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

[FRIPRO]

Modest
I grant you the scientific community has come a long was with the points that you have mention above;however, it took thousands of human and their thinking brains to get us as far as you have mentioned.

Man alone can not comprehend the design of the Universe, it takes a very large team to even get us to where you say we are now. All we have is Hypothesis and trial and error--only to be replaced by more of the same.

We have to lean on the team to even understand where we are going and how to get there.

The Universe's design is beyond all imagination of man's mine (ID) and his current satellites, telescopes etc.. It has definite limits and is eternal--less we would not be here now.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Modest said

Your claim contradicts all cosmological observations done since 1920 and earlier. The redshift and brightness of millions of astronomical objects have been measured, all of it agreeing with Hubble's Law and disagreeing completely with what you've just said.

Cosmologically distant objects are NOT blueshifted. The whole sky is evenly filled with distant redshifted galaxies. Further and further galaxies are more and more redshifted. The very few examples of blueshifted astronomical objects are those in our own galaxy and those galaxies such as Andromeda which are very near us.

Mate I think you are mistaken.

Lets assume that you are correct.

What does redshift mean?

That everything is moving away from earth?

If the Big Bang occured points everywhere and is expanding from points everywhere, would you not expect to see blue and red shift from earth, assuming Earth not being the centre.

I'm just reading through the 2008 papers on Redshift intrinsic.

arXiv.org Search

I'm no smart cookie but something is cooking in the science community on the reliance of redshift data.

[0811.3443] GRB optical afterglow and redshift selection effects: The learning curve effect at work
GRB optical afterglow and redshift selection effects: The learning curve effect at work

Authors: D.M. Coward
(Submitted on 20 Nov 2008)

Abstract: We show how the observed gamma ray burst (GRB) optical afterglow (OA) and redshift distributions are changing in time from selection effects. For a subset of {\it Swift} triggered long duration bursts, we show that the mean time taken to acquire spectroscopic redshifts for a GRB OA has evolved to shorter times. We identify a strong correlation between the mean time taken to acquire a spectroscopic redshift and the measured redshift. This correlation reveals that shorter response times favour smaller redshift bursts. This is compelling evidence for a selection effect that biases longer response times with relatively brighter high redshift bursts. Conversely, for shorter response times, optically fainter bursts that are relatively closer are bright enough for spectroscopic redshifts to be acquired. This selection effect could explain why the average redshift, $<z>\approx2.8$ measured in 2005, has evolved to $<z>\approx2$, by mid 2008. Understanding these selection effects provides an important tool for separating the contributions of intrinsically faint bursts, those obscured by host galaxy dust and bursts not seen in the optical because their OAs are observed at late times. The study highlights the importance of rapid response telescopes capable of spectroscopy, and identifies a new redshift selection effect that has not been considered previously, namely the response time to measure the redshift.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of oz

This link concludes that the bang was not necessarily simulataneous.

Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi model: fractality, bang time, and Hubble law I. Initial conditions and compatibility of density and velocity laws
Authors: Alexander Gromov (Sankt-Petersburg State Thecnical University, Russia), Yurij Baryshev (Astronomical Institute of Sankt-Petersburg University, Russia), Daniel J Suson (University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, USA), Pekka Teerikorpi (Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku, Finland)

(Submitted on 11 Jun 1999 (v1), last revised 21 Dec 1999 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We start a systematic study of the Lema\^{i}tre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) model as applied to the large scale structure and its evolution. Here we study three possible initial conditions of the LTB models which are asymptotically FRW at large scales: bang time, fractal density (with fractal dimension D=2), and velocity law. Any two of these determine the third one. Fractal density and simultaneous bang time provide a quantitative estimate for the scale beyond which the deflection from the linear Hubble law is small. This border may be identified with the zero-velocity surface. For fractal density and linear Hubble law it is shown that the bang time is necessarily non-simultaneous

[modest]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Modest
I grant you the scientific community has come a long was with the points that you have mention above;however, it took thousands of human and their thinking brains to get us as far as you have mentioned.

Man alone can not comprehend the design of the Universe, it takes a very large team to even get us to where you say we are now. All we have is Hypothesis and trial and error--only to be replaced by more of the same.

We have to lean on the team to even understand where we are going and how to get there.

I think astronomy has come a long way and also has a long way to go. But, my intention was not to show how much astronomy knows or comment on what astronomy has accomplished, but rather to address this directly:

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

What about the Blue Shift? If red shift is doppler shifter as moving away from Earth, then what about the Blue Shift coming towards the Earth?

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Believe me everything in the Universe is not moving away. Deep space photos show red and blue shift. It is the local area that is red shifted away from Earth's arm in the Milky Way.

If you look at the data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey or the 2dFGRS or DEEP2, or the many high redshift galaxies captured by Hubble, you will see that there are only a handful of of galaxies (about 100) that are blue shifted and they are the ones closest to us. There are billions upon billions that are red shifted.

This observation is explained:

In an expanding universe such as the one we inhabit, the scale factor is monotonically increasing as time passes, thus, z is positive and distant galaxies appear redshifted. This type of redshift is called the cosmological redshift or Hubble redshift. If the universe were contracting instead of expanding, we would see distant galaxies blue shifted by an amount proportional to their distance instead of redshifted.[21]

These galaxies are not receding simply by means of a physical velocity in the direction away from the observer; instead, the intervening space is stretching, which accounts for the large-scale isotropy of the effect demanded by the cosmological principle.[22] For cosmological redshifts of z < 0.01 the effects of spacetime expansion are minimal and cosmological redshifts can be dominated by additional Doppler redshifts and blue shifts caused by the peculiar motions of the galaxies relative to one another.[23] The difference between physical velocity and space expansion can be illustrated by the Expanding Rubber Sheet Universe, a common cosmological analogy used to describe the expansion of space. If two objects are represented by ball bearings and spacetime by a stretching rubber sheet, the Doppler effect is caused by rolling the balls across the sheet to create peculiar motion. The cosmological redshift occurs when the ball bearings are stuck to the sheet and the sheet is stretched. (Obviously, there are dimensional problems with the model, as the ball bearings should be in the sheet, and cosmological redshift produces higher velocities than Doppler does if the distance between two objects is large enough.)

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~modest

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Modest said

Mate I think you are mistaken.

Lets assume that you are correct.

What does redshift mean?

That everything is moving away from earth?

If the Big Bang occured points everywhere and is expanding from points everywhere, would you not expect to see blue and red shift from earth, assuming Earth not being the centre.

I see what you're saying. It is common for people to explain that the big bang is not an "explosion" that happened in one spot in space, but something that happened everywhere. This could, incorrectly, be taken to mean that there are lots of little explosions of matter everywhere. The matter from all those spots would then spread out into space (like the ripples in a pond after throwing in a handful of pebbles). Some of the ripples would then be moving toward a person and some moving away.

This is not what BBT describes. It describes a metric where all the points of space (over great enough distances) are moving away from each other. Space itself is expanding between galaxies. This is where the balloon analogy or the muffin analogy comes in handy.

If I may suggest, this link:

Science and Reason: The Big Bang

It explains the concepts of the big bang, how they came to be, and the observations that are associated with the theory.

~modest

[Pluto]

Happy New year from the land of ozzzz.

Modest said

This is not what BBT describes. It describes a metric where all the points of space (over great enough distances) are moving away from each other. Space itself is expanding between galaxies. This is where the balloon analogy or the muffin analogy comes in handy.

Mate I agree with you what the BBT says relating to timespace, and expansion of space that I dispute.

If you cannot actually see it that the king wears invisble robes.

Modest I got to thank you for your time and time discussing the issues.

If we think along the lines of the standard theory, there should be an inverse relationship between age and redshift.

Morels paper is interesting

Abundances of massive stars: some recent developments
[0811.4114] Abundances of massive stars: some recent developments
Authors: T. Morel
(Submitted on 25 Nov 2008)

Abstract: Thanks to their usefulness in various fields of astrophysics (e.g. mixing processes in stars, chemical evolution of galaxies), the last few years have witnessed a large increase in the amount of abundance data for early-type stars. Two intriguing results emerging since the last reviews on this topic will be discussed: (a) nearby OB stars exhibit metal abundances generally lower than the solar/meteoritic estimates; (b) evolutionary models of single objects including rotation are largely unsuccessful in explaining the CNO properties of stars in the Galaxy and in the Magellanic clouds.

On Redshidt this is quite interesting

The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
[0811.3968] The origin of redshift asymmetries: How LambdaCDM explains anomalous redshift
Authors: Sami-Matias Niemi, Mauri Valtonen
(Submitted on 24 Nov 2008 (v1), last revised 10 Dec 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Several authors have found a statistically significant excess of galaxies with higher redshifts relative to the group centre, so-called discordant redshifts, in particular in groups where the brightest galaxy, identified in apparent magnitudes, is a spiral. Our aim is to explain the observed redshift excess. We use a semi-analytical galaxy catalogue constructed from the Millennium Simulation to study redshift asymmetries in spiral-dominated groups in the Lambda cold dark matter (LambdaCDM) cosmology. We show that discordant redshifts in small galaxy groups arise when these groups are gravitationally unbound and the dominant galaxy of the group is misidentified. The redshift excess is especially significant when the apparently brightest galaxy can be identified as a spiral, in full agreement with observations. On the other hand, the groups that are gravitationally bound do not show a significant redshift asymmetry. When the dominant members of groups in mock catalogues are identified by using the absolute B-band magnitudes, our results show a small blueshift excess. This result is due to the magnitude limited observations that miss the faint background galaxies in groups. When the group centre is not correctly identified it may cause the major part of the observed redshift excess. If the group is also gravitationally unbound, the level of the redshift excess becomes as high as in observations. There is no need to introduce any "anomalous" redshift mechanism to explain the observed redshift excess. Further, as the Friends-of-Friends percolation algorithm picks out the expanding parts of groups, in addition to the gravitationally bound group cores, group catalogues constructed in this way cannot be used as if the groups are purely bound systems.

Mate, who knows maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.
In the land of ozzzzz we tend to go on a limb and go for the underdog.


Sydeny Time 2.07PM Monday 30 Dec 2008

We have about 34 hrs to 2009

[FRIPRO]

Happy New Year 2009 to you all on this very interesting forum.

From down under Pluto, I see the first mention of the Blue shift that I asked about earlier

Great

[Pluto]

Happy New Year from the land of ozzzz

Hello Fripro

You may find this interesting.

A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some Theory Developed Over the Last 90 Years
[0811.2402] A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some Theory Developed Over the Last 90 Years
Authors: Geoffrey Burbidge
(Submitted on 14 Nov 2008)

Abstract: This meeting is entitled "A Century of Cosmology." But most of the papers being given here are based on work done very recently and there is really no attempt being made to critically review what has taken place in the last 90 or 100 years. Instead, in general the participants accept without question that cosmology equates to "hot big bang cosmology" with all of its bells and whistles. All of the theory and the results obtained from observations are interpreted on the assumption that this extremely popular model is the correct one, and observers feel that they have to interpret its results in terms of what this theory allows. No one is attempting to seriously test the model with a view to accepting it or ruling it out. They are aware, as are the theorists, that there are enough free parameters available to fix up almost any model of the type.
The current scheme given in detail for example by Spergel et al (206, 2007) demonstrates this. How we got to this stage is never discussed, and little or no attention is paid to the observations obtained since the 1960s on activity in the centers of galaxies and what they imply. We shall show that they are an integral part of a realistic cosmological model. In this paper I shall take a different approach, showing first how cosmological ideas have developed over the last 90 years and where mistakes have been made. I shall conclude with a realistic model in which all of the observational material is included, and compare it with the popular model. Not surprisingly I shall show that there remain many unsolved problems, and previously unexpected observations, most of which are ignored or neglected by current observers and theorists, who believe that the hot big bang model must be correct.

Darn, I think I will hide my computer, everytime I see it, it makes me read, I think they have made a chip that controls the brain wave control. Is thare a word like computaholic?

[Pluto]

Happy New Year from the land of ozzzzzz


Taken from Modest response to Infinite Universe.

G'day Modest I thought I would add this to this post, may have more relevance to a cyclic universe process of the parts that make up the universe.

I have read
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.2813v2.pdf


Quote:
King (2005) presents a model that exploits the observed
AGN-starburst connection to couple black hole growth and
star formation. As the black hole grows, an outflow drives a
shell into the surrounding gas which stalls after a dynamical
time-scale at a radius determined by the BH mass. The gas
trapped inside this bubble cools, forms stars and is recycled
as accretion and outflow. Once the BH reaches a critical
mass, this region attains a size such that the gas can no
longer cool efficiently. The resulting energy-driven flow expels
the remaining gas as a superwind, thereby fixing the
observed Mbh − σ relation as well as the total stellar mass
of the bulge at values in good agreement with current observations.
The limiting BH mass is given by:
Mbh =
fg κ
π G2 σ4, (8)
where fg is the gas fraction (
baryon/
matter = 0.16, κ the
electron scattering opacity and σ the velocity dispersion.
This model argues that black hole growth inevitably produces
starburts and ultimately a superwind.

Quote:
Possible explanations for the tight correlation observed
between the velocity dispersion of the spheroid and black
hole mass involve a range of self-regulated feedback prescriptions.
An estimate of the upper limits on the black hole mass
that can assemble in the most massive spheroids can be derived
for all these models and they all point to the existence
of UMBHs.


Abstruct

Quote:
We make a case for the existence for ultra-massive black holes (UMBHs) in the Universe, but argue that there exists a likely upper limit to black hole masses of the order of $M \sim 10^{10} \msun$. We show that there are three strong lines of argument that predicate the existence of UMBHs: (i) expected as a natural extension of the observed black hole mass bulge luminosity relation, when extrapolated to the bulge luminosities of bright central galaxies in clusters; (ii) new predictions for the mass function of seed black holes at high redshifts predict that growth via accretion or merger-induced accretion inevitably leads to the existence of rare UMBHs at late times; (iii) the local mass function of black holes computed from the observed X-ray luminosity functions of active galactic nuclei predict the existence of a high mass tail in the black hole mass function at $z = 0$. Consistency between the optical and X-ray census of the local black hole mass function requires an upper limit to black hole masses. This consistent picture also predicts that the slope of the $M_{\rm bh}$-$\sigma$ relation will evolve with redshift at the high mass end. Models of self-regulation that explain the co-evolution of the stellar component and nuclear black holes naturally provide such an upper limit. The combination of multi-wavelength constraints predicts the existence of UMBHs and simultaneously provides an upper limit to their masses. The typical hosts for these local UMBHs are likely the bright, central cluster galaxies in the nearby Universe.


Its the mechanism that produces the jets that prevents the ultimate BH.

Interesting points
1) The ability to deed
2) A cyclic process.
3) Rear to find an inactive black hole that suck matter in only.

To date the biggest black hole is 18 Billion Sun masses.
18 Billion Suns -A Galaxy Classic: Biggest Black Hole in Universe Discovered?and it?s BIG


=======================================
Supermassive black hole formation during the assembly of pre-galactic discs
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606159
Authors: Giuseppe Lodato (1), Priya Natarajan (2,3) ((1) Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, UK, (2) Department of Astronomy, Yale University, New Haven, USA, (3) Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, USA)
(Submitted on 7 Jun 2006)


Quote:
Abstract: In this paper we discuss the evolution of gravitationally unstable pre-galactic discs that result from the collapse of haloes at high redshift $z \approx 10$ or so, which have not yet been enriched by metals. In cases where molecular hydrogen formation is suppressed the discs are maintained at a temperature of a few thousand degrees Kelvin. However, when molecular hydrogen is present cooling can proceed down to a few hundred degrees Kelvin. Analogous to the case of the larger scale proto-galactic discs, we assume that the evolution of these discs is mainly driven by angular momentum redistribution induced by the development of gravitational instabilities in the disc. We also properly take into account the possibility of disc fragmentation. We thus show that this simple model naturally predicts the formation of supermassive black holes in the nuclei of such discs and provides a robust determination of their mass distribution as a function of halo properties. We estimate that roughly 5% of discs resulting from the collapse of haloes with $M\approx 10^7 M_{\odot}$ should host a massive black hole with a mass $M_{\rm BH}\approx 10^5 M_{\odot}$. We confirm our arguments with time-dependent calculations of the evolution of the surface density and of the accretion rate in these primordial discs. This mechanism offers an efficient way to form seed black holes at high redshift. The predicted masses for our black hole seeds enable the comfortable assembly of $10^9 M_{\odot}$ black holes powering the luminous quasars detected by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey at $z = 6$ for a concordance cosmology. (abridged)

I think another 2 more years of reading may give me some idea of what the heck is going on.

In my opinion from reading and observation a black hole has a limit.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

I have read
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.2813v2.pdf...


...I thought I would add this to this post, may have more relevance to a cyclic universe process of the parts that make up the universe...

I'm confused how the paper above has relevance to a cyclic universe. The paper says nothing about a cyclic universe or model. It explicitly assumes standard cosmology in the introduction:

We adopt a cosmological model that is spatially flat with = 0.3; H0 = 70 km/s/Mpc.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Its the mechanism that produces the jets that prevents the ultimate BH.

Yes. The intense wind created by the rapid expulsion of infalling matter drives away a supermassive black hole's feeding source.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Interesting points
1) The ability to deed

Star birth is closely linked to the black hole at the center of a galaxy.

"These galaxies lose material into their central black holes at the same time they make their stars," Barger said. "So whatever mechanism governs star formation in galaxies also governs black hole growth."

NASA Observatory Confirms Black Hole Limits
Hole power. - Free Online Library

As the black hole pushes away the gas, dust, and stars near it—it stops feeding and stops spitting out new material for seeding new stars. The paper in question describes the end of the black hole's ability to seed. The end of the cycle. A black hole that has reached its size limit no longer seeds new star formation.

Originally Posted by Pluto

2) A cyclic process.

You'll have to explain further. The end of a black hole's feeding is by nature not a cyclic thing. It's something that stops. If you're talking about a cyclic universe (big bang / big crunch) then I don't see how you're relating this paper (which doesn't describe anything like that) to such a universe.

Please help me understand: How would you define "cyclic universe" and "cyclic process" in your own words

Originally Posted by Pluto

3) Rear to find an inactive black hole that suck matter in only.

It would not be easy to see a black hole that sucks in matter only. It wouldn't emit anything that we could see.

~modest