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

[Mike C]

To All

My version of the universe (SSU) is 'legal' because it complies with all the Laws of Physics.

So there was no 'bang'.

On the other hand, the BBT does not conform to any of the LoP's, so it is illegal.
Does that make sense? Yes. ha ha.

Mike C

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Hello All

The danger in thinking that you know stops all forms of research.

So far, I have been called a troll.

Just because I have real questions about the BBT.

Your explanations are not scientific but insulting.

I asked for scientific explanation or possible evidence that you may have to support the BBT.

Again, do you wish to discuss it ?

Instead of accusing the scientific community of fraud, look at the data yourself.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey has all of their data on millions of galaxies and quasars online:

SkyServer Tools - Getting Started

They have Spectroscopic Data Or, if you don't trust that - they have the actual spectra. They have brightness info you could compare with redshift and everything else you need to disprove standard cosmology right there in an easy to use and unaltered database. Either the millions of observations will support the predictions of BBT like everyone says they do, or you are right and you will find something to bring to the table.

-modest

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Mike C

To All

My version of the universe (SSU) is 'legal' because it complies with all the Laws of Physics.

Except for the 2nd law of thermodynamics

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

The link:

SkyServer Tools - Getting Started

I know it quite well.

I have all the images in my computer.

Now show me what evidence that you think supports the BBT.

At this present moment, I'm reading through sum 600 odd papers on the formation of jets from compacted matter. This will take me 4 weeks.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

SkyServer Tools - Getting Started

I know it quite well.

I have all the images in my computer.

You really don't. Every night the SDSS stores 200 gigabytes of info. The last release of data to the public was six terabytes of 88 million celestial objects.

To have hundreds of millions of images on your computer would require hundreds of average sized hard drives. I therefore find it difficult to believe the statement "I have all the images in my computer" or "I know it quite well"

I do think it would benefit you to check it out. It is difficult to support a position other than expansion when all those objects follow the predictions of standard cosmology. Their brightness and redshift and size and distribution agree when Halton Arp would say they shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Now show me what evidence that you think supports the BBT.

If you would like to pick some of the galaxies in the survey that have redshift and brightness data I will show you how it agrees with standard cosmology.

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

You are just avoiding the point

Forget it

[Pluto]

Hello All

According to main stream cosmology nothing can escape a black hole.


I was reading this paper. It shows that black holes can eject matter via jets.


[astro-ph/0612354] Models for jet power in elliptical galaxies: A case for rapidly spinning black holes
Models for jet power in elliptical galaxies: A case for rapidly spinning black holes

Authors: Rodrigo S. Nemmen (IF-UFRGS, Brazil), Richard G. Bower (ICC, Durham), Arif Babul (UVic, Canada), Thaisa Storchi-Bergmann (IF-UFRGS)
(Submitted on 13 Dec 2006 (v1), last revised 14 Apr 2007 (this version, v3))
Abstract: The power of jets from black holes are expected to depend on both the spin of the black hole and the structure of the accretion disk in the region of the last stable orbit. We investigate these dependencies using two different physical models for the jet power: the classical Blandford-Znajek (BZ) model and a hybrid model developed by Meier. In the BZ case, the jets are powered by magnetic fields directly threading the spinning black hole while in the hybrid model, the jet energy is extracted from both the accretion disk as well as the black hole via magnetic fields anchored to the accretion flow inside and outside the hole's ergosphere. The hybrid model takes advantage of the strengths of both the Blandford-Payne and BZ mechanisms, while avoiding the more controversial features of the latter. We develop these models more fully to account for general relativistic effects and to focus on advection-dominated accretion flows (ADAF) for which the jet power is expected to be a significant fraction of the accreted rest mass energy.
We apply the models to elliptical galaxies, in order to see if these models can explain the observed correlation between the Bondi accretion rates and the total jet powers. For typical values of the disk viscosity parameter alpha~0.04-0.3 and mass accretion rates consistent with ADAF model expectations, we find that the observed correlation requires j>0.9; i.e., it implies that the black holes are rapidly spinning. Our results suggest that the central black holes in the cores of clusters of galaxies must be rapidly rotating in order to drive jets powerful enough to heat the intracluster medium and quench cooling flows.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Except for the 2nd law of thermodynamics

In what way does the SSU violate the 2nd Law?

The SSU is a closed system of both matter and energy.

New photons are created to replace the 'expanded' photons that eventually lose their energy as they leave the universe in a spent state.

Mike C



.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Mike C

In what way does the SSU violate the 2nd Law?

A version of a steady state universe model in which the universe exists forever in nearly the same form and is also closed, contradicts the second law of thermodynamics requirement that the total entropy of an isolate system must increase. In such a system, available energy sources must eventually be exhausted, a state commonly called the heat death of the universe.

For this reason, modern steady state theories, such as Hoyle, Gold, Bondi and others 1948 model, require both a constantly expanding universe, and a process of “continuous creation” of matter, primarily hydrogen. Although this model enjoyed moderate popularity in the 1950s and 60s, it has a dearth of supporting scientific data and few scientifically competent supporters now. However, to this day, the phrase “steady state universe” is usually assumed to refer to this model.

Originally Posted by Mike C

The SSU is a closed system of both matter and energy.

New photons are created to replace the 'expanded' photons that eventually lose their energy as they leave the universe in a spent state.

If photons, or any measurable thing, are both escaping and being added to a system, it is not a closed system, so these two claims contradict one another.

As noted above, the best accepted steady state theories require that the universe not be a closed system. Some older previous “never-ending universe” theories were based on the assumption that the Sun and other stars (which, until fairly recent historic times, were believed to be a fundamentally different sort of thing than the Sun) would never cease shining.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Mike C

In what way does the SSU violate the 2nd Law?

The SSU is a closed system of both matter and energy.

New photons are created to replace the 'expanded' photons that eventually lose their energy as they leave the universe in a spent state.

Mike C
.

Mike, are you confusing 'closed' system, there by creating a reason for energy loss (beyond confines of the U) to being, not energy (spent or lost effect by expanding).

BBT, suggest a closed system, where space is created in expansion. Half the theory falls to energy results in a closed system. If energy leaves the U, as is, just not spent, it would mean nothing, unless there is a mass loss. If there are no other U or something beyond our limits for matter formation, nothing tangible to use or dispose of this energy, it would simply travel into infinity, as should space itself does.

Energy requires mass to form and energy requires mass to use itself, but energy is not dependent or required for existence to mass. When matter is being formed, the energy is not gathered from space, but then creating new energy to the limits of the mass being formed.

Maybe I have missed something, but I always figured you thought the U was limited in size, for lack of matter and positioned in space which is infinite. If you close the system or separate open space to what the U exist in, I see as many problems as I do with BBT. Personally, I don't think a finite U is required for SSU or that multiverses do/don't exist are important, but infinite space is very important....My thoughts anyway.