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

[Pluto]

G'day little Bang

Jets form part of a recycling process. Once we understand more of jets than one day we will understand more of a recycling process that alter matter from one phase to the next.

The study of compact matter and their jets is the key to many issues.

As for the production of all the elements, these days you only have to google for it, there are varies theories and proven experiments. I do not have to prove something that is being done.

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


[0807.0740] The role of jets in the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies

The role of jets in the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies

Authors: Ralph E. Pudritz, Robi Banerjee, Rachid Ouyed
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2008 (v1), last revised 21 Aug 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Astrophysical jets are associated with the formation of young stars of all masses, stellar and massive black holes, and perhaps even with the formation of massive planets. Their role in the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies is increasingly appreciated and probably reflects a deep connection between the accretion flows - by which stars and black holes may be formed - and the efficiency by which magnetic torques can remove angular momentum from such flows. We compare the properties and physics of jets in both non-relativistic and relativistic systems and trace, by means of theoretical argument and numerical simulations, the physical connections between these different phenomena. We discuss the properties of jets from young stars and black holes, give some basic theoretical results that underpin the origin of jets in these systems, and then show results of recent simulations on jet production in collapsing star-forming cores as well as from jets around rotating Kerr black holes.

[0808.1227] A Semi-Analytic Model for the Co-evolution of Galaxies, Black Holes, and Active Galactic Nuclei

A Semi-Analytic Model for the Co-evolution of Galaxies, Black Holes, and Active Galactic Nuclei

Authors: Rachel S. Somerville, Philip F. Hopkins, Thomas J. Cox, Brant E. Robertson, Lars Hernquist
(Submitted on 8 Aug 2008)

Abstract: We present a new semi-analytic model that self-consistently traces the growth of supermassive black holes (BH) and their host galaxies within the context of the LCDM cosmological framework. In our model, the energy emitted by accreting black holes regulates the growth of the black holes themselves, drives galactic scale winds that can remove cold gas from galaxies, and produces powerful jets that heat the hot gas atmospheres surrounding groups and clusters. We present a comprehensive comparison of our model predictions with observational measurements of key physical properties of low-redshift galaxies, such as cold gas fractions, stellar metallicities and ages, and specific star formation rates. We find that our new models successfully reproduce the exponential cutoff in the stellar mass function and the stellar and cold gas mass densities at z~0, and predict that star formation should be largely, but not entirely, quenched in massive galaxies at the present day. We also find that our model of self-regulated BH growth naturally reproduces the observed relation between BH mass and bulge mass. We explore the global formation history of galaxies in our models, presenting predictions for the cosmic histories of star formation, stellar mass assembly, cold gas, and metals. We find that models assuming the "concordance" LCDM cosmology overproduce star formation and stellar mass at high redshift (z>2). A model with less small-scale power predicts less star formation at high redshift, and excellent agreement with the observed stellar mass assembly history, but may have difficulty accounting for the cold gas in quasar absorption systems at high redshift (z~3-4).

[0808.1927] Blazing trails: Microquasars as head-tail sources and the seeding of magnetized plasma into the ISM

Blazing trails: Microquasars as head-tail sources and the seeding of magnetized plasma into the ISM

Authors: S. Heinz, H.J. Grimm, R.A. Sunyaev, R.P. Fender
(Submitted on 14 Aug 2008)

Abstract: We discuss the dynamics of microquasar jets in the interstellar medium, with specific focus on the effects of the X-ray binaries' space velocity with respect to the local Galactic standard of rest. We argue that, during late stages in the evolution of large scale radio nebulae around microquasars, the ram pressure of the interstellar medium due to the microquasar's space velocity becomes important and that microquasars with high velocities form the Galactic equivalent of extragalactic head-tail sources, i.e., that they leave behind trails of stripped radio plasma. Because of their higher space velocities, low-mass X-ray binaries are more likely to leave trails than high-mass X-ray binaries. We show that the volume of radio plasma released by microquasars over the history of the Galaxy is comparable to the disk volume and argue that a fraction of a few percent of the radio plasma left behind by the X-ray binary is likely mixed with the neutral phases of the ISM before the plasma is removed from the disk by buoyancy. Because the formation of microquasars is an unavoidable by-product of star formation, and because they can travel far from their birth places, their activity likely has important consequences for the evolution of magnetic fields in forming galaxies. We show that radio emission from the plasma inside the trail should be detectable at low frequencies. We suggest that LMXBs with high detected proper motions like XTE J1118+480 will be the best candidates for such a search.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

Pluto it is very easy for you to prove the BBT wrong. All you have to is explain another testable way that all the matter we see in the observable universe got here and your jets don't cut it.

Greetings gentlemen,

I've been following this thread from afar (from deep Spain where I've been on a fossils hunting expedition: 450-210 Myr old objects), but have not much participated due to the slow internet connection.

Little Bang, it has been shown that another approach leads to the conclusion that not just the light elements, but all of the chemical elements of the periodic table were generated astrophysically, explicitly synthesized in stellar processes (Hoyle and Burbidge, 1998 ApJ), which conceptually is in diametrical opposition to the generally acknowledged primordial creation (or big bang nucleosynthesis). Hydrogen may be the only exception.

In order for this theory to be in accord with element abundance calculations a time-scale is required that exceeds 100 Gyr. For the proponent of this type of model this time-scale is without problem since the universe is infinite spatiotemporally. Even if it took 250 or 650 Gyr to produce these elements (including hydrogen) there would still be no problem at all.

This approach is in agreement (more or less) with what Pluto is expressing.

The problem Pluto correctly refers to is the rather short time-scale required by the BB theory, not just for the production of the light elements and their isotopes, but for the formation of the observed large-scale structures (galaxies, clusters and superclusters). This problem was compounded when (1998) it was stipulated that the universe was not 15 Gyr old but only 13.7 Gyr old. This problem also affected the supposed age of stars since at that time there were calculations that gave ages between 16 and 20 billion years. (Sandage, The Deep Universe, 1993, p. 161).


Finally, the BBT is not proved wrong with the existence of alternative testable way to explain 'how all the matter we see in the observable universe got here.'

The BBT will be proved untenable when (and if) it is confirmed that objects in the universe are older than the supposed age of the universe itself, when it is recognized that the large-scale structures formation time-scales dwarfs 13.7 Gyr, when it is shown that redshift z is not an indication of cosmological expansion, when it is exposed that the SNe Ia data is not due to an accelerated expansion, when it is shown that the CMBR is not a relic of a hot dense state in the past, and so on.

Right now there exist alternative explanations for all of these observations. What is missing is the willpower and the manpower to explore these issues to the full extent that has been accorded the BB model. My guess is that it would be well worthwhile to do so regardless of which theory eventually prevails.

Certainly, until the outwardly impenetrable mystery that surrounds the visible universe (with or without its elusive DE and DM components) is resolved, until the difficulties related to the unification of the extremely large, massive and the ridiculously small are surmounted, until it is understood the nonconformist gravitational force in relation to the other forces of nature, the opposition will not rest.

It is this quest that has enabled the inquisitive human mind to reach the transient summit of knowledge where we proudly plant the flag of wisdom, and it is this quest that will lead us to an all-embracing understanding of the essence of the physical universe, its constituents and its evolution in time.


CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Coldcreation you should have ben a poet.

You write with wisdom

You said

It is this quest that has enabled the inquisitive human mind to reach the transient summit of knowledge where we proudly plant the flag of wisdom, and it is this quest that will lead us to an all-embracing understanding of the essence of the physical universe, its constituents and its evolution in time.

I still feel like a hill billy in the outback of ozzzzzzzzz.


I just keep on reading, to hope that one day I will understand.

Reading papers on Star formation by jets, I feel that this is a key process in many aspects of star formation and galaxy evolution and the production of the elements. I would not say the only key.

arXiv.org Search

Query Results


and star formation papers year 2008

SAO/NASA ADS Abstract Service

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

As for the Hydrogen production.

Neutrons to hydrogen is very common.

Also Quarks to Neutrons.

Compact matter is another few thousand papers.

[modest]

Good to see you well, CC.

I'm going to unfairly pick out one sentence from your post and make an unfair comparison to it. I totally apologize

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Right now there exist alternative explanations for all of these observations.

I was reading an old thread and noticed someone else saying the same thing:

Originally Posted by cosmored

Everything you people have presented, such as the number of people involved in the Apollo program, has plausible alternative explanations.

claiming that there was no evidence people had ever been to the moon and all the evidence had alternative explanations.

I realize this isn't a fair comparison and I honestly don't mean to juxtapose anybody in this thread to cosmored and his crazy Apollo hoax nonsense... And, I also mostly agree with your post above CC. I just wanted to point out that it is always possible to claim alternative explanations no matter how solid something is. That approach (by itself) doesn't hold water.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Modest you said

And, I also mostly agree with your post above CC. I just wanted to point out that it is always possible to claim alternative explanations no matter how solid something is. That approach (by itself) doesn't hold water.

I kind of understand what you mean?

But! for the holding of water?????

Mate, I used to think along the lines of the Big Bang Theory, because that's what we were taught.

But! The times now are different and different times present new observations and understanding. I know the Big Bang will be around for a few more years. But! I also Know that one day in the near future it will be dropped.

I hope that you will do a bit of research into the working parts of the universe.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by modest

Good to see you well, CC.

I'm going to unfairly pick out one sentence from your post and make an unfair comparison to it. I totally apologize

claiming that there was no evidence people had ever been to the moon and all the evidence had alternative explanations.

...And, I also mostly agree with your post above CC. I just wanted to point out that it is always possible to claim alternative explanations no matter how solid something is. That approach (by itself) doesn't hold water.

~modest

Hello modest,

Good to see you're still alive and kicking, as well.

Your comparison is fair. However, you conclusion that "it is always possible to claim alternative explanations" is misleading, since good alternatives should stand up to empirical evidence. Observations will tell them apart.

There are way to determine empirically whether the reflection occurs as a result of a retroreflector placed by Neil and Buzz, a moon rock or the eyes of moon-cat.

Likewise there are ways to determine empirically (at least in principle) whether or not observational evidence points towards the BB interpretation or some other interpretation.

It is possible to claim solid alternative explanations without that approach (by itself) taking on water. And it should be left to observations to validate or invalidate a model.

About taking on water:

Unfortunately, invalidation of a model, especially when it is the standard model, is seen as retreating, a renunciation, a withdrawal not dignified of mankind, as if it was dignified of man to follow-the-leader into obscurity, to tread inextricably in muddy waters, to drown in something he doesn’t understand (e.g., DE and CDM) and will never understand.

A plain pattern has emerged. There are without doubt enormous volumes of spurious publications whose lovely hieroglyphic inscriptions remain undeciphered, and whose meanings are doused in confusion. It is when looking into these multifarious pictorial cryptograms and murky metaphors through the muddy waters with prolonged reflection that the systematic errors invariably ascend to the surface effortlessly. With forethought it sounds almost easy.

An exit option appears on the horizon. While the situation is encouraging, it is still highly superfluid. From 1998 on, the numerous inflationary models are in dry dock with busted propellers, though many astronomers still shy away from using the symbol “” at all, others have brought it back. Every time someone tried to ditch it for some reason it would show up again, in some equation, in some theory, on some internet science fora. It was the old mud-hole dilemma: the water runs out of the mud-hole when you step into it, but once you’re out of the mud-hole the water flows right back in it. That’s what happened in 1998 with the supernovae Type Ia observations.


Before the 1998 SNe Ia data (i.e., before DE and CDM ruled the universe), modern cosmology had already begun taking on water. Since then, modern cosmology has capsized.


That is why it is important to look at alternatives seriously, particularly when they pass empirical testing; and especially when they are less tenuous than the nonrepresentational portrait painted by modern cosmology, more scrutable, capable of being understood by careful observation, examination, or study.

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz


Coldcreation said

That is why it is important to look at alternatives seriously, particularly when they pass empirical testing; and especially when they are less tenuous than the nonrepresentational portrait painted by modern cosmology, more scrutable, capable of being understood by careful observation, examination, or study.

You hit the nail on the head.

One of my Mentors encouraged me to read some papers on star formation by jets to get some understanding. He said its only a few papers, read the lot and I will see you in 4 weeks.

This is the link

arXiv.org Search

Here are some of the links

[astro-ph/0512351] Multi-Generational Star Formation in L1551
Multi-Generational Star Formation in L1551

Authors: Gerald H. Moriarty-Schieven (1,2), Doug Johnstone (1,3), John Bally (4), Tim Jenness (2) ((1) National Research Council of Canada, (2) Joint Astronomy Centre, (3) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, (4) Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, University of Colorado)
(Submitted on 13 Dec 2005)

Abstract: The L1551 molecular cloud contains two small clusters of Class 0 and I protostars, as well as a halo of more evolved Class II and III YSOs, indicating a current and at least one past burst of star formation. We present here new, sensitive maps of 850 and 450 um dust emission covering most of the L1551 cloud, new CO J=2-1 data of the molecular cloud, and a new, deep, optical image of [SII] emission. No new Class 0/I YSOs were detected. Compact sub-millimetre emitters are concentrated in two sub-clusters: IRS5 and L1551NE, and the HL~Tauri group. Both stellar groups show significant extended emission and outflow/jet activity. A jet, terminating at HH 265 and with a very weak associated molecular outflow, may originate from LkHa 358, or from a binary companion to another member of the HL Tauri group. Several Herbig Haro objects associated with IRS5/NE were clearly detected in the sub-mm, as were faint ridges of emission tracing outflow cavity walls. We confirm a large-scale molecular outflow originating from NE parallel to that from IRS5, and suggest that the "hollow shell" morphology is more likely due to two interacting outflows. We confirm the presence of a prestellar core (L1551-MC) of mass 2-3 Mo north-west of IRS5. The next generation cluster may be forming in this core. The L1551 cloud appears cometary in morphology, and appears to be illuminated and eroded from the direction of Orion, perhaps explaining the multiple episodes of star formation in this cloud. The full paper (including figures) can be downloaded at this http URL, or viewed at this http URL
http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~gms/l1551/l1551-apj641.pdf
Multi-Generational Star Formation in L1551

and

[astro-ph/0506024] Massive Star Outflows
Massive Star Outflows

Authors: D.S. Shepherd (NRAO)
(Submitted on 1 Jun 2005)

Abstract: Molecular outflows in the form of wide-angle winds and/or well-collimated jets are associated with young stellar objects of all luminosities. Independent studies have established that the mass outflow rate is proportional to L_bol^0.6 for L_bol = 0.3 to 10^5 L_sun, suggesting that there is a strong link between accretion and outflow for a wide range of source luminosity and there is reasonable evidence that accretion-related processes are responsible for generating massive molecular flows from protostars up to spectral type B0. Beyond L_bol ~ 10^4 L_sun, O stars generate powerful wide-angle, ionized winds that can dramatically affect outflow morphology and even call into question the relationship between outflow and accretion.
Recently Beuther & Shepherd (2005) proposed an evolutionary scenario in which massive protostellar flows (up to early B spectral type) begin collimated. Once the star reaches the Main Sequence, ionizing radiation may affect the balance between magnetic and plasma pressure, inducing changes in the flow morphology and energetics. Here I review the properties of outflows from young OB stars, discuss implications and observational tests of this proposed evolutionary scenario, and examine differences between low-mass and massive star formation.

This process maybe the key to the workings of star formation and galaxy evolution. THis may explain the origins of the parts within the universe and not the universe itself.

Although reading some of the papers, some scientists first assume that the BBT is correct than proceed to fit the data.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

People keep on asking me why I do not agree with the BBT. Simple, I cannot accept the evidence supporting while it is disputed by some, although main stream agrees with the BBT.

I came across this link, and thought maybe of interest to some.


The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe
The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe

Abstract

The present paper outlines a cosmological paradigm based upon Dirac’s large number hypothesis and continual creation of matter in a closed static (nonexpanding) universe. The cosmological redshift is caused by the tired-light phenomenon originally proposed by Zwicky. It is shown that the tired-light cosmology together with continual matter creation has a universal Hubble constant H 0=(512π 2/3)1/6(GC 0)1/3 fixed by the universal rate C 0 of matter creation, where G is Newton’s gravitational constant. It is also shown that a closed static universe has a finite age τ 0=(243π 5/8GC 0)1/3 also fixed by the universal rate of matter creation. The invariant relationship H 0 τ 0=3π 261/2 shows that a closed static universe is much older (≈one trillion years) than any expanding universe model based upon Big-Bang cosmology. It is this property of a static universe that resolves any cosmic age crisis provided that galaxy formation in the universe is a continual recurring process. Application of Dirac’s large number hypothesis gives a matter creation rate C 0=4.6×10‑48 gm cm‑3 s‑1 depending only on the fundamental constants of nature. Hence, the model shows that a closed static universe has a Hubble constant H 0=70 km s‑1 Mpc‑1 in good agreement with recent astronomical determinations of H 0. By using the above numerical value for H 0 together with observational data for elongated cellular-wall structures containing superclusters of galaxies, it is shown that the elongated cellular-wall configurations observed in the real universe are at least one hundred billion years old. Application of the microscopic laws of physics to the large-scale macroscopic universe leads to a static eternal cosmos endowed with a matter-antimatter symmetry. It is proposed that the matter-antimatter asymmetry is continuously created by particle-antiparticle pair annihilation occurring in episodic cosmological gamma-ray bursts observed in the real universe.

[buddyzen]

well the big bang in my opinion is a well thought of theory that is probably accurate or somewhat accurate and pluss WOOO FOR LHC it might be able to prove the big bang theory i really hope so atleast

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


Buddyzen said

well the big bang in my opinion is a well thought of theory that is probably accurate or somewhat accurate and pluss WOOO FOR LHC it might be able to prove the big bang theory i really hope so atleast

How would it prove the BBT?

If they prove the basic atomic particles exist. Than it opens doors to understanding many issues, particularly the formation maybe of compacted matter.