[ryan2006]

Harry,
I have figured some things out through common sense but I don't have the technical skill necessary or at least not right now to really comment any further. Do you understand the model?
Ryan

[Harry Costas]

Hello Ryan

Yes I do.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Aerial

Smile

I got this email.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=40351

A team of US and European astronomers analyzing two of the deepest views of the cosmos made with the Hubble Space Telescope have uncovered a gold mine of galaxies, more than 500 that existed less than a billion years after the Big Bang. This sample represents the most comprehensive compilation of galaxies in the early universe, researchers said. The discovery is scientifically invaluable for understanding the origin of galaxies, considering that just a decade ago early galaxy formation was largely uncharted territory. Astronomers had not seen even one galaxy that existed when the universe was a billion years old, so finding 500 in a Hubble survey is a significant leap forward for cosmologists.

Its good that they found 500 galaxies in an area of about a seed in size.
But they make the assumption that the BBT is correct and proceed to confirm it by saying that these galaxies were formed less than a billion years. This is what I call raping science big time.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=40351

Its good that they found 500 galaxies in an area of about a seed in size.
But they make the assumption that the BBT is correct and proceed to confirm it by saying that these galaxies were formed less than a billion years. This is what I call raping science big time.

Oh yes Harry. I could not agree with you more.
Recall, the predictions were that no galaxy should be out that far back in time. Galaxies were thought to be only begining to form, as clouds condensed from fluctuations visible today in the microwave frquency (viz the CMBR).

Wait until the James Webb Space Telescope sends back its first images in a few years. Thousands, millions, billions of galaxies (well formed, massive, spiral structures, old stellar populations, with heavy metals) will be discovered when the universe was thought to be a newborn baby, just out of the crib, at a time and place where protostars had not yet condensed from the primordial plasma.

For some strange reason, I have a nagging sensation that then too, pro-big bang cosmologists will be shouting victory. Talk about a bad joke. What good is a theory when its predictions fall prey to illusion, i.e., it can't get anything right. And yet politics continues as if detrimental fact (or contradictory evidence) is proof of the dogma.

[Harry Costas]

Hello coldcreation

I fully agree with you.

Have a look at this link

At 9 GYrs
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040226.html

The Deep Field ????
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970209.html

A Distant Galaxy in the Deep Field ? 13.2 Gyrs
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960628.html

Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/2004/07/

Searching for the faintest objects in the Ultra Deep Field is like trying to find a firefly on the Moon. Light from the farthest objects reached the Hubble telescope in trickles rather than gushers. The orbiting observatory collected one photon of light per minute from the dimmest objects. Normally, the telescope collects millions of photons per minute from nearby galaxies.

The image yields a rich harvest of about 10,000 galaxies.

If astronomers made the Hubble Ultra Deep Field observation over the entire sky, how long would it take?

The whole sky contains 12.7 million times more area than the Ultra Deep Field. To observe the entire sky would take almost 1 million years of uninterrupted observing.

Do you understand the above statement.

If there is 10,000 galaxies in one (seed)
Times this by 12.7 million
gives you
1.27 * 10^12 galaxies
Thats 1,270,000,000,000 at 13.2 Gyrs deep field. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!
and the BBT people would say
Yep all these formed in just 500 million years. Because matter expanded at 10^20 C or so.

All I can say to the cosmologists who think along the BBT is. Wake up and dream.

[justforfun]

I am glad to see the demise of the big bang theory. I wondered how we could be so sure of any theory about the birth of the universe with such a relatively small amount of data. An expanding universe, it seems to me, could be just going through a temporary cycle, followed by a contracting cycle, etc etc etc like our lungs do when we breathe. Maybe the universe has been around ... forever?

[Harry Costas]

Hello justforfun


My intention is not to demise the BBT, but to look for observations that gives us the reality of the actual happenings out there, far far away where no man has gone before.

so to be fair

Some links on the Big Bang. Because I post these links, it does not mean I agree with them. I have listed them because many people talk about the Big Bang without knowing that there was never a Big Bang, just many bangs everywhere at the same time.

Models of Earlier Events
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...planck.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...bbcloc.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...expand.html#c3

Big Bang Time Line
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/timlin.html#c1"

Physical Keys to Cosmology
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../cosmo.html#c1

Red Shift
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...redshf.html#c1

Expanding Universe
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...hubble.html#c0

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

Inflationary Period in Big Bang
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...inflat.html#c1

Cosmology: The Study of the Universe
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WAS COSMIC INFLATION THE 'BANG' OF THE BIG BANG?
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level..._contents.html

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.

As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:

Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.
Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.
Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.
Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.
One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe.

I know there are better links, but! these are the ones close at hand.

What's my theory? Well it does not belong to me.

The universe is endless and recyclic. How it does this is another issue. We are at the door steps of looking and going where no man has gone before in a galaxy far far away.

So! if you can hold your horses until the cows come home, we will in the near future have better observations to DRAW conclusions from.

[justforfun]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Hello justforfun


My intention is not to demise the BBT, but to look for observations that gives us the reality of the actual happenings out there, far far away where no man has gone before.


So! if you can hold your horses until the cows come home, we will in the near future have better observations to DRAW conclusions from.

Thanks, Harry. I had no ideas my 'model' of the universe was so outdated. If I wait for the LAST word before making any more comments they will have to be engraved upon my tombstone, however, so I will continue to speak up in the hope my remarks are at least amusing if not exactly enlightening. Just passing through ...

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

What's my theory? Well it does not belong to me.

The universe is endless and recyclic. How it does this is another issue. We are at the door steps of looking and going where no man has gone before in a galaxy far far away.

So! if you can hold your horses until the cows come home, we will in the near future have better observations to DRAW conclusions from.

Would that be the Quasi-steady state theory (QSSC)?
What would those better observations be.
What conclusions could be drawn from them?
Are there any predictions (you can make) that may pre-date the observations, as to the possible outcome?

[Harry Costas]

Hello Coldcreation

When we see past the 13.7 Gyrs deep field point we would expect to see existing galaxies as we see them near.

This will be the nail on the coffin for the BBT.

But! the BB people will come up with some fantasy theory to explain the observation. They always do.