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

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Understanding what happens to AGN and the ejected matter reducing in redshift with distance is an important point.

This paper is quite interesting.

[0812.0926] A Surprisingly High Pair Fraction for Extremely Massive Galaxies at z ~ 3 in the GOODS NICMOS Survey
A Surprisingly High Pair Fraction for Extremely Massive Galaxies at z ~ 3 in the GOODS NICMOS Survey

Authors: Asa F. L. Bluck, Christopher J. Conselice, Rychard J. Bouwens, Emanuele Daddi, Mark Dickinson, Casey Papovich, Haojing Yan
(Submitted on 4 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 5 Dec 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We calculate the major pair fraction and derive the major merger fraction and rate for 82 massive ($M_{*}>10^{11}M_{\odot}$) galaxies at $1.7 < z < 3.0$ utilising deep HST NICMOS data taken in the GOODS North and South fields. For the first time, our NICMOS data provides imaging with sufficient angular resolution and depth to collate a sufficiently large sample of massive galaxies at z $>$ 1.5 to reliably measure their pair fraction history. We find strong evidence that the pair fraction of massive galaxies evolves with redshift. We calculate a pair fraction of $f_{m}$ = 0.29 +/- 0.06 for our whole sample at $1.7 < z < 3.0$. Specifically, we fit a power law function of the form $f_{m}=f_{0}(1+z)^{m}$ to a combined sample of low redshift data from Conselice et al. (2007) and recently acquired high redshift data from the GOODS NICMOS Survey. We find a best fit to the free parameters of $f_{0}$ = 0.008 +/- 0.003 and $m$ = 3.0 +/- 0.4. We go on to fit a theoretically motivated Press-Schechter curve to this data. This Press-Schechter fit, and the data, show no sign of levelling off or turning over, implying that the merger fraction of massive galaxies continues to rise with redshift out to z $\sim$ 3. Since previous work has established that the merger fraction for lower mass galaxies turns over at z $\sim$ 1.5 - 2.0, this is evidence that higher mass galaxies experience more mergers earlier than their lower mass counterparts, i.e. a galaxy assembly downsizing. Finally, we calculate a merger rate at z = 2.6 of $\Re$ $<$ 5 $\times$ 10$^{5}$ Gpc$^{-3}$ Gyr$^{-1}$, which experiences no significant change to $\Re$ $<$ 1.2 $\times$ 10$^{5}$ Gpc$^{-3}$ Gyr$^{-1}$ at z = 0.5. This corresponds to an average $M_{*}>10^{11}M_{\odot}$ galaxy experiencing 1.7 +/- 0.5 mergers between z = 3 and z = 0.

My opinion is that we do not know enough about the intrinsic properties and the workings of condensed matter found through out any galaxy and growing larger as it approaches the centre where we find huge condensed matter that we call black holes.

[Boerseun]

Pluto, please understand the following:

The Big Bang Theory is a theory, nothing more. It can be overthrown tomorrow with a New! Improved! cosmology that has more explanatory power.

To date, no other theory holds a candle to it - stellar or not.

For instance, stuff like the large-scale statistics of the universe only makes sense in the Big Bang paradigm. It's not to say it is so, however. It's merely currently the theory that fits the data best.

Don't let me stop you looking for a better theory, however. But if we need to kick BB in the teeth, we need some big shoes and lots of kick.

Happy huntin'.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Think about it for a second, is it evidence?

YES!

Originally Posted by Pluto

The question: is Redshift reliable.

YES!

Originally Posted by Pluto

Redshift is taken from supernova candles. Do we know enough of the intrinsic properties causing the Redshift.

YES!

Originally Posted by Pluto

Secondly is it not funny that the redshift is occuring from a centre point called Earth.

Fallacy, as is "stinkin' thinkin' ". Earth is no "centre" [English/Aussie spelling]. If you have
a center [American spelling], then Every point is a center !

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

My opinion is that we do not know enough about the intrinsic properties and the workings of condensed matter found through out any galaxy and growing larger as it approaches the centre where we find huge condensed matter that we call black holes.

Welcome to your opinion. It is yours. It is just we may not agree with you. Period.

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Opinion without science is like doodling in the wind.



Boerseun said

For instance, stuff like the large-scale statistics of the universe only makes sense in the Big Bang paradigm. It's not to say it is so, however. It's merely currently the theory that fits the data best.

Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).


=======================
Hello

Maddog
Centre or center to me is the same, being a dislexic is does not matter.

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

This link is quite interesting, it was emailed to me:

[0812.0537] Sociology of Modern Cosmology
Sociology of Modern Cosmology

Authors: Martin Lopez-Corredoira
(Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.

At the end of the day I just want to know which theory is backed by science evidence and not by ad hoc evidence to support what ever.

Yes I do read the papers that I post, yet I hold back to express their meaning for the simple reason that it expresses its own meaning.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Here down under we sometimes see things upside down and inside out, be that it may.

This following paper is very interesting.


[0902.4759] Non-Gaussianity as a Probe of the Physics of the Primordial Universe and the Astrophysics of the Low Redshift Universe
Non-Gaussianity as a Probe of the Physics of the Primordial Universe and the Astrophysics of the Low Redshift Universe

Authors: E.Komatsu, N.Afshordi, N.Bartolo, D.Baumann, J.R.Bond, E.I.Buchbinder, C.T.Byrnes, X.Chen, D.J.H.Chung, A.Cooray, P.Creminelli, N.Dalal, O.Dore, R.Easther, A.V.Frolov, K.M.Gorski, M.G. Jackson, J.Khoury, W.H.Kinney, L.Kofman, K.Koyama, L.Leblond, J.-L.Lehners, J.E.Lidsey, M.Liguori, E.A.Lim, A.Linde, D.H.Lyth, J.Maldacena, S.Matarrese, L.McAllister, P.McDonald, S.Mukohyama, B.Ovrut, H.V.Peiris, C.Raeth, A.Riotto, Y.Rodriguez, M.Sasaki, R.Scoccimarro, D.Seery, E.Sefusatti, U.Seljak, L.Senatore, S.Shandera, E.P.S.Shellard, E.Silverstein, A.Slosar, K.M.Smith, A.A.Starobinsky, P.J.Steinhardt, F.Takahashi, M.Tegmark, A.J.Tolley, L.Verde, B.D.Wandelt, D.Wands, S.Weinberg, M.Wyman, A.P.S.Yadav, M.Zaldarriaga
(Submitted on 27 Feb 2009 (v1), last revised 19 Apr 2009 (this version, v4))

Abstract: A new and powerful probe of the origin and evolution of structures in the Universe has emerged and been actively developed over the last decade. In the coming decade, non-Gaussianity, i.e., the study of non-Gaussian contributions to the correlations of cosmological fluctuations, will become an important probe of both the early and the late Universe. Specifically, it will play a leading role in furthering our understanding of two fundamental aspects of cosmology and astrophysics: (i) the physics of the very early universe that created the primordial seeds for large-scale structures, and (ii) the subsequent growth of structures via gravitational instability and gas physics at later times. To date, observations of fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (LSS) have focused largely on the Gaussian contribution as measured by the two-point correlations (or the power spectrum) of density fluctuations. However, an even greater amount of information is contained in non-Gaussianity and a large discovery space therefore still remains to be explored. Many observational probes can be used to measure non-Gaussianity, including CMB, LSS, gravitational lensing, Lyman-alpha forest, 21-cm fluctuations, and the abundance of rare objects such as clusters of galaxies and high-redshift galaxies. Not only does the study of non-Gaussianity maximize the science return from a plethora of present and future cosmological experiments and observations, but it also carries great potential for important discoveries in the coming decade.

Although there are terms that I disagree with particularly early and late universe implying fact that has no evidence but theories. The paper has logic.

[enorbet2]

Hello Pluto
I honestly don't yet understand what you're "on about" since often you seem to contradict yourself and resort to non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Authors: E.Komatsu, N.Afshordi, N.Bartolo, D.Baumann, J.R.Bond, E.I.Buchbinder, C.T.Byrnes, X.Chen, D.J.H.Chung, A.Cooray, P.Creminelli, N.Dalal, O.Dore, R.Easther, A.V.Frolov, K.M.Gorski, M.G. Jackson, J.Khoury, W.H.Kinney, L.Kofman, K.Koyama, L.Leblond, J.-L.Lehners, J.E.Lidsey, M.Liguori, E.A.Lim, A.Linde, D.H.Lyth, J.Maldacena, S.Matarrese, L.McAllister, P.McDonald, S.Mukohyama, B.Ovrut, H.V.Peiris, C.Raeth, A.Riotto, Y.Rodriguez, M.Sasaki, R.Scoccimarro, D.Seery, E.Sefusatti, U.Seljak, L.Senatore, S.Shandera, E.P.S.Shellard, E.Silverstein, A.Slosar, K.M.Smith, A.A.Starobinsky, P.J.Steinhardt, F.Takahashi, M.Tegmark, A.J.Tolley, L.Verde, B.D.Wandelt, D.Wands, S.Weinberg, M.Wyman, A.P.S.Yadav, M.Zaldarriaga
(Submitted on 27 Feb 2009 (v1), last revised 19 Apr 2009 (this version, v4))

This, for example is simple name dropping because without explaining what contribution each made it means nothing on it's own. Even if every one were a bona fide, peer reviewed, respected scientist the mere mention of their names means nothing. On top of that it isn't even stated that they all agree on something or if that something is a "fishing expedition" (still quite valid but not yet even theory, merely data gathering) or actually on some theory and predictions that can be tested and falsified.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Although there are terms that I disagree with particularly early and late universe implying fact that has no evidence but theories. The paper has logic.

Here you baffle me since you seem to be using theory in the popular sense which is barely above "what if?" as in the way zealots who have no understanding of what it takes to be a theory snigger at Evolution as "just a theory" as if it were mere opinion or a dream sequence.

Earlier in this thread you mentioned that (paraphrasing, so please correct me if I am inaccurate) "everywhere, even in Deep Field, galaxies are the same" which is patently false ( see The Birth and Formation of Galaxies ) where it states (as do numerous other sources)

Looking beyond our galaxy with current telescopes, astronomers can study both middle-aged and mature galaxies. When NASA's Hubble Space Telescope was pointed at one tiny speck of sky for 10 days, the resulting image provided the most detailed view of the early universe ever obtained. The image contains a bewildering assortment: 1,500 galaxies at various stages of evolution, some dating back to the time when the universe was only a billion years old.

Within this deep-field image are recognizable shapes: spherical galaxies called ellipticals, reddish in color by virtue of their light from mature stars, and crystal blue spiral galaxies, blazing from the glow of their hot, young stars. There are also strange, "tadpole"-like objects, disturbed and apparently merging galaxies dubbed "train wrecks," as well as a multitude of faint, "dwarf" galaxies. Some of these objects may date back to the first generation of galaxies and stars. Did these cosmic shards and fragments evolve into today's recognizable galaxies? Are they as small as they appear, but bright from great bursts of star formation? Or, are they massive, with much of their stellar population hidden from view by clouds of dust?

You also asked

Originally Posted by Pluto

Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).

This hasn't changed much in over 30 years! Consider this old gem, still unsuccessfully challenged. Cosmos: Shape of the Universe : Video : Science Channel

Just because the phenomenon of galaxy formation is not yet well understood doesn't mean any opinion will do nor does it mean there is some gaping hole in the Standard Model since after all this time with so many advances, nothing yet explains so much so well.

You still seem to be chipping away at the edges, at the least well understood stuff, as if that is going to defeate the entire thing and there just isn't a deal-breaker yet. It may be possible soon with some of the new amazing experiments in progress as we speak, but it is going to have to "beat the champ" so style alone won't cut it. It's going to have to be a knockout blow and after nearly 100 years, it really isn't likely, absent some major technological breakthrough so far non-existant.

[Pluto]

G'day enorbet

At the end of the day, who cares what theory is the standard theory just as long as the theory is supported by science.

I posted these links before. This may add a bit of light.

[0809.1084] Practical cosmology and cosmological physics
Practical cosmology and cosmological physics

and

[0810.0153] Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics
Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Opinion without science is like doodling in the wind.

I would then request you quit doodling sooo much !

Originally Posted by Pluto

Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).

With inflation taken into account BBT attempts to explain galaxy formation (w/ not all
things worked out). Latest addition (I saw this on Discovery a few weeks ago) that it is
now common to think of the center of galaxies having Black Holes at their centers at or
near their formation. Recently astronomers are discovering BH at center of galaxies at
all scales (near as well as far). Some things I haven't understood is the anisotropy of
matter to antimatter. This is claimed to have been worked out. I have not seen or read
these papers.

It is clear to me Pluto that you would like to discount BBT (you have said so). So far
what you have presented does not shoot the theory down.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Centre or center to me is the same, being a dislexic is does not matter.

NP. I just was wondering whether Aussies spell like the Brits. Great Britain's
English does spell Center as Centre. Just like Colour for Color, etc.

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

We spell both ways.

But! my wife says, centre and colour.


Rather than thinking what ever model.

Look at the formation of star and phase changes and evolution of galaxies.

How matter is attracted to the centre and how matter is ejected and how all this is directly related to the size and mass of the central Nucleon that some call a Black Hoole that determines the form of the galaxy. You can refer to the Hubble Tuning Fork or the modern explanation of galaxy evolution.