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

[SlipString]

Buffy suggested I move the continuation of this discussion to a new topic as to not get caught between other discussions, so my next response will be up shortly under the topic "Origin of the Universe: No Bang, Splash! (New theory)"

[Harry Costas]

Hello Slipstring

Mate, like I said you do have an imagination.

Just like the Big Bang, many theories ar put together by ad hoc ideas.

Take two steps back and research the workings of stars to begin with before you dive into a theory that will lead you to a dead end and a waste of time.

Keep smiling and live another day.

[Pluto]

I have read the previous posts and there seems to be an idea in the making.

Before I respond to the above. I will take some time to read through.

[Pluto]

Hello All

What bugs me is thinking and working with the theory that the universe just came about 13.7 Gyrs ago. I do understand its just a theory. But!! many talk about it as if it is a fact.

Lets have a look at some deep field clusters. Every paper assumes that the big bang did it all and than proceed to draw conclusions from the observation and images.

Chandra :: Photo Album :: Iron Spectra from Supermassive Black Holes :: 23 May 05
9 and 11 Gyrs

Chandra Press Room :: Galaxy Clusters, Near and Far, Have a Lot in Common :: April 8, 2005
6 to 8 Gyrs

Chandra :: Photo Album :: Submillimeter Galaxies in the Chandra Deep Field-North (SMG 123616.1+621513) :: 06 Apr 05
11 Gyrs

Chandra :: Photo Album :: Galaxy Clusters and Dark Energy :: 18 May 04
6.7 Gyrs

Chandra :: Photo Album :: RDCS 1252.9-2927 :: 02 Jan 04
8.5Gyrs

Chandra :: Photo Album :: SDSS 0836+0054, SDSS 1030+0524, and SDSS 1306+0356 :: 28 Mar 02
13 Gyrs

Chandra :: Photo Album :: Quasar Pair Q2345+007A,B :: 13 Mar 02
11 Gyrs

Chandra :: Photo Album :: PKS 1127-145 :: 06 Feb 02

Quote:
The X-ray image of the quasar PKS 1127-145, a highly luminous source of X-rays and visible light about 10 billion light years from Earth, shows an enormous X-ray jet that extends at least a million light years from the quasar. The jet is likely due to the collision of a beam of high-energy electrons with microwave photons.


Reading Chandra you would think that the Big Bang is reality.

Chandra :: Photo Album :: PKS 0637-752 :: 26 Aug 99
6 Gyrs

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

Quote:
The HUDF field contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies. In ground-based images, the patch of sky in which the galaxies reside (just one-tenth the diameter of the full Moon) is largely empty. Located in the constellation Fornax, the region is below the constellation Orion.


Quote:
The NICMOS sees even farther than the ACS. The NICMOS reveals the farthest galaxies ever seen, because the expanding universe has stretched their light into the near-infrared portion of the spectrum. "The NICMOS provides important additional scientific content to cosmological studies in the HUDF," says Rodger Thompson of the University of Arizona and the NICMOS Principal Investigator. The ACS uncovered galaxies that existed 800 million years after the big bang (at a redshift of 7). But the NICMOS may have spotted galaxies that lived just 400 million years after the birth of the cosmos (at a redshift of 12). Thompson must confirm the NICMOS discovery with follow-up research.


Now for a galaxy to form in just 400 million years is quite an ask. For a cluster of galaxies is going to far with the question.

Compare this with the evolution of our solar system and its life expectency of about 10 to 12 Gyrs.

Something is wrong. Are we blind not to question?

Soon we will look into deep field over 14 Gyrs. What than?

[Pluto]

Hello All

Reading many posts I find people not understanding the theory behind the Big Bang.

I do not agree with the BBT, but! that does not make me right. I'm not emotionally attached to any theory.

Here are some links in support of the Big Bang, later I will post against. For now maybe discuss the supporting issues.

Tango at your speed.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

A Glimpse of the Young Milky Way
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p.../pr-19-02.html

Evidence for the Big Bang
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr....html#firstlaw

Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#XIN

History of the Big Bang Theory
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/art...ig_bang_theory

Chapter 10 Origin of the Elements
http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/tea...pdf/Chap10.pdf

Mysterious iron factory in the Early Universe
http://www.mpe-garching.mpg.de/Highl...r20020708.html

Phase Transitions in the Early Universe
Phase Transitions

THE BIG BANG:
THE BIG BANG

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
WMAP Cosmology 101: Big Bang Concepts

If anybody has links that can support the Big Bang, please post them.

[Pluto]

Hello All


Does anybody wish to support the BIG BANG THEORY


In the last 2 years there seems to be alot of people who do not support the BBT.

Why is this so??????????????

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Hello All


Does anybody wish to support the BIG BANG THEORY


In the last 2 years there seems to be alot of people who do not support the BBT.

Why is this so??????????????

Thank you Pluto for those links.
Those probes that reach out to redshifts of 10+ is one reason besides others that the evidence is in opposition towards the BBT.

I just wish the JWST could be launched sooner.

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello MikeC


There is alot of information that sheds light against the Big Bang.

You are right

The JWST will or may not support the BBT.

Deep field images 13.2 Billion years show clusters of galaxies in a very small area now imagine the total sky.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Hello MikeC


There is alot of information that sheds light against the Big Bang.

You are right

The JWST will or may not support the BBT.

Deep field images 13.2 Billion years show clusters of galaxies in a very small area now imagine the total sky.

That last statement of yours ought to make the science community to start working on evidence to support a SSU.
I would consider that 13.2 billion years as enough evidence right now to refute the BBT.
The only reason they do not come up with deeper objects is because of the limitations of the current telescopes and technical equipment limitations.

Mike C

[Pluto]

Hello Mike C

You are 150% correct


What bugs me is the lack of evidence and the ad hoc ideas that support the BBT.

History shows that many scientists who went against any standard model or theory were brushed aside by limiting the access to tools such as telescopes and above all MONEY stream.

When the she------it hits the fan many will hide and go with the flow.

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.

Excuse my French

Saying that there maybe parts of the BBT that maybe saved.

Such as the production of the elements, than again they took this from another theory.