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

[Pluto]

G'day modest

You said

As Craig explains, you've mixed up the closer galaxy clusters with the very distant, young galaxies. The paper talks about both. To learn more about gravitational lensing, you could read the article you linked which has this to say:

I have read it.

I will come back to it later.

[Jack Hughett]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Hello All

With the recent information given to us by the scientific community world wide.

Without me influencing?

What do you think?

Was there a Big Bang?

Was there a M- theory ?

Was there a String Theory?

Was there a steady state theory?

Was there a wave theory?

Was there a Plasma Theory?

Was there a Recycle theory?

Was there a GOD theory?

Did I miss any out?

If I did,,,,,,,,,,just list them

Or is there a combination theory?

Can someone be right and yet be wrong?

I have no scientific background to support or deny any claims. I can only offer my opinion, but to me, I don't see how the big bang theory could be possible, or at least how it could have come from one atom.

Just where did this atom come from? Did it just suddenly mysteriously appear?
or did it form from a previous universe that was made up of countless stars which over time were pulled into the center by a core of increased gravity from feeding on the mass of swallowed up stars and galaxies? At what point would this mass say enough is enough and spit everything back out again? If it were able to shrink down to the size of an atom, what exactly would touch it off to explode? Also, wouldn't this mean the universe would have to have a border to be able to gather up the more distant stars, and galaxies. As the old saying goes, what would be beyond the border.

Jack

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Jack Hughett

I have no scientific background to support or deny any claims. I can only offer my opinion, but to me, I don't see how the big bang theory could be possible, or at least how it could have come from one atom.

It did not come from one atom. It's referred to as the singularity.

Just where did this atom come from? Did it just suddenly mysteriously appear?

There are theories on this, but science does not have a clear answer for this yet. It may be that we never find out.

Also, wouldn't this mean the universe would have to have a border to be able to gather up the more distant stars, and galaxies. As the old saying goes, what would be beyond the border.

Here's a quote from a NASA link:

The short answer is that there isn't any "edge" to the Universe, as in the edge of your school grounds where there is more property beyond. Science fiction and other dimensions aside, the best way of looking at the Universe is to think of the surface of a balloon. Right now the "balloon" is expanding (being blown up) so the distance between any two points on the balloon is increasing. However, there is no edge to the surface of the balloon. This is where cosmologists (people who study the physical nature and evolution of the Universe) and relativists (people who study Einstein's general theory of relativity) talk about a curved space-time continuum.

The Edge of the Universe

[Jack Hughett]

Originally Posted by freeztar

It did not come from one atom. It's referred to as the singularity.

There are theories on this, but science does not have a clear answer for this yet. It may be that we never find out.

I guess I like the theory, or at least it is easier for me to comprehend, that our universe is just a single universe in a cluster of other universes and that these universes together form an atom. We would be located in either an electron or proton of one of these atoms.

To put it bluntly we could be nothing more than a small planet spinning around a small star located in the outer edge of a medium size galaxy, in the middle of a universe that is a part of a group of universes that form only a part of an atom in a cluster of atoms that make-up a pile of giant dog poo.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

jack said

I have no scientific background to support or deny any claims. I can only offer my opinion, but to me, I don't see how the big bang theory could be possible, or at least how it could have come from one atom.

Just where did this atom come from? Did it just suddenly mysteriously appear?
or did it form from a previous universe that was made up of countless stars which over time were pulled into the center by a core of increased gravity from feeding on the mass of swallowed up stars and galaxies? At what point would this mass say enough is enough and spit everything back out again? If it were able to shrink down to the size of an atom, what exactly would touch it off to explode? Also, wouldn't this mean the universe would have to have a border to be able to gather up the more distant stars, and galaxies. As the old saying goes, what would be beyond the border.

Your point of view is quite simple and yet to the point.

A singularity is very theoretical and till this date is not proven.

So we look at the working parts of the universe and see how they recycle.

At what point would this mass say enough is enough and spit everything back out again?

We notice Neutron stars and black holes forming jets that expell matter and recycle and reform the galaxies. Maybe this is the process that is never ending.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Everytime I come across a paper that is interesting I like to post it and get a feedback from someone.


One dimensional simulations of radiative collapse
One dimensional simulations of radiative collapse

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

If nucleosynthesis of the elements are produced by solar actvity than what is the need of the BBT. I read these links and thought it maybe of interest to some. If these links need to be aborted because of the rules, Its ok.

[0807.0818] Nucleosynthesis in Metal-Free and Metal-Poor Stars

Nucleosynthesis in Metal-Free and Metal-Poor Stars

Authors: Yong-Zhong Qian
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2008)

Abstract: There have been a number of important recent developments in theoretical and observational studies of nucleosynthesis, especially regarding nucleosynthetic sources at low metallicities. Those selected for discussion here include the origin of Li6, the primary production of N, the s-process, and the supernova sources for three groups of metals: (1) C to Zn with mass numbers A<70, (2) Sr to Ag with A~90-110, and (3) r-process nuclei with A~130 and above.

[0807.0814] Chemical Evolution of Heavy Elements in the Early Galaxy: Implications for Stellar Sources

Chemical Evolution of Heavy Elements in the Early Galaxy: Implications for Stellar Sources

Authors: Yong-Zhong Qian
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2008)

Abstract: An overview of the sources for heavy elements in the early Galaxy is given. It is shown that observations of abundances in metal-poor stars can be used along with a basic understanding of stellar models to guide the search for the source of the heavy r-process nuclei (r-nuclei). Observations show that this source produces very little of the elements from C through Zn including Fe. This strongly suggests that O-Ne-Mg core-collapse supernovae (SNe) from progenitors of ~8-11M_sun are the source for the heavy r-nuclei. It is shown that a two-component model based on the abundances of Fe (from Fe core-collapse SNe) and Eu (from O-Ne-Mg core-collapse SNe) gives very good quantitative predictions for the abundances of all the other elements in metal-poor stars.

[0804.0969] Nucleosynthesis in Magnetically Driven Jets from Collapsars
Nucleosynthesis in Magnetically Driven Jets from Collapsars

Authors: Shin-ichiro Fujimoto, Nobuya Nishimura, Masa-aki Hashimoto
(Submitted on 7 Apr 2008)

Abstract: We have made detailed calculations of the composition of magnetically driven jets ejected from collapsars, or rapidly rotating massive stars, based on long-term magnetohydrodynamic simulations of their core collapse with various distributions of magnetic field and angular momentum before collapse. We follow the evolution of the abundances of about 4000 nuclides from the collapse phase to the ejection phase and through the jet generation phase using a large nuclear reaction network. We find that the r-process successfully operates only in energetic jets (> 1e51 ergs), such that U and Th are synthesized abundantly, even when the collapsar has a relatively weak magnetic field (1e10 G) and a moderately rotating core before the collapse. The abundance patterns inside the jets are similar to those of the r-elements in the solar system. About 0.01-0.06 Msun neutron-rich, heavy nuclei are ejected from a collapsar with energetic jets. The higher energy jets have larger amounts of Ni56, varying from 0.00037 to 0.06Msun. Less energetic jets, which eject small amounts of Ni56, could induce a gamma-ray burst (GRB) a supernova, such as GRB 060505 or GRB 060614. Considerable amounts of r-elements are likely to be ejected from GRBs with hypernovae, if both the GRB and hypernova are induced by jets that are driven near the black hole.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

If nucleosynthesis of the elements are produced by solar actvity than what is the need of the BBT. I read these links and thought it maybe of interest to some. If these links need to be aborted because of the rules, Its ok.

[0807.0818] Nucleosynthesis in Metal-Free and Metal-Poor Stars

Nucleosynthesis in Metal-Free and Metal-Poor Stars

Authors: Yong-Zhong Qian
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2008)




[0807.0814] Chemical Evolution of Heavy Elements in the Early Galaxy: Implications for Stellar Sources

Chemical Evolution of Heavy Elements in the Early Galaxy: Implications for Stellar Sources

Authors: Yong-Zhong Qian
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2008)




[0804.0969] Nucleosynthesis in Magnetically Driven Jets from Collapsars
Nucleosynthesis in Magnetically Driven Jets from Collapsars

Authors: Shin-ichiro Fujimoto, Nobuya Nishimura, Masa-aki Hashimoto
(Submitted on 7 Apr 2008)

SUBMITED BY FRIPRO>There is much truth in what you are telling us.If it pleases the sensors I would like to add a stero photo by NASA the would give all of you a lot of food for thought.

http://www.fripro.com/STEREO UNIVERSE UIDE.htm

Follow the instructions for Stereo viewing, an be amazed by what you see of the deepest space photos ever made by NASA Hubble Telescope.of our distant Universe.

We must understand if you look carefully at this Stero photo correctly you can see a small part of the real Universe' Globe. An the slowing red shift indicates rotation.

Also note all of the Galatic formations, independent of each other--complete galatic systems on a macular scale that one can hardly imagine.

[Pluto]

G'day fripro

You said

Also note all of the Galatic formations, independent of each other--complete galatic systems on a macular scale that one can hardly imagine.

Smile,,,,,I agree with you.

The Big Bang people want to hold onto the BBT as long as possible. Why????
God knows why.

[PhysBang]

Originally Posted by Pluto

If nucleosynthesis of the elements are produced by solar actvity than what is the need of the BBT.

Because no theory of stellar nucleosynthesis can account for the presence of hydrogen or the relative abundance of hydrogen to helium,