressive from a distance, a galaxy is 99.999% empty space). The odds for stars physically colliding, is very remote. A cluster could then fall together, the stars miss each other and the cluster will expand again, basically "turned inside out", and then expand to the point where the mutual gravitation pulls the stars back together again. And the cycle repeats.

[Pluto]

G'day Boerseun

 

The odds of stars colliding are low, but! because of the billions of stars, we see mergers of stars quite frequently.

 

In the due time I will be reading and re-reading on Galaxy formation and evolution and if you do not mind I would post some of these papers.

 

There are two points that

 

I'm looking for:

 

1) How AGN affects the formation of galaxies and their evolution.

 

2) If the size and activity is directly related to the form of the galaxy.

 

 

Active Galactic Nuclei and their role in Galaxy Formation and Evolution

 

Authors: Steve Kraemer (CUA), Rogier Windhorst (ASU), Kenneth G. Carpenter (NASA-GSFC), Mike Crenshaw (GSU), Martin Elvis (CfA), Margarita Karovska (CfA)

 

(Submitted on 24 Apr 2009)

 

Abstract: There are several key open questions as to the nature and origin of AGN including: 1) what initiates the active phase, 2) the duration of the active phase, and 3) the effect of the AGN on the host galaxy. Critical new insights to these can be achieved by probing the central regions of AGN with sub-mas angular resolution at UV/optical wavelengths. In particular, such observations would enable us to constrain the energetics of the AGN "feedback" mechanism, which is critical for understanding the role of AGN in galaxy formation and evolution. These observations can only be obtained by long-baseline interferometers or sparse aperture telescopes in space, since the aperture diameters required are in excess of 500 m - a regime in which monolithic or segmented designs are not and will not be feasible and because these observations require the detection of faint emission near the bright unresolved continuum source, which is impossible from the ground, even with adaptive optics. Two mission concepts which could provide these invaluable observations are NASA's Stellar Imager (SI; Carpenter et al. 2008 & this http URL) interferometer and ESA's Luciola (Labeyrie 2008) sparse aperture hypertelescope.