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

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Pluto

You are miss understanding my position.

I do not have a position.

Your position throughout the entirety of this thread has been that the Big Bang Theory is WRONG, and you have been attempting to refute it in every way you can conceive. You have established this anti-Big Bang position for reasons you have yet to reveal, in my opinion. You have expressed utter contemp for the theory to a point beyond objectivity and seem to imply that those who currently subscribe to it are foolhardy suckers. It is obvious that you are not going to allow yourself to be placed in that category.

Personnaly, I don't think there is anything wrong with deciding that a scientific theory is lacking and choosing to research or develop alternative hypotheses, but you are now refusing to accept conclusions, even from your own sources, that are contrary to your concept. A good scientist is able to acknowledge when they make mistakes and accept facts for what they are, not just when they support their desired outcome.

So, let us be clear. There is NO evidence in any of the years worth of reading you have to support the notion that matter or electromagnetic radiation can escape the Event Horizon of a Black Hole. Therefore, the Relativistic Jets produced from active Black Holes, which you attribute as the primary cyclical process of matter in the Universe, do not and cannot originate from within the black hole. Thus, there can be no recycling of matter in this manner.

I suggest you look elsewhere for a cyclic explanation and refutation of the Big Bang Theory. I also suggest you look inside and consider what it is that makes you so resistent to what is a fairly well supported theory. Whatever it is may prove to be a hiderance to your ability to objectively come up with an alternative theory, because it may require that you accept some or much of the observable evidence currently in support of the Big Bang.

[Pluto]

G'dya reason

You said

So, let us be clear. There is NO evidence in any of the years worth of reading you have to support the notion that matter or electromagnetic energy can escape the Event Horizon of a Black Hole. Therefore, the Reletivistic Jets produced from active Black Holes, which you attribute as the primary cyclical process of matter in the Universe, do not and cannot originate from within the black hole. Thus, there can be no recycling of matter in this mannor.

In reality no body knows. What a black hole is made from and how it functions. We can express opinions and at the end of the day try to support such opinions.

You have not read the links that I have posted, by the expression of your writing.

If the BBT is correct than the biggest problem that it cannot explain is the formation of the super cluster of cluster of local galaxies where in the centre lives a monster so called black hole that has jets ejecting matter far greater than the matter accreting to the black hole.

Where does this matter come from? There is no magic in this.

as for event horizons.

Maybe you can read some science papers.

Trapping Horizons
arXiv.org Search


Just because i share interesting links that I think are great reading does not mean that I agree with them. Some even support the BBT.

But! Please do not expect me to agree with the BBT just because some person becomes emotional.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

This maybe of interst to some

[0804.4435] Spherically symmetric trapping horizons, the Misner-Sharp mass and black hole evaporation
Spherically symmetric trapping horizons, the Misner-Sharp mass and black hole evaporation

Authors: Alex B. Nielsen, Dong-han Yeom
(Submitted on 28 Apr 2008)

Abstract: Understood in terms of pure states evolving into mixed states, the possibility of information loss in black holes is closely related to the global causal structure of spacetime, as is the existence of event horizons. However, black holes need not be defined by event horizons, and in fact we argue that in order to have a fully unitary evolution for black holes, they should be defined in terms of something else, such as a trapping horizon. The Misner-Sharp mass in spherical symmetry shows very simply how trapping horizons can give rise to black hole thermodynamics, Hawking radiation and singularities. We show how the Misner-Sharp mass can also be used to give insights into the process of collapse and evaporation of locally defined black holes.

Imagine if we did not question?

Does this mean we enter into another dark age?

What fun would it be if we all agreed?

This would end up as a chat room.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Imagine if we did not question?

Does this mean we enter into another dark age?

What fun would it be if we all agreed?

This would end up as a chat room.

Mr. Pluto,

The complaints you're getting are not about "not questioning" they're about the fact that you seem to use this place as some sort of personal notepad of things that are of interest to you, when this thread and others like it are for discussion and actual debate of the points.

This unfortunately comes across as quite rude.

It's kind of like me coming over to your house and spraypainting random phone numbers that I want to remember on your front door.

If you want to avoid getting these complaints, it would behoove you to limit your posts to references that you've actually thought about and not only post the reference but state what you think it means and why it is important.

It's certainly fine to have no opinion, but if you think something might be interpreted as supporting a particular position, then even if you don't agree with it, you still need to defend the interpretation for it to be worthwhile to impose on everyone else.

You're obviously curious and enjoy absorbing these documents, but as I say, it's quite rude to assume that everyone else does too.

Not caring what other people think is easily interpreted as expressing disdain and dislike of other people.

A vision without action is called a daydream; but then again, action without a vision is called a nightmare,
Buffy

[Pluto]

G'day Miss Buffy

Mate, I do not want to be rude, thats the last thing I want to do.

My task at the moment is to get through this reading and hope by 2 years time I will have a little bit more to add.

Modest has given me many links to read, I'm in the middle of those papers.


I'm trying to find where the darn jets form, thats if we have the tools to show us.

Just reading these links, I feel I'm getting closer to the explanation and yet I feel I'm a million miles away.

As for using this as a personal Note pad. That is a far cry. My comp has about 20,000 papers not that I have read them all yet.

I'm also looking for that person who is in the field that is able to help me with the discussion.



How Compact are the Cores of AGN? Sub-Parsec Scale Imaging with VLBI at Millimeter Wavelengths
Authors: T.P. Krichbaum, S.S. Lee, A.P. Lobanov, A.P. Marscher, M.A. Gurwell

(Submitted on 29 Aug 2007)

Abstract: We study the most central regions of AGN jets with an angular resolution of tens of micro-arcseconds using VLBI at millimeter wavelengths (mm-VLBI). We present and discuss a new 86 GHz VLBI survey of compact radio sources. We show new high dynamic range images of two nearby radio galaxies (3C 120 and M87). In M87 the size of the compact VLBI core (the jet base) is < 15 Schwarzschild radii. Future mm-VLBI observations at 1 mm and shorter wavelengths should lead to images of galactic and extragalactic radio sources with a spatial resolution down to a few Schwarzschild radii of the central super massive black holes. To achieve this, the participation of large and sensitive millimeter and sub-millimeter telescopes in VLBI is essential. Owing to their high sensitivity existing and planned phased interferometers like the IRAM Plateau de Bure interferometer, CARMA, the SMA and ALMA could play an important role.

Part 5 The jet of M87

We may identify the size of the
brightest and most compact VLBI component with the jet diameter at or near its
origin. In this case it is remarkable that the jet base is so small and bright (TB ≥
2 · 1010 K), contrary to expectations from magnetic-slingshot type acceleration
models (e.g. Blandford & Payne 1982). Here, magnetic fields are anchored in the
rotating accretion disk, expand and form a light-cylinder. Its diameter defines
the minimum jet width of > 50Rs (Camenzind 1990; Fendt & Memola 2001).
The observed small size therefore points more towards models in which the jet
is attached more directly to the rotating black hole (Blandford & Znajek 1977),
gaining its energy viaMHD interaction with the inner disk (e.g. Mc Kinney 2006)
or the Penrose process (Gariel et al. 2007, and references therein).

So I'm searching the papers that can somehow explain further the location and formation of jets. So I keep on reading. Everytime I come across an interesting link I want to share it. I hope there is no harm in that. If this is rude I will make this my last post in linksand just chat.

[astro-ph/0406235] Synchrotron Self-Compton Model for Rapid Nonthermal Flares in Blazars with Frequency-Dependent Time Lags
Synchrotron Self-Compton Model for Rapid Nonthermal Flares in Blazars with Frequency-Dependent Time Lags

Authors: Andrei Sokolov, Alan P. Marscher, Ian M. McHardy
(Submitted on 9 Jun 2004)

Abstract: We model rapid variability of multifrequency emission from blazars occurring across the electromagnetic spectrum (from radio to gamma-rays). Lower energy emission is produced by the synchrotron mechanism, whereas higher energy emission is due to inverse Compton scattering of the synchrotron emission. We take into account energy stratification established by particle acceleration at shock fronts and energy losses due to synchrotron emission. We also consider the effect of light travel delays for the synchrotron emission that supplies the seed photons for inverse Compton scattering. The production of a flare is caused by the collision between a relativistic shock wave and a stationary feature in the jet (e.g., a Mach disk). The collision leads to the formation of forward and reverse shocks, which confine two contiguous emission regions resulting in complex profiles of simulated flares. Simulations of multifrequency flares indicate that relative delays between the inverse Compton flares and their synchrotron counterparts are dominated by energy stratification and geometry of the emitting regions, resulting in both negative and positive time delays depending on the frequency of observation. Light travel effects of the seed photons may lead to a noticeable delay of the inverse Compton emission with respect to synchrotron variability if the line of sight is almost perfectly aligned with the jet. We apply the model to a flare in 3C 273 and derive the properties of shocked plasma responsible for the flare. We show that the pronounced negative time delay between the X-ray and IR light curves (X-rays peak after the maximum in the synchrotron emission) can be accounted for if both forward and reverse shocks are considered.

[TIC]

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?

"One Never Knows, Do One?" But we are VERY curious creatures, to be sure.

What universe did the "big bang" start in? That's an interesting place to contemplate; Infinity? And it where did "it" begin? . . . and so it goes.

Enjoy the pure speculation.

Just a notch over 500 years ago . . . the world was flat. Before that we were the center of the universe, to be sure!.

In the scope of what we do know, we are neither sperm nor ovam. We are cluless cosmic dust floating about in a medium we do not unterstand. But aint't it a great to have the conscience to ponder the impossible and try the improbable.

TIC

[Pluto]

G'day TIC

AS per the BBT, there were bangs throughout the infinite universe at the same time and not from one point.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

You are miss understanding my position.

I do not have a position.

You have, in this very thread, accused supporters of BBT of “raping science” and said they “need to be shot”. More than a position, you may-well have an agenda.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Do you actually read the links?

Did you read my last post? It was irritating to review 9 scientific papers that you insisted that I needed to read in order to understand your position when none of them had any agreement with what you've been saying.

Originally Posted by Pluto

If you have read the links than you have read them out of context when they write about compact matter.

None of your links have the phrase “compact matter”.

In fact, a google search for “compact matter” turns up very few results and many (if not most) of them are not related to astronomy. Interestingly, 3 of google’s first page search results for “compact matter” were written by you, Pluto. So, it’s a very safe bet that you’re one of the very few people using this term to mean what I think it is you mean:

“Degenerate matter”

Most of your links (but not all) discuss "compact objects". This is important: "Compact object" is not the same as "compact matter" (i.e. degenerate matter). Black holes and Neutron stars are both compact objects, but only the neutron star has degenerate matter.

It seems very likely, given your past few posts that you are confusing "compact object" with "compact (degenerate) matter". Only one of your 9 links from post 598 discusses the possibility of compact (degenerate) matter sources as a substitute for traditional black holes. The relevant section says:

The first BH, Cygnus X-1, was identified and established in 1972 via a measurement of its mass, which was shown to be too large for a neutron star (NS). The surest evidence for the existence of BHs continues to be through dynamical mass measurements. We now know of 20 additional compact binary X-ray sources (McClintock & Remillard 2006; Orosz et al. 2007) with primaries that are too massive to be a NS or any stable assembly of cold degenerate matter, assuming that GR is valid. Similarly, dynamical data have established the existence of supermassive BHs, most notably in the nucleus of our Milky Way Galacy (Schodel et al. 2002; Ghez et al. 2005a) and in NGC 4258 (Miyoshi et al. 1995).

Are these compact objects genuine BHs – pockets of fully collapsed matter that are walled off from sight by self gravity and that, like a shadow, reveal no detail — or are they exotic objects that have no event horizons but manage to masquerade as BHs? Most astrophysicists believe that they are genuine BHs. There are several reasons for this confidence...

Advection-Dominated Accretion and the Black Hole Event Horizon. Section 4: The Black Hole Event Horizon

The paper then goes on to describe the reasons that astrophysicists have concluded against strange stars or other compact sources of gravity and sided with black holes as they are described by general relativity. This contradicts your statements on the subject. For whatever reason, you are consistently saying one thing and posting links that say the exact opposite. For example, you say:

Originally Posted by Pluto

It seems that if the Ultra compact objects are treated as compact objects without the constraints of Black hole restrictions research untaps further information about compact bodies and the resultant jet formation.

talking directly about this paper:

On the X-ray/TeV connection in Galactic jet sources

which does not discuss anything like that! The paper that you point out doesn't make any statements regarding the substitution of "compact objects" (i.e. some sort of star) over "ultra-compact objects" (i.e. black holes). It reports nothing of the sort.

But, there's no way to resolve this apparent disconnect between your claims and your sources because you refuse to discuss the papers you post. At most we get "this is interesting" or "I don't agree with this, but it's interesting". It's very reminiscent of Sun's Origin and make up.

You've said I'm misunderstanding your link's references to "compact matter". Show me where. Show me how.

~modest

[maddog]

Originally Posted by REASON

Your position throughout the entirety of this thread has been that the Big Bang Theory is WRONG, and you have been attempting to refute it in every way you can conceive. You have established this anti-Big Bang position for reasons you have yet to reveal, in my opinion. You have expressed utter contemp for the theory to a point beyond objectivity and seem to imply that those who currently subscribe to it are foolhearty suckers. It is obvious that you are not going to allow yourself to be placed in that category.

I have got to say Reason that you have "hit the nail on the head". This whole post of yours Completely expresses what "discussion" that I have had with Pluto and my continual frustration thereof.

Some things I might add though are the following:

1. I have noticed that Pluto would not answer a direct question yet would provide
a link that not only didn't answer (it may have went off in a completely different
direction!).

2. A common response from Pluto to me was often to say I might not even
understand the question/topic (like the time he did a few posts ago to Modest).

3. Another method I notice Pluto would was the typical deflection method of
asking another different question than answer the one being asked.

I have read more half of the papers that Pluto flung my direction in response to
on my question. None of them were ever directly related to my question to him.
His often response was something like "I post these links because they say it
better than I can...".

I was not aware that Pluto is now hung on Jets from Black Holes. We are not able
to be near the vicinity of one of these objects. Though models have been done
on them. Every paper I read on the subject were jets to form would be outside
the Event Horizon so no problem of coming "out" as Modest was concerned
about. Now if Pluto can not get his head around that, I am Not sympathetic.



maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

If the BBT is correct than the biggest problem that it cannot explain is the formation of the super cluster of cluster of local galaxies where in the centre lives a monster so called black hole that has jets ejecting matter far greater than the matter accreting to the black hole.

Unsupported -- not true - unfounded -- Just conjecture on your part.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Where does this matter come from? There is no magic in this.

Basically has been said before in the last couple of posts, including mine.
Best method I can think of would be Hawking Radiation around a fast rotating
Black Hole.

Originally Posted by Pluto

But! Please do not expect me to agree with the BBT just because some person becomes emotional.

That would be my last consideration. I do not even expect you to "agree' with BBT.
I would also like to be afforded the same consideration and "not" to be forced feed the bilge you provide.

As you have not provided a method to your "cycling" in your thinking. I pretty
much reject it "out of hand".

I am "open" minded, though I do use logic and can follow details. None of which
you have provided. Every time I say BBT is the prevailing Theory -- you say,
"How mainstream", or something.

I think the only place where we might agree is I think some Cosmologists are taking how early they can get to near the beginning by using theories themselves (such as String Theory and SuperGravity, etc) which have all not been corroborated. I think we have a good description of what happens to before
CMBR. You can conjecture before that to a point -- as far as QCD can take you.

Before that is a bit like Alice in Wonderland or Fairyland. So I set my limit of
knowledge at about 1 microsecond after beginning. I make no presumption
before that. Now this is what I think.

You Pluto are free to think what you will.



maddog