The Universe Beginning, End And In-Between

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

What bugs me is the thought of the Big Bang.

 

I had a look at the following links and find that the Big Bang could not have happened in the time suggested by some cosmologists. The more I look around into deep field images the less I think about the Big Bang.

Lets look at observations

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040226.html

 

the galaxy cluster lies nearly 9 billion light-years away ... and so existed at a time when the Universe was less than 5 billion years old. A measured mass of more than 200 trillion Suns makes this galaxy cluster the most massive object ever found when the Universe was so young.

 

 

5 billion years to form to form 200 trillion suns. Think about for one sec. Something is wrong,,,,,,,,,,,,,what science are we using to make these theories.

 

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040120.html

 

How could such a long string of galaxies form so early in the universe? Several new measurements of galaxies and clusters in the early universe are reporting structures involving galaxies and clusters that are larger than expected with the new standard "dark-energy" cosmology. The controversy centers on the inability of a dark-energy dominated universe to create such large structures. Fans of the old standard cosmology -- without weird but pervasive dark energy -- are hoping that these new measurements rule out the newly popular strange universe

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040317.html

 

Detected light left this galaxy 13.2 billion of years ago, well before the Earth formed, when the universe was younger than 3 percent of its present age

 

 

People assume that the Big Bang is correct, than proceed to explain observation as per the Big Bang. I just do not understand these scientists.

 

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970209.html

 

Galaxies like colorful pieces of candy fill the Hubble Deep Field - humanity's most distant yet optical view of the Universe. The dimmest, some as faint as 30th magnitude (about four billion times fainter than stars visible to the unaided eye), are the most distant galaxies and represent what the Universe looked like in the extreme past, perhaps less than one billion years after the Big Bang

 

 

Think about it for a sec...........one billion years to form millions of galaxies.

Is the Big Bang the Crank theory of the 20th Century.

 

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960628.html

 

Researchers believe that the faint reddish smudge indicated by the arrow in the image above is a candidate for the most distant known galaxy which may have existed only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang

 

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950907.html

 

This Hubble Space Telescope image of a group of faint galaxies "far, far away" is a snap shot of the Universe when it was young. The bluish, irregularly shaped galaxies revealed in the image are up to eight billion light years away and seem to have commonly undergone galaxy collisions and bursts of star formation

 

 

Again, how much time to you require to form galaxies and than have them colliding.

 

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/19/text/

Spitzer Leads NASA's Great Observatories to Uncover Black Holes, Other Hidden Objects in the Distant Universe

 

Full press release text:

 

View this

image

Astronomers unveiled the deepest images from NASA's new Spitzer Space Telescope today, and announced the detection of distant objects — including several supermassive black holes — that are nearly invisible in even the deepest images from telescopes operating at other wavelengths.

 

Dr. Mark Dickinson, of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Tucson, Ariz., and principal investigator for the new observations, said, "With these ultra-deep Spitzer images, we are easily seeing objects throughout time and space, out to redshifts of 6 or more, where the most distant known galaxies lie. Moreover, we see some objects that are completely invisible, but whose existence was hinted at by previous observations from the Chandra and Hubble Observatories."

 

Seven of the objects detected by Spitzer may be part of the long-sought population of "missing" supermassive black holes that powered the bright cores of the earliest active galaxies. The discovery completes a full accounting of all the X-ray sources seen in one of the deepest surveys of the universe ever taken.

 

This detective story required the combined power of NASA's three orbiting Great Observatories — the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra X-ray Observatory, and Spitzer Space Telescope. Each observatory works with different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, from high-energy X-rays with Chandra, through visible light with Hubble, and into the infrared with Spitzer. Together, these telescopes yield far more information than any single instrument.

 

All three telescopes peered out to distances of up to 13 billion light-years toward a small patch of the southern sky containing more than 10,000 galaxies, in a coordinated project called the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS). Chandra images detected more than 200 hundred X-ray sources believed to be supermassive black holes in the centers of young galaxies. The X-rays are produced by extremely hot interstellar gases falling into the black holes.

 

 

This small patch is the size of a rice seed. Imagine how many rice seeds are out there.

 

Now if we see 10,000 galaxies in just one little rice seed, how many billions are out there.

 

Knowing this and that they only have one billion years to form. They need "GOD" 's hand to magically form all these galaxies if not GOD's hand than the magically fantasy ideas from the Big Bang theory.

 

Have I got all the answers?,,,,,,,,,,,,, No way in hell.

 

But that does not mean I stand bye and see ideas such as the Big Bang give some fantasy ideas.

 

 

 

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo0520a.html

 

Gazing deep into the universe, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has spied a menagerie of galaxies. Located within the same tiny region of space, these numerous galaxies display an assortment of unique characteristics. Some are big; some are small. A few are relatively nearby, but most are far away. Hundreds of these faint galaxies have never been seen before until their light was captured by Hubble.

 

 

 

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/heic0406b.html

 

Astronomers are hoping to strike it rich by finding some of the farthest known galaxies, existing perhaps 400 million years after the big bang. To find them, astronomers must combine the infrared and visible-light images. The remotest galaxies will only appear in the infrared image. If discovered, these record-breaking galaxies may offer clues to the emergence of galaxies when the universe was only 2 to 5 percent of its present age.

 

 

Astronomers are looking with the eye of a Big Bangger, and sometimes that tunnel vision will restrict their observations and also their writing with the intent of assuming that the Big Bang is correct.

 

I can add more observations with super clusters and so on. This for later.

 

 

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

for those intersted

The Hubble Deep Field

http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/hdf.html

[Dov Henis]

... dark matter does not exsist? For a start you would need to come up with a non-keplarian way of describing how galaxies rotate..

 

- I confess, again, that I am ignorant in this matter. I certainly cannot come up with a suggested mechanism of non-Keplerian galaxies rotaion.

 

- But I do know that some non-Keplerian mechanisms have been suggested since 1997/8, some of them presented in search of "non dark energy explanation of non-keplerian galaxy rotation".

 

Dov

[Dov Henis]

I return to the two cosmic 'yet unsolved matters', the missing mass and the accelerated expansion.

 

Following Newton, (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased, and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters and the laws that drive it, based on the E/ m/ D relationship suggested in the opening post of this thread.

 

Dov

[infamous]

Seen ? I have not "seen" this.

 

According to relativity the mass increases with velocity.

 

But in microscopic particles, these facts are experimentally verified using synchrotrons where the magnetic field is adjusted taking into consideration of the actual change of mass with speed.

 

 

One thing to keep in mind here; Mass and matter cannot be defined as the same thing. Matter will gain mass when accelerated, but it is wrong to assume that the matter itself gains as a result. If I'm misinterpreting the point you're trying to make, I'll ask to be pardoned. Nevertheless, this is what it sounds like to me................................Infy

[Dov Henis]

Infy ,

 

The point of this thread is not matter/weight that depends on gravity thus on its location, but mass that is the same wherever it is.

 

I'm wondering if the opening post of this thread might suggest a reasonable common-sense plausible explanation for the apparent missing cosmic mass and for the accelerating expansion of galactic clusters.

 

Dov

[HydrogenBond]

One possbility for the missing mass are stars. Their fusion converts mass into energy, thereby lowering universal mass over time. Energy isn't affected by low gravity in quite the same way as mass. The expansion can also be due to entropy expansion into space. Gravity means order in space while entropy means disorder. The gravity causes galaxies to form, while the entropy is trying to fill in the vastness of the outer universe.

 

The size of the universe should be defined by the energy that is extending the outer perimeter, i.e, energy moves faster than matter and will expand the perimeter before mass finally arrives. The entropy potential of the universe may be increasing with time because perimeter energy is increasing the radius of the universe, with the volume of the universe increasing by the third power of radius. 4/3(pi)r3. This causes the mass to have to accelerate in 3-D to keep up.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Energy to matter and matter to energy.

 

This is the cycle that we observe in the formation of compact star cores and the so called black holes that are just ultra dense plasma matter that has very high electromagnetic waves that prevent light from escaping.

 

Compact star cores as in neutron, quarks and preon particals and subatomic particals that form black hole. When jets are formed from these compact star cores energy is release and reforms matter. Without energy the cycle cannot occur, similar with matter.

[Little Bang]

I would like know where you have seen energy being converted to matter Harry?

[Dov Henis]

I would like know where you have seen energy being converted to matter Harry?

 

If you agree to replace where you have seen with how and to replace matter with mass:

 

(A) When you try to accelerate a ball to the speed of light in steps, the increase in velocity relative to the initial frame gets less and less, each time you repeat the process. The faster the ball is going, the hard it is to accelerate further. Now recall the definition of INERTIAL MASS: it is the measure of an object's resistance to a change in motion. In Newtonian physics inertial mass is a property of the object alone, and does not depend in any way on its state of motion. A one kilogram ball has a mass of one kilogram no matter how fast it happens to be moving. The situation is drastically different in Special Relativity. The faster a mass moves, the harder it is to accelerate. Hence its inertial mass depends on its speed! This dependence is determined by the time dilation factor.

 

(:cup: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-10-30-mass-energy-eyes_x.htm

 

 

And just a remark: I was hoping we make more progress on the core subject of the first post of this thread rather than get bogged down in 'experimental details'...

 

Sadly,

 

Dov

[Little Bang]

Dov, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that no where in the universe have we ever seen energy being turned into mass, except in a relativistic situation and that is a gain in mass relative to the observer.

[Dov Henis]

Dov, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that no where in the universe have we ever seen energy being turned into mass, except in a relativistic situation and that is a gain in mass relative to the observer.

 

LB,

 

your comment has much to do with the fact that no where else in the universe, except closely nearby to them on Earth, humans have ever seen anything occurring as it occurrs including energy turning into mass.

 

Quote from

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

 

"you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do."

 

And the assertion that, yes, in E=mC^2 m is the corresponding relativistic mass to E:

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/navMeta/dictionary/e/index.html#energy_mass_equivalence

 

Dov

[Little Bang]

From your link, It's not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with 'matter' in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy.

[Erasmus00]

Dov, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that no where in the universe have we ever seen energy being turned into mass, except in a relativistic situation and that is a gain in mass relative to the observer.

 

This isn't true. Happens in particle accelerators all the time. Particle accelerators accomplish the subatomic equivalent of smashing tennis balls together and having basketballs pop out.

-Will

[Little Bang]

In my humble opinion Will you are wrong. Any change in mass is relativistic and what do collisions have to do with energy to mass? If you accelerate a particle close to C yes we measure a gain in mass, but if the observer accelerates along with the particle then that observer will see no change in mass, hence, the change is relative to the observer.

[Dov Henis]

Dov, I would love to know where you have seen energy being transformed into matter? Photons being turned into matter.

 

Read All About It !!!

 

Gamma ray 'clock' found creating antimatter

11:12 29 November 2006

NewScientist.com news service

David Shiga

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10677?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn10677

[Qfwfq]

In my humble opinion Will you are wrong.

Will wasn't wrong at all. Look up a spot of particle physics before presuming to say he's wrong, in that manner.

[Dov Henis]

Back on earth, in physics labs.

 

I just wonder, due to my ignorance in this matter, if present accelerators instrumentation identifies positively the experimental products.

 

OK. The versed in physics would say that when particles of a given mass are placed in an accelerator, given a lot of kinetic energy (speed) and then are collided together and consequently new higher-massed particles are formed what otherwise could have occurred but kinetic energy converted into mass.

 

But uninformed common sense raises a probable other scenario, in which the initial 'particle' is a conglomeration of sub-particles, one/some of which shake loose in the collision and bond with an unscathed or fragment of another particle. Can present interpretation discern such a probability?

 

Just wondering...

 

Dov