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

[jackson33]

If galaxy formed simultaneous or near the same period, in the Universe History, development should also be the same. Certainly there would be little difference in what are the thought to be the oldest (longest formed) or the yet developing. Understanding however that mass availability, would have to be near equal in all places per BB distribution of pre-atom plasma. Space voids, galaxy clusters or many concentrated areas of mass, do not support such theory, IMO. Then on development; Elliptical Galaxy, would appear to be older, almost near the point of some form of self destruction, where spirals the younger version, seem to be developing toward becoming (over time) into ellipticals, knowing the various stages of spirals. When dropping to dwarfs, which also take on characteristics of the older, range well down in total stars and are just to numerous to have come from former debris. Times involved for all the process involved, from the original giant stars, to burn out (which according to theory) would have all become black holes (I disagree), and then evaporation into debris for new formations and all we are currently aware of, not only would not fit into 15 billion years, but IMO 100 billion years, probably much longer. Said another way, there Universe should be a few million black holes, floating around slowly evaporating, today (15BY) later, among the benign elements formed during star fusion and thrown out of those implosions into BH.

As for approaching the 'study of BBT' as a good science; Wouldn't it be just as good (for scince) to approach from any model of SSU. Rather than trying to explain everything to conform to BBTscience, mention the plausable explantion to both. Most of the questions, posed by Tormid are legitimate but refuted by the BBTscience, not encouraplausibleexplanationged to explore...

Pluto; BBT suggest (at least in some models) that the original stars were were formed in that first 300 to 500 million years after BB. The only matter available for any matter being (Hydrogen/Helium and a touch of Lithium) These stars, to fit the time line were very large (Apparently quite large) allowing a quick burn out of core hydrogen. Regardless of C or C+, expansion continued, the Universe increasing in size multiple times in volume, these stars separating in distances, by both the expansion and velocity. The matter in each or several, would eventually become what created smaller stars, speeds of formations increased by the heavier elements formed from those original stars or the process we now see began. My argument with this, is those original stars, should show up, as is (by size required) of what was 14-14.5 or even further if they existed, with current observation means. (Telescopes etc.). That is, a burning star 14 BY ago, with the mass required to burn out in a few hundred million years should have sent out considerably more waves of energy and in consentrations, than anything currently thought to being observed.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Even if it started at one spot, do you know how long it would take a black hole that has over 10 billion star masses to form and surrounded by clusters of galaxies.

I do not know. Someone may have run a model similar to that if you're interested then I can help you find it.

It's important to note that big bang theory is not a theory of galaxy evolution. It does not explain how small-scale structures like galaxies and stars formed. There are theories that explain those things and they should work with BBT but they shouldn't be confused as one in the same.

If your objection to standard cosmology is that 500 million years is not enough time for a mature galaxy to evolve and you have evidence of mature galaxies that are 13.2 GYr light-travel-time then that is a better objection than you were saying before.

My concern was correcting your statement that the number of galaxies in the hubble deep field was a problem for BBT. My claim was:

If there was enough time for one to form then there was necessarily enough time for any number to form given enough matter and space.

Which it looks like you understand:

Originally Posted by Pluto

I understand the logic...

But then you said this:

Originally Posted by Pluto

I hope you were not drinking when you gave me that logic.

So perhaps you still disagree. In any case, my last 2 posts explain as well as I think is possible.

-modest

[modest]

Originally Posted by jackson33

If galaxy formed simultaneous or near the same period, in the Universe History, development should also be the same.

This is true if you assume development time is the only factor that impresses upon a galaxy how to look. But, this would be ignoring other things that seem like they would be a factor like mass and mergers.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Certainly there would be little difference in what are the thought to be the oldest (longest formed) or the yet developing. Understanding however that mass availability, would have to be near equal in all places per BB distribution of pre-atom plasma. Space voids, galaxy clusters or many concentrated areas of mass, do not support such theory, IMO.

Given chaos theory - there may be large differences between galaxies even if initial conditions were almost identical.

Originally Posted by jackson33

As for approaching the 'study of BBT' as a good science; Wouldn't it be just as good (for scince) to approach from any model of SSU. Rather than trying to explain everything to conform to BBTscience,

The method of investigation is meant to test the theory. For instance, WMAP and COBE were designed to test BBT's predictions... To see if BBT (and its predictions) were either right or wrong. This is not bad science. If BBT were wrong then all these missions and measurements constantly being thrown at it would not agree with the theory. Testing a theory is the quickest way to break it. Trying to break a theory and trying to protect it are not the same thing.

Don't forget, before the middle of the 20th century, the bias was toward a static universe. It took a lot of evidence to change standard cosmology into an expanding solution.

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

The mind set by WARP and COBE was to assume that the BBT was correct than proceeded to make it fit.

As for the Chaos theory its not relevant to the formatiion of over 100 billion galaxies where some are clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies. over a period of 500 million years.

I have read WARP AND COBE and the Chaos theory before and I'm aware of their findings.

Now! Modest tell me what evidence supports the BBT without any ad hoc ideas and with science back up.

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

This is very intersting reading

Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)
Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second, in 1987 a Japanese-American team led by Andrew Lange and Paul Richards of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University made an announcement that CMB was not that of a true black body. In a sounding rocket experiment, they detected an excess brightness at 0.5 and 0.7 mm wavelengths. These results cast doubt on the validity of the Big Bang theory in general and help support the Steady State theory.[2]

==================================================
THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE
THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the "Cosmic Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from the primordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. Like Aristotle, and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiation assumed the signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternative explanation. The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then heralded as final proof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions invested in that theory celebrated.

But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the observed motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be less than accurate about the radiation signal detected in space. When the satellite COBE was sent up to analyze the Cosmic Background Radiation, it discovered instead of the smooth featureless glow predicted by the cosmologists a highly complex and detailed structure. Yet again, rather than question the prime assumption that the signal being analyzed was actually from a supposed "Big Bang", research was encouraged to find a way to fit the data into the existing theory, again on the assumption that the signal detected could not be from any other source. And yet, an alternative explanation for the signal was right at hand, indeed literally on all sides.

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

A Bang into Nowhere
Comments on the
Universe Expansion Theory

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation."

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

WILLIAM C. MITCHELL ON COSMOLOGY
</title> <base href="http://hometown.aol.com/wmitch8493/myhomepage/index.html"> </head> <body topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%" valign=

A must to read.

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


The Top 30 Problems
the Big Bang
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V09N2tvf.PDF

Earlier, we presented a simple list of the top ten problems with
the Big Bang. [1] Since that publication, we have had many
requests for citations and additional details , which we provide
here. We also respond to a few rebuttal arguments to the
earlier list. Then we supplement the list based on the last four
years of developments—with another 20 problems for the
theory.

=============================================
International Workshop on
Redshift Mechanisms in
Astrophysics and Cosmology
(Clonakilty-Cork, Ireland, May 15-18, 2006)

http://redshift.vif.com/NewsWire/BrassTacksRelease1.pdf

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

[astro-ph/0203466] Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion

Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion

Authors: M. Lopez-Corredoira, Carlos M. Gutierrez

(Submitted on 26 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 27 Mar 2002 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We present new spectroscopic observations of an old case of anomalous redshift--NGC 7603 and its companion. The redshifts of the two galaxies which are apparently connected by a luminous filament are z=0.029 and z=0.057 respectively. We show that in the luminous filament there are two compact emission line objects with z=0.243 and z=0.391. They lie exactly on the line traced by the filament connecting the galaxies. As far as we are aware, this is the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far.

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

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

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

The Fingers of God

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.

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

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

As this issue was going to press in early October, the Nobel Prizes for 2006 were announced. The prize in physics was awarded to John C. Mather and George F. Smoot for the discovery of the blackbody character of the microwave radiation in space with the COBE satellite. The significance of this finding, according to the citation, read as follows:

“The COBE results provided increased support for the Big Bang scenario for the origin of the universe, as this is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE. These measurements also marked the inception of cosmology as a precise science.”


Our regular members and readers will recall that the simplest explanation of the microwave radiation is the “temperature of space”, as correctly calculated by Eddington in 1926 and verified with greater accuracy by later authors: 2.8°K. This is the minimum temperature that anything bathed in the radiation of distant starlight can reach. No Big Bang proponent ever came close to predicting the correct temperature of this radiation, its dipolar asymmetry, or the tiny size of its fluctuations.

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

To this date I feel angry that the Big Bang theory was not supported by evidence but by ad hoc ideas. Every evidence is in question.

This does not mean the Big Bang is wrong or right.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Pluto

To this date I feel angry that the Big Bang theory was not supported by evidence but by ad hoc ideas. Every evidence is in question.

So what if every evidence is in question. That is why it is called "science" and not "faith". But the fact remains that the evidence *supports* the Big Bang theory.

Listing tons of references to what some claim are *anomalies* doesn't disprove the theory - rather, it shows that you focus your research on finding every possible thing that can be wrong without actually showing how they help us create an alternative theory.

This does not mean the Big Bang is wrong or right.

I think that's about the only thing we agree upon.

Halton Arp's ideas were refuted long ago, but he still keeps promoting his alternative science. This is all fine and dandy, and I think the claims that he has been censored (like Mike C claims, among others) are outrageous and is a classic strawman argument. He is as free to publish his articles as any other professional astronomer.

It is clear that this discussion will become yet another one where one side presents the current evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, while the opponents just hammer out (the ever similar) claims that it is wrong without even offering a single alternative. The steady state universe needs more than a "SSU is the only alternative" claim...

Claiming that WMAP and COBE were created just to prove the Big Bang theory is partly *true* - but the data they produced fit the *predicted* values to an incredible degree. Now that is what science is. You make predictions, then you work out possible experiments to test it, then you perform the tests, then you review the data.

Or do you mean that Halton Arp does science any other way?

Like finding data that does not fit, and then claiming that a theory must be wrong because this or that piece of evidence don't fit the expectations?

Hm...come to think of it...that is after all how he works, isn't it? OR rather how his accolytes work.

[Pluto]

Hello Tormod

I like you to pick one evidence that supports the Big Bang.

and if you can give me some logical scentific explanation how over 100 billion galaxies are formed in just 500 millions years, I'm all ears.

Also I have read Arp's work. Sounds OK.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Now! Modest tell me what evidence supports the BBT without any ad hoc ideas and with science back up.

Well.. That’s what I though I was doing. You don’t seem interested.

Originally Posted by Pluto

To this date I feel angry that the Big Bang theory was not supported by evidence

And Yet when that evidence is obtained you disregard it, such as:

Originally Posted by Pluto

The mind set by WARP and COBE was to assume that the BBT was correct than proceeded to make it fit.

You literally ask for evidence then ignore and criticize the good science that’s done getting that evidence. Let's look at the last few posts as an example:

You ask how so many galaxies can be made in such a short time in post 76. CraigD gives you a very good and thoughtful answer in post 82. You ignore him and claim (in post 84) that no one has explained it. I repeat Craig's explanation in post 85 and elaborated in post 87 after you called 85 a joke.

At this point you have two different people telling you where you went wrong three different ways. Your reaction is to say I'm drunk and continue accusing mainstream science of ignoring evidence! Who is ignoring what here Pluto?

It's now clear to me that you will ignore and suspect any evidence you think might support BBT. You're asking for evidence then ignoring it and asking and ignoring... around and around. I don't see what you get from that, but:

Originally Posted by Pluto

Now! Modest tell me what evidence supports the BBT

I don't think I will.

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

You write as though I have not read your comments.

I'm quite aware of your theories and writings.

They are not scientific in any sense of the word.

And when I do ask for any form of concrete evidence, you say

I don't think I will.

I'm not twisting your arm.

This is a forum

Is there anybody who can discuss this topic on scientific grounds.

Or maybe you just want people to agree without science support.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Hello Modest

You write as though I have not read your comments.

I'm quite aware of your theories and writings.

They are not scientific in any sense of the word.

And when I do ask for any form of concrete evidence, you say



I'm not twisting your arm.

This is a forum

Is there anybody who can discuss this topic on scientific grounds.

Or maybe you just want people to agree without science support.

You're beginning to look like a serious troll, Pluto.

Both Modest and Tormod have given excellent explanations over the last couple pages. As Modest said, you choose to ignore the evidence and as Tormod said, BBT is not a conspiracy theory, it's good science.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Hello Modest, You write as though I have not read your comments. I'm quite aware of your theories and writings. They are not scientific in any sense of the word. And when I do ask for any form of concrete evidence, you say

I'm sorry you fail to see the value in my critique of your statements, but I have a hard time believing you are surprised by my response. Think about it Pluto. Craig and I spent a good amount of time trying to discuss your objection about the galaxy count. This is the only response we get:

Originally Posted by Pluto

Till this date not one person has explained how over a 100 billion galaxies can form in just 500 million years using science.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Is this some form of a joke?

Originally Posted by Pluto

I hope you were not drinking when you gave me that logic.

Originally Posted by Pluto

I'm quite aware of your theories and writings. They are not scientific in any sense of the word.

If that's the only level you're willing to discuss things at then how could you possibly be surprised the conversation didn't get anywhere?