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

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years

How many times has this been explained to you Pluto? See post 82 or 85.

If 100 billion things happen at the same time and they each take 500 million years to happen then the total time it takes is 500 million years. The number of galaxies does not disprove the time frame.

If one galaxy can form in 500 million years in a small area then many billions can form in a much larger area. From you previous posts on this subject it seems clear that the concept giving you trouble is simultaneity. When events happen in parallel the total time is *not* affected by the number of events. When things happen in series the total time is affected by the number of events because they happen one after the other rather than at the same time.

Galaxies formed in parallel.

100 million raindrops can form from water vapor over a city in 10 seconds.

A better objection that you could make would be to ask how a mature galaxy could form in 500 million years... so long as you had evidence of a mature galaxy at that time period.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

I do not have to make an objection of a statement that is not scientific. You have got to be joking with that type of an explanation. It tells me how little you know.

Maybe the next time I come back I will go through the evolution and morphology of galaxy form.

As for mature galaxy, it has no meaning, since evolution plays a part.

Than you go a step further an explain the formation of clusters of clusters of galaxies having thousands of galxies forming these super dooper unit structures.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for mature galaxy, it has no meaning, since evolution plays a part.

Actually, the phrase mature galaxy does have meaning. The notion of the maturing of a
galaxy is the transition from Elliptical Galaxies to Spiral Galaxies. It has been thought that
Ellipticals are young and Spirals of all types are older. There is a lot of evidence. First,
the younger ellipticals are only found far away during a younger universe. Spirals are found
closer to here. So galactic evolution and the Maturing process are addressing the same
process.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Than you go a step further an explain the formation of clusters of clusters of galaxies having thousands of galxies forming these super dooper unit structures.

The farther up hierarchy of galaxies you go ("clusters of clusters" vs "clusters") the less
is known of why they form. I would say that Gravity is definitely a component.

maddog

[modest]

I don't quite follow any of that, Pluto. I'll revisit the problem,

Originally Posted by Pluto

I came across this deep field image
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies (03/09/2004) - Introduction

If this deep field image is 13.2 Gyrs

We see 10,000 Galaxies in one spot.
There are 12.7 million spots
If there was 10,000 galaxies per spot than the total number of galaxies in deep field would be.

10,000 * 12,700,000 = 127,000,000,000 galaxies in deep filed images if we covered the sky with spots.

Now! Imagine making all these galaxies in just 500 million years.

This is one reason why I cannot support the Big Bang.

The reason 100 billion galaxies could form in "just 500 million years" is because they all formed at the same time. "At the same time" means that the number of galaxies is independent of the total time taken for them to form.

If you care to change the subject to galaxy clusters then you can no longer use the time frame "500 million years" as the earliest clusters observed were when the universe was approximately 5 billion years old.

Largest ever survey of very distant galaxy clusters completed

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

I understand the logic of a mature galaxy.

The problem is this, when you have a cyclic event of morphology, its like the chicken and the egg. What came first?

Than you have the logic of Hubble tuning fork and the logic of the modern main stream evolution that do not see eye to eye

You said

Actually, the phrase mature galaxy does have meaning. The notion of the maturing of a
galaxy is the transition from Elliptical Galaxies to Spiral Galaxies. It has been thought that
Ellipticals are young and Spirals of all types are older. There is a lot of evidence. First,
the younger ellipticals are only found far away during a younger universe. Spirals are found
closer to here. So galactic evolution and the Maturing process are addressing the same
process.

The evolution of galaxies has no ruling as to local or further away.


As for clusters of galaxies we have a good idea of how they form.

Right now I'm off to bed. I will carry this on later.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

I understand the logic of a mature galaxy. The problem is this, when you have a cyclic event of morphology, its like the chicken and the egg. What came first?

Common notion of distance being equated with time. Far things are older by definition.
Time of light travel to get here. This is what points ellipticals to being older than spirals.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Than you have the logic of Hubble tuning fork and the logic of the modern main stream evolution that do not see eye to eye

What about modern main stream evolution does not "see eye to eye" with Hubble ???
I assume we are speaking of evolution of galaxies. Red Shift is used infer ellipticals age
over spirals. Where is the disagreement ?

Originally Posted by Pluto

The evolution of galaxies has no ruling as to local or further away.

Yes it does. Older == Farther away. See above.

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for clusters of galaxies we have a good idea of how they form.

Clusters, maybe. ==> Gravity.
I was thinking of the large structures like the Wall, etc. I have seen models where Dark
Energy is brought in to explain it. I go queezy with this explaination. Using a theoretical
uncorroborated effect to explain phenomena.

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

The Hubble Tuning Fork

The Hubble Tuning Fork

The Hubble Tuning Fork
In the early 1900s, Edwin Hubble looked at galaxies like the ones you saw in the last few pages. Hubble classified the galaxies using a "tuning fork" system. The elliptical galaxies made up the fork's handle, and spiral galaxies and barred spiral galaxies make the fork's prongs. So his classification system looked like this:



Hubble believed that galaxies started at the left end of the tuning fork when they were young, and moved toward the right as they aged. Therefore, he called elliptical galaxies "early galaxies" and spiral galaxies "late galaxies".

We now know he was mistaken in this belief. Spiral galaxies have a great deal of rotation and elliptical galaxies do not. There is no way an elliptical galaxy could spontaneously begin rotating, so elliptical galaxies cannot turn into spiral galaxies. Although Hubble was wrong about his theory of galaxy evolution, the confusing names have stuck: today, elliptical galaxies are still referred to as early galaxies and spirals as late galaxies.

In actual fact in my opinion the events are cyclic. We see spiral galaxies having a AGN and forming huge jets that eject matter and reform the galaxy. The size of the Nucleon determines the size of the jet and the outcome of the form.

Chandra :: Photo Album :: Centaurus A :: 09 January 08
Centaurus A:
Jet Power and Black Hole Assortment Revealed in New Chandra Image


Chandra :: Photo Album :: Centaurus A :: 30 January 09
Centaurus A:
Black Hole Outflows From Centaurus A


Chandra :: Photo Album :: Centaurus A :: 06 Aug 01
Centaurus A:
A Nearby Elliptical Galaxy With An Active Galactic Nucleus

and

NASA - A Black Hole Overflows From Galaxy Centaurus A

[Pluto]

G'dya from the land of ozzzzzz



Modern Research

Modern Research - Galaxy Formation and Evolution

Some galaxies are referred to as early type and some as late type. This is a somewhat awkward way to name them since it can lead to the misunderstanding that some galaxies are previous forms of others. There is much debate how galaxies evolve and whether they change type during their lifetime. Today it is safe to say that at least some ellipticals are results of mergers with other galaxies.

Why should one form dominate in time before any other?

It seems logical that a sequence of events is possible.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Why should one form dominate in time before any other?

It seems logical that a sequence of events is possible.

So, a sequence of events is possible.

Let's say you have one helluva big hydrogen cloud ten billion light-years away from Earth. Let's say you have a nearly identical cloud ten billion light-years away from Earth in the other direction. These two clouds are now twenty billion light-years apart.

Give enough time, and they will evolve almost identically. Without any transfer of information between the two.

Because the laws of physics hold the same for both, regardless. And whatever discernable differences there might be, points to tiny differences in initial conditions, magnified over time.

Cluster galaxies might not be stable over time, spirals might well be because all stars involved have found stable orbits around the galactic centre. Clusters could very well fall together (and miss each other completely, because even though magnificent and impressive from a distance, a galaxy is 99.999% empty space). The odds for stars physically colliding, is very remote. A cluster could then fall together, the stars miss each other and the cluster will expand again, basically "turned inside out", and then expand to the point where the mutual gravitation pulls the stars back together again. And the cycle repeats.

[Pluto]

G'day Boerseun

The odds of stars colliding are low, but! because of the billions of stars, we see mergers of stars quite frequently.

In the due time I will be reading and re-reading on Galaxy formation and evolution and if you do not mind I would post some of these papers.

There are two points that

I'm looking for:

1) How AGN affects the formation of galaxies and their evolution.

2) If the size and activity is directly related to the form of the galaxy.


Active Galactic Nuclei and their role in Galaxy Formation and Evolution

Authors: Steve Kraemer (CUA), Rogier Windhorst (ASU), Kenneth G. Carpenter (NASA-GSFC), Mike Crenshaw (GSU), Martin Elvis (CfA), Margarita Karovska (CfA)

(Submitted on 24 Apr 2009)

Abstract: There are several key open questions as to the nature and origin of AGN including: 1) what initiates the active phase, 2) the duration of the active phase, and 3) the effect of the AGN on the host galaxy. Critical new insights to these can be achieved by probing the central regions of AGN with sub-mas angular resolution at UV/optical wavelengths. In particular, such observations would enable us to constrain the energetics of the AGN "feedback" mechanism, which is critical for understanding the role of AGN in galaxy formation and evolution. These observations can only be obtained by long-baseline interferometers or sparse aperture telescopes in space, since the aperture diameters required are in excess of 500 m - a regime in which monolithic or segmented designs are not and will not be feasible and because these observations require the detection of faint emission near the bright unresolved continuum source, which is impossible from the ground, even with adaptive optics. Two mission concepts which could provide these invaluable observations are NASA's Stellar Imager (SI; Carpenter et al. 2008 & this http URL) interferometer and ESA's Luciola (Labeyrie 2008) sparse aperture hypertelescope.