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

[Pluto]

G'day fripro

I agree with you.


In my opinion.
The intrinsic properties of galaxies and stars may effect the data results.

[kcl0341]

If there was No Bang, then Einstein was wrong. However, up to now there is no theory to prove he was wrong. So we should believe the Big Bang Theory until it is proved is wrong.

King Lee

[FRIPRO]

Pluto

I ask another question, if the glaxies and stars that are red in the Stereo photo displayed by Modest, means they are going away, and the blue ones mean they are coming towards us, and the white one means they are in the background neither coming or going.

This could mean rotation of the universe! Red turning one way and blue counter turning, and white galaxies neither (Looking through to the other side of the rotating transparent globe.)

Remember what we were taught in school, red shift longer waves, and blue shift shorter wave.

The same as the railroad train's whistle. We have all heard its the dopler effect,as the train comes towards us then passes.

Maybe this is what you alluded to when you said WOW!

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day modest

How does this explain expansion of the universe?

Redshift supports expansion, but certainly doesn't explain it.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Please take another look at the stereo photo link...

The red shift is very obvious. The blue shift is negligible!

None of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field galaxies are blueshifted. Their size and brightness place them at the far reaches of the visible universe where everything is significantly redshifted.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

My estimate is above 75% of these glaxies are red in color very few are blue!

The HUDF was taken using 4 color filters—blue, green, red, and near-infrared. While we can infer the bluer galaxies are mostly closer to us than the near-infrared galaxies, this is not scientifically rigorous. As far as I know, none of the HUDF galaxies have had their redshift measured directly.

A much more precise, rigorous, accurate, and meaningful way to look at galaxy distribution and distance is a redshift survey such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

Setting that completely aside for a second, your method of creating a "stereo" image is very faulty. I've implemented the method I described earlier which can be seen here:

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/d...4U/Hstereo.jpg

I did this for the purpose of showing what a proper stereo image of these galaxies might look like and proof of concept for what I explained before. But, I have no doubt it is very inaccurate.

If you want me to explain in more detail why your method is conceptually wrong, start a thread on stereo imaging or perspective techniques.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The Big Bang could never have produced this Universe, as pictured by Hubble!

Please support this claim.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Pluto

I ask another question, if the glaxies and stars that are red in the Stereo photo displayed by Modest, means they are going away, and the blue ones mean they are coming towards us...

Blue or red in color does not mean a galaxy is moving away or moving toward us. Redshift and blueshift are a shifting of the electromagnetic spectrum and cannot be simplified into 'red-things' and 'blue-things'. Astronomical objects have range and variability of color. Redshift needs to be measured directly to determine how fast something is moving toward or away from us. This has been done with about 1 million objects in the Sloan digital sky survey which I linked above.

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Fripro said

Remember what we were taught in school, red shift longer waves, and blue shift shorter wave.

The same as the railroad train's whistle. We have all heard its the dopler effect,as the train comes towards us then passes.

Maybe this is what you alluded to when you said WOW!

I understand that, the logic is there. BuT!!!!!!!!!

Modest said

None of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field galaxies are blueshifted. Their size and brightness place them at the far reaches of the visible universe where everything is significantly redshifted.

This is the part that I'm questioning.
It implies a point expansion and puts mother earth at the centre or so.

As per the BBT there were bangs all over the place at the same time. This would put objects at random and we should have equal blue and red.

Some other intrinisc property is effecting the data.

The formation of compact matter and jet formation maybe the cause of the intrinsic properties of red and blue. The trassition from one form of matter to the next such as normal matter to Neutron stars, quark stars and so on to the ulra dense so called black hole.

Hey! this doe not mean that I'm right.
But! I was reading these papers just before I came on.

[0808.3448] The Hydrodynamics of Gamma-Ray Burst Remnants
The Hydrodynamics of Gamma-Ray Burst Remnants

Authors: Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz, Andrew I. MacFadyen
(Submitted on 26 Aug 2008)

Abstract: This paper reports on the results of a numerical investigation designed to address how the initially anisotropic appearance of a GRB remnant is modified by the character of the circumburst medium and by the possible presence of an accompanying supernova (SN). Axisymmetric hydrodynamical calculations of light, impulsive jets propagating in both uniform and inhomogeneous external media are presented, which show that the resulting dynamics of their remnants since the onset of the non-relativistic phase is different from the standard self-similar solutions. Because massive star progenitors are expected to have their close-in surroundings modified by the progenitor winds, we consider both free winds and shocked winds as possible external media for GRB remnant evolution. Abundant confirmation is provided here of the important notion that the morphology and visibility of GRB remnants are determined largely by their circumstellar environments. For this reason, their detectability is highly biased in favor of those with massive star progenitors; although, in this class of models, the beamed component may be difficult to identify because the GRB ejecta is eventually swept up by the accompanying SN. The number density of asymmetric GRB remnants in the local Universe could be, however, far larger if they expand in a tenuous interstellar medium, as expected for some short GRB progenitor models. In these sources, the late size of the observable, asymmetric remnant could extend over a wide, possibly resolvable angle and may be easier to constrain directly.

and

[0805.1360] Infinite self-gravitating systems and cosmological structure formation
Infinite self-gravitating systems and cosmological structure formation

Authors: Michael Joyce
(Submitted on 9 May 2008)

Abstract: The usual thermodynamic limit for systems of classical self-gravitating point particles becomes well defined, as a {\it dynamical} problem, using a simple physical prescription for the calculation of the force, equivalent to the so-called ``Jeans' swindle''. The relation of the resulting intrinsically out of equilibrium problem, of particles evolving from prescribed uniform initial conditions in an infinite space, to the one studied in current cosmological models (in an expanding universe) is explained. We then describe results of a numerical study of the dynamical evolution of such a system, starting from a simple class of infinite ``shuffled lattice'' initial conditions. The clustering, which develops in time starting from scales around the grid scale, is qualitatively very similar to that seen in cosmological simulations, which begin from lattices with applied correlated displacements and incorporate an expanding spatial background. From very soon after the formation of the first non-linear structures, a spatio-temporal scaling relation describes well the evolution of the two-point correlations. At larger times the dynamics of these correlations converges to what is termed ``self-similar'' evolution in cosmology, in which the time dependence in the scaling relation is specified entirely by that of the linearized fluid theory. We show how this statistical mechanical ``toy model'' can be useful in addressing various questions about these systems which are relevant in cosmology. Some of these questions are closely analagous to those currently studied in the literature on long range interactions, notably the relation of the evolution of the particle system to that in the Vlasov limit and the nature of approximately quasi-stationary states.

[FRIPRO]

Modest

I am impressed. Yes HSF members Modest is correct about the error in my stereo photo. However it has given us all reason for thought and speculation.

Modest has created a very interesting 3 D photo and the stars and galaxies just jump out of the screen. Far better than my 3 D photos.

It is amazing what one can learn on the HS Forum and the internet.

I must study Modest's 3 D photo more.

Again congratulations on a point well taken. Now I have to look into the red shift again, with respect to your 3 D photo
and the hypothisis that I was puting forth on this thread.

I am still of the believe that the Universe is rotating giving earth an all other bodies in the Universe--Gyroscopic gravity.

However I know your reconstruction of the 3 D photo may have caused me trouble in proving it as a valid Hypothesis.

I with draw my inaccurate guess of 75% to 25% red to blue shift statement above.

In fact I even questioned my own statement on the % of distrbution, at the time I pushed the SUBMIT REPLY button.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Hello Maddog

I post links of interest and sometimes related to the topic.

It does not mean that I agree or disagree.

As for a rotating universe.

The total ebing infinite I do not the universe rotates.

But the parts within have a common movement and rotatiion.

We have a MW galaxy rotation that forms a part of the local group of galaxies that rotate around M87 and this local cluster forms part of a cluster of cluster of galaxies that also rorate, and so it goes on forming a super cluster of clusters of galaxies.

Where do you stop?

As for the BB creating the MW and other galaxies its just a theory, that I cannot vision it working.

Observations (Hubble deep field) shows us over 100 billion galaxies and within that super monsters of clusters of galaxies. Now getting them to form throughout the universe at the same time is more than a miracle and to top it off, do it in 13.7Gyrs.

Yes you can use ad hoc theories and make it work.

But at the end of the day the King does not wear invisible robes.

In all of the known Universe the bodies within it rotate without exception, this includes paths of astronomical mass and radiation--even the electron.

Even Hurricanes on/and including Earth rotate about their centrix etc.--why would rational thinkers see the Universe to be any different?

.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by modest

The rules say:I assume you refer to this link, which is fine. However, the link not being scientific in nature presents problems of a different sort.

For example, you say the images make a "distant Universe stereo photo". Such a claim seems very odd to me and your link doesn't have sourced information that would normally make such a claim falsifiable. The images you offer for cross-eyed viewing appear to be the HUDF. Where did you get them? Are the left and right images separately from ACS and NICMOS? Why are the two "stereo" photos scaled disproportionately horizontally? Is that editing you did? If so, why? Etc...

~modest

.

Yes they are the photos in question, however I have modified them again to show what I believe to be more correct view in stereo.

Check it out again on the reference you made.this link,

I can not buy an istrotopic or cosmology Universe. I must again point out the following observation that I have made on many Hubble Deep space photos....

The Red or cooler masses (galaxies/stars) are red shifted away from us, so therefore moving to the left of the Stereo photo.

The Blue stars (much hoter and perhaps also shifting as a blue shift to a higher frequency thus moving towards Hubble.

The white stars, galaxies etc. are in the background some possibly being seen through a transparent Universe seen with all radiations in the electromagnetic frequency/wave lengh scale from 1Hertz to Gama waves.

They are mostly white and at this point on the back side of the Universe's rotation. As the Universe rotates red shifts asway from Hubble through white to blue. Where the blues on the right come toward Hubble.

Many white's (stars galaxies etc) are much farther away then they have been measured, because they are on the back side of the rotating transparent Universe--if this Hypothesis is reasonable.

If all known bodies rotate from the microscopic to the macroscopic (including the electron, the Earth, the paths of comets about the Sun. Why should the Universe be any different in the scheme of the Universe's design?

Looking again at your link to the synthetic stereo photos (right or wrong) how could anyone continue to believe that the Big Bang created the Universe in 13.x m years out of the infinate void--even Pluto agrees to this.

[Pluto]

G'day

Fripro said

If all known bodies rotate from the microscopic to the macroscopic (including the electron, the Earth, the paths of comets about the Sun. Why should the Universe be any different in the scheme of the Universe's design?

I do not have a problem of the parts within the universe rotating to some extent. We do have galaxies rotating in different directions and at the same time are part of a cluster of galaxies that rotate around a super cluster. The universe as a total being "ALL" cannot rotate. It would become quite complicated to see which super cluster rotates where.

Looking again at your link to the synthetic stereo photos (right or wrong) how could anyone continue to believe that the Big Bang created the Universe in 13.x m years out of the infinate void--even Pluto agrees to this.

That is the part that I do not agree with. Imagine your one side of the observable universe and your 27 billion on the other side and you have 0ver 100 billions of galaxies forming and popping up at the same time all over the place.

The king does not wear invisible robes.

[modest]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

I must again point out the following observation that I have made on many Hubble Deep space photos....

Your following were not observations, they were conclusions. In my very personal and humble opinion, your time would be much better-served by studying the science behind this data rather than trying to interpret it with a limited understanding. You can take that or leave it.

In my role as moderator, I must point out the site rules:

1. In general, back up your claims by using links or references.
2. If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The Red or cooler masses (galaxies/stars) are red shifted away from us, so therefore moving to the left of the Stereo photo.

Redshift does not equal red in color. In addition to highly-redshifted and very-distant galaxies, Hubble’s near-infrared camera is sensitive to intrinsically red objects such as elliptical galaxies, galaxies with a lot of dust, or even red dwarf stars. Luckily, redshift can be determined empirically by looking at absorption lines in the spectra. We can, therefore, determine how fast something is moving toward or away from us without looking at its color and guessing.

This has been done with millions of objects in the sky. Maps have been created with all this information on distance, speed, and location of galaxies. These are the redshift surveys that I keep talking about. It is a concerted effort and monumental undertaking that astronomy is putting forward—literally mapping the visible universe.

The consensus from all this is that the universe is largely isotropic. Everywhere we look in the sky is pretty much the same. Galaxies in every direction are moving away from us. The greater their distance, the faster they recede. The HUDF in no way disagrees with this evidence.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The Blue stars (much hoter and perhaps also shifting as a blue shift to a higher frequency thus moving towards Hubble.

Blueshift does not equal blue in color.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

They are mostly white and at this point on the back side of the Universe's rotation. As the Universe rotates red shifts asway from Hubble through white to blue. Where the blues on the right come toward Hubble.

Many white's (stars galaxies etc) are much farther away then they have been measured, because they are on the back side of the rotating transparent Universe--if this Hypothesis is reasonable.

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field (the image you’re looking at) is a picture of a very, very small part of the sky. It is one tenth the size of the moon. The HUDF is isotropic, just like the rest of the sky. We don’t see blue dots and blue shift in one area of the sky (or image) with red dots and redshift in another area. We observe increasing redshift with increasing distance everywhere we look in the sky. What you are describing is completely unobserved and completely unsupported.

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies (03/09/2004) - Release Text

~modest