My theory is that all matter gets turned into this dark matter by the black holes over time. Find out how much dark matter there is and how much matter and you'll find out how far along the universe is in its life cycle.
i really doubt anybody can find exactly how much matter and dark matter there is but hey you gotta start somewhere.
QUOTE (br4sco+Dec 7 2006, 06:11 PM)
...my theory is that all matter gets turned into this dark matter by the black holes over time.
This is not quite stupid idea at all, providing the Universe collapse will give the sufficient time for such process. After all, the radiation of quasars can be considered as the visible manifestation of this mechanism of this process during observable history.
With compare to quasars, the speed of BH evaporation is quite subtle and the resulting microwave radiation doesn't increase the vacuum density near the BH by observable way. Most of dark matter is the result or evaporative cooling of quasars at the very early stages of Universe formation.
This is not quite stupid idea at all, providing the Universe collapse will give the sufficient time for such process. After all, the radiation of quasars can be considered as the visible manifestation of this mechanism of this process during observable history.
With compare to quasars, the speed of BH evaporation is quite subtle and the resulting microwave radiation doesn't increase the vacuum density near the BH by observable way. Most of dark matter is the result or evaporative cooling of quasars at the very early stages of Universe formation.
br4sco,Welcome, studies made and to give you data that will verify what is about to be typed. This should be the norm on this forum.
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/Einstein/Talks/Kip-BHs.pdf
Also, FYI..
Check into the studies made by scientists reading the information provided by, WMAP & cosmology dynamics.
The WMAP satellite has measured the echo of the big bang itself to give us the most authoritative age of the universe, about 14 billion years old.
The results, visible matter that includes what is around us on earth as well as the stars & galaxies makes up a small amount as in 4%, most is in the form of helium & hydrogen but you must include due to the elements in the building blocks of matter around 0.03% that takes the form of the heavy elements.
WMAP data seems to indicate about 23% of the universe is made of a strange, undetermined substance called DM-[dark matter] you can Google the information dealing with this.
Then you have about 73% of the universe which is unknown and is called D/E [dark energy] which makes up a very large part. If you want to go deeper you will see that Einstein in 1917 and his so called, "greatest blunder", D/E, is now re-emerging as the driving force in the entire universe.
Please, check the results and data I think you will find it very interesting.
Duality/Lisa
QUOTE
A black hole lies in the heart of every large galaxy. A monstrous one sits in the center of our own Milky Way. Astronomers say probably more than 10 million black holes inhabit the cosmos.
" <u>A black hole lies in the heart of every large galaxy</u>. A monstrous one sits in the center of our own Milky Way. Astronomers say probably more than 10 million black holes inhabit the cosmos. "
i think its safe to say that " a black hole lies in the heart of EVERY galaxy ". With out a black hole you wouldnt have a galaxy. Its what makes our galaxy turn and spin causeing the sun and planets to turn and spin as well.
Dark Energy would be the nothingness/space dead space or maybe its what the black holes feed from. This subject kinda confuses me so i wont speak to much on it.
As far as the big bang theory goes, im not so sure i agree with that. Just sounds a bit to crazy. You have people who want to discover how everything began so badly they will say what ever just to be heard in hopes they are correct.
The study of black holes will lead us in the right direction.
i think its safe to say that " a black hole lies in the heart of EVERY galaxy ". With out a black hole you wouldnt have a galaxy. Its what makes our galaxy turn and spin causeing the sun and planets to turn and spin as well.
Dark Energy would be the nothingness/space dead space or maybe its what the black holes feed from. This subject kinda confuses me so i wont speak to much on it.
As far as the big bang theory goes, im not so sure i agree with that. Just sounds a bit to crazy. You have people who want to discover how everything began so badly they will say what ever just to be heard in hopes they are correct.
The study of black holes will lead us in the right direction.
Galaxies spin without the requirement for a black hole at the centre, which is also spinning. Galaxies spin because of conservation of angular momentum. When a HUGE diffuse region of gas collapses into a galaxy, if there's any rotational motion at all about the central point of collapse then the gas speeds up as it moves inwards, giving us the 100+ km/s the Sun moves around the galactic core.
The black hole at the centre also spins in the same direction because of the same process. The material which collapsed into the centre also picked up rotational velocity but got into the black hole too. Even black holes obey conversation of angular momentum so they spin too if you throw in enough objects with angular momentum.
The Big Bang model still has a few things to iron out, but overall is a very coherent model. Too many people think that because it can't explain everything right now, we should throw it away, but that would mean throwing ALL science away.
The black hole at the centre also spins in the same direction because of the same process. The material which collapsed into the centre also picked up rotational velocity but got into the black hole too. Even black holes obey conversation of angular momentum so they spin too if you throw in enough objects with angular momentum.
The Big Bang model still has a few things to iron out, but overall is a very coherent model. Too many people think that because it can't explain everything right now, we should throw it away, but that would mean throwing ALL science away.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 7 2006, 06:10 PM)
Galaxies spin without the requirement for a black hole at the centre, which is also spinning. Galaxies spin because of conservation of angular momentum. When a HUGE diffuse region of gas collapses into a galaxy, if there's any rotational motion at all about the central point of collapse then the gas speeds up as it moves inwards, giving us the 100+ km/s the Sun moves around the galactic core.
Ok i dont see how something can just spin with no cause or reason. The Huge Diffuse region of gas that you speak of ... how do you think it makes it way to the galaxy in the 1st place? Something has to be pulling it towards them. That something is black holes. Like ive said before i dont know a whole lot about about any of this, but im just going on what makes sense and what doesnt. And to me a galaxy being formed with out a greater force pulling on it just sounds crazy.
They are finding more and more black holes in every single galaxy, sooner or later people will know there is one in every single galaxy. Alot of people are already saying this, that they think every galaxy may contain one. But i think its safe to say that every black hole consist of a galaxy. Its just natures way of cleaning things up. You have a universe full of matter and mass, the black holes act as a greater force to gather ALL of it up and recycle it into dark matter!
Which in "time" dark matter will re group, cluster up and find its way back towards black holes and gases as well. Repeating the process over and over
Ok i dont see how something can just spin with no cause or reason. The Huge Diffuse region of gas that you speak of ... how do you think it makes it way to the galaxy in the 1st place? Something has to be pulling it towards them. That something is black holes. Like ive said before i dont know a whole lot about about any of this, but im just going on what makes sense and what doesnt. And to me a galaxy being formed with out a greater force pulling on it just sounds crazy.
They are finding more and more black holes in every single galaxy, sooner or later people will know there is one in every single galaxy. Alot of people are already saying this, that they think every galaxy may contain one. But i think its safe to say that every black hole consist of a galaxy. Its just natures way of cleaning things up. You have a universe full of matter and mass, the black holes act as a greater force to gather ALL of it up and recycle it into dark matter!
Which in "time" dark matter will re group, cluster up and find its way back towards black holes and gases as well. Repeating the process over and over
QUOTE (br4sco+Dec 7 2006, 07:24 PM)
The Huge Diffuse region of gas that you speak of ... how do you think it makes it way to the galaxy in the 1st place? Something has to be pulling it towards them. That something is black holes.
No, that something is 'mutual gravity', you don't need a black hole. The large cloud of gas which formed our solar system collapsed under mutual gravity without the requirement for a black hole. The galaxy was the same, though some of that material went into forming a huge black hole too.
No, that something is 'mutual gravity', you don't need a black hole. The large cloud of gas which formed our solar system collapsed under mutual gravity without the requirement for a black hole. The galaxy was the same, though some of that material went into forming a huge black hole too.
QUOTE (br4sco+Dec 7 2006, 07:24 PM)
Ok i dont see how something can just spin with no cause or reason.
The quantum fluctuations in the early universe was expanded to galactic scales by inflation and these are the reason that there's inhomogeneity in the universe, with residual angular momentum.
QUOTE (br4sco+Dec 7 2006, 07:24 PM)
. And to me a galaxy being formed with out a greater force pulling on it just sounds crazy.
The mutual gravity off the cloud which ended up turning into the Milky Way isn't 'a greater force', it's the same force black holes work by, it just exists without the requirement for a black hole too.
QUOTE (br4sco+Dec 7 2006, 07:24 PM)
They are finding more and more black holes in every single galaxy, sooner or later people will know there is one in every single galaxy. Alot of people are already saying this, that they think every galaxy may contain one.
I don't think anyone who accepts the existence of black holes doesn't think they are everywhere. They're probably very very common.
A couple of questions:
I thought a black hole is the event horison surrounding a singularity. Is it the event horison or the singularity that is spinning?
What happens when this spin approaches the speed of light?
Check into the studies made by scientists reading the information provided by, WMAP & cosmology dynamics.
The WMAP satellite has measured the echo of the big bang itself to give us the most authoritative age of the universe, about 14 billion years old.
The results, visible matter that includes what is around us on earth as well as the stars & galaxies makes up a small amount as in 4%, most is in the form of helium & hydrogen but you must include due to the elements in the building blocks of matter around 0.03% that takes the form of the heavy elements.
WMAP data seems to indicate about 23% of the universe is made of a strange, undetermined substance called DM-[dark matter]
Then you have about 73% of the universe which is unknown and is called D/E [dark energy] which makes up a very large part.
Hi Lisa, All
I find Lisa's post very interesting, unfortunately my understanding of cosmology is somewhat limited mostly because I feel cosmology is an intangible subject. The latter statement is by no means a belittlement of cosmology, there have been enormous strides made in cosmology recently and I have nothing but respect for those that work in the field.
What interest me here is that there appears to be a difference between dark energy and dark matter?, Surely on a cosmological scale can't we add the two together and refer to the sum as either mass or energy?, i.e., mass energy equivalence principle?. However, if there are specific reasons for separating the two then what are they and why?
Also, from the point of view of the evolution of matter, where exactly does dark energy/mass spring from or slot into? Was this dark energy/mass around at the beginning of the universe or did/does dark energy/mass have to evolve through stratified integration processes?
The other question I'd like to ask, is there any evidence or thoughts that the universe might be leaking or gaining mass/energy by some process in nature which ultimately means something might be going on outside of our known universe?.
Bye Bye for now
Darren
QUOTE (br4sco+Dec 7 2006, 07:24 PM)
But i think its safe to say that every black hole consist of a galaxy. Its just natures way of cleaning things up. You have a universe full of matter and mass, the black holes act as a greater force to gather ALL of it up and recycle it into dark matter!
That wouldn't be recycling it, it would be converting it. Estimates on the amount of black holes don't come close to the required mass to keep galaxies together, we'd have to have black holes everywhere, they'd have a very noticable effect on stars.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 7 2006, 09:10 PM)
Too many people think that because it (Big Bang) can't explain everything right now, we should throw it away, but that would mean throwing ALL science away.
This is just a naive religion stance...
In fact, the BigBang concept violates both the causality, both the energy conservation law, on which the contemporary science is based.
It's just the mainstream science, who is looking for the viable alternatives intensively.
This is just a naive religion stance...
In fact, the BigBang concept violates both the causality, both the energy conservation law, on which the contemporary science is based.
It's just the mainstream science, who is looking for the viable alternatives intensively.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 7 2006, 09:59 PM)
In fact, the BigBang concept violates both the causality, both the energy conservation law, on which the contemporary science is based.
It doesn't have to, but then that just opens further questions.
Besides, the big bang model isn't about what actually created the universe, but just it's development from a time of about a billionth of a second after 'creation', onwards.
It's like evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution is about how life developed into it's current state. It has never made an attempt to say where that first life came from, that's a different area of biochemistry. Similarly, the BB model is about how the universe developed, not how it was created.
Hence, the BB model as it is is just fine when it comes to conservation of energy because it starts with the premise 'a lot of energy exists in a tiny amount of space-time' and says how that develops.
It doesn't have to, but then that just opens further questions.
Besides, the big bang model isn't about what actually created the universe, but just it's development from a time of about a billionth of a second after 'creation', onwards.
It's like evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution is about how life developed into it's current state. It has never made an attempt to say where that first life came from, that's a different area of biochemistry. Similarly, the BB model is about how the universe developed, not how it was created.
Hence, the BB model as it is is just fine when it comes to conservation of energy because it starts with the premise 'a lot of energy exists in a tiny amount of space-time' and says how that develops.
Somethings in the universe don't age. THE SINGULARITIES.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS ON YOUR HEAD Pup --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS ON YOUR HEAD Pup --
AlphaNumeric,
There is nothing known in science that supports this type of "creation".
QUOTE
Besides, the big bang model isn't about what actually created the universe, but just it's development from a time of about a billionth of a second after 'creation', onwards.
There is nothing known in science that supports this type of "creation".
yea the big bang theory is a little on the nutty side ......
If anything id say the universe started off as dark matter so tiny just looked like empty space, then some how the black holes came and sucked all the matter to them.
I call this " The Black Hole Birth " that sounds more like the truth then the big bang theory haha
If anything id say the universe started off as dark matter so tiny just looked like empty space, then some how the black holes came and sucked all the matter to them.
I call this " The Black Hole Birth " that sounds more like the truth then the big bang theory haha
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 8 2006, 03:58 AM)
There is nothing known in science that supports this type of "creation".
True, but then do we understand the universe perfectly right now? No, of course not. Evidence points towards the universe being hot and small a finite time ago and we have a viable model for that. Before that 'small, hot time' there are still plenty of open questions. They wouldn't be the only open questions in physics either.
True, but then do we understand the universe perfectly right now? No, of course not. Evidence points towards the universe being hot and small a finite time ago and we have a viable model for that. Before that 'small, hot time' there are still plenty of open questions. They wouldn't be the only open questions in physics either.
AlphaNumeric,
Based on the red shift and background radiation?
QUOTE
Evidence points towards the universe being hot and small a finite time ago and we have a viable model for that. Before that 'small, hot time' there are still plenty of open questions.
Based on the red shift and background radiation?
it is said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. is it possible that is exactly what dark energy is? something taveling faster than the speed of light making it invisible,but of course creating all the energy? 
Ahoy,
There is no real age to the universe; as all things have 'clocks' of differing speeds; even this concept is flawed; let's say I simply acknowledge time to be really an everchanging instant where pasts and futures mix in the present.
There is no real age to the universe; as all things have 'clocks' of differing speeds; even this concept is flawed; let's say I simply acknowledge time to be really an everchanging instant where pasts and futures mix in the present.
br4sco,
If the big bang did not create mass than fusion would have to be greater than fission in suns. A black hole is not necessary for gravity or rotation of bodies in space. If mass is created in suns than it would take a very long time before enough material accumulated in the center of a galaxy from dieing stars to become a black hole. Some galaxies are too small to have formed a black hole I suspect.
Dark mass,dark energy or space time energy I suspect are different effects of the same thing and is pervasive through out the universe. The effect mass has on the energy of space is gravity.
The age of the universe is probably greater than anyone can imagine.
QUOTE
i think its safe to say that " a black hole lies in the heart of EVERY galaxy ". With out a black hole you wouldnt have a galaxy. Its what makes our galaxy turn and spin causeing the sun and planets to turn and spin as well.
If the big bang did not create mass than fusion would have to be greater than fission in suns. A black hole is not necessary for gravity or rotation of bodies in space. If mass is created in suns than it would take a very long time before enough material accumulated in the center of a galaxy from dieing stars to become a black hole. Some galaxies are too small to have formed a black hole I suspect.
Dark mass,dark energy or space time energy I suspect are different effects of the same thing and is pervasive through out the universe. The effect mass has on the energy of space is gravity.
The age of the universe is probably greater than anyone can imagine.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 10 2006, 03:49 PM)
If mass is created in suns than it would take a very long time before enough material accumulated in the center of a galaxy from dieing stars to become a black hole. Some galaxies are too small to have formed a black hole I suspect.
Dieing suns do not form black holes. I dont know what forms black holes, but its not dieing suns. You seen the new picture that nasa did, they seen a sun get to close to a black hole? they said the sun just got a little to close to one and awoke the sleeping black hole. Black holes never sleep , what nasa seen is prolly the end of a galaxy . Black holes cause a greater force for these suns and planets to be pulled in near them. It wasnt by chance that the sun got to close. black holes exist all over the universe. some we cant see because they already killed all the matter around them so there is nothing left, there for you wont be able to see them, its where galaxies used to be at
Dieing suns do not form black holes. I dont know what forms black holes, but its not dieing suns. You seen the new picture that nasa did, they seen a sun get to close to a black hole? they said the sun just got a little to close to one and awoke the sleeping black hole. Black holes never sleep , what nasa seen is prolly the end of a galaxy . Black holes cause a greater force for these suns and planets to be pulled in near them. It wasnt by chance that the sun got to close. black holes exist all over the universe. some we cant see because they already killed all the matter around them so there is nothing left, there for you wont be able to see them, its where galaxies used to be at
br4sco,
There are not allot of choices to consider when you look out into the universe as to where the matter comes from to form a black hole. I believe it is just the amount of mass per space that creates a black hole. Like super critical fluid properties for mass. We only have three choices for where mass comes from: Suns, the big bang or magic.To me the big bang and magic go hand in hand so that leaves me with dying suns as material for black holes.
QUOTE
Dieing suns do not form black holes. I dont know what forms black holes, but its not dieing suns.
There are not allot of choices to consider when you look out into the universe as to where the matter comes from to form a black hole. I believe it is just the amount of mass per space that creates a black hole. Like super critical fluid properties for mass. We only have three choices for where mass comes from: Suns, the big bang or magic.To me the big bang and magic go hand in hand so that leaves me with dying suns as material for black holes.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 10 2006, 08:38 PM)
We only have three choices for where mass comes from: Suns, the big bang or magic.To me the big bang and magic go hand in hand so that leaves me with dying suns as material for black holes.
See thats mainly everybodys problems, why do you limit your self to only 3 choices? All your going on is what you know and expect those to be the answers. People high up in this feild confuse the masses with their theories and we as a whole are expect to think the same way they do? Whats makes it so hard to think that something greater are making the black holes? that we have no ideal whats the cause of?
Id just like to know what makes you so sure a sun causes a black hole? if that was the case .. in each galaxy there should be millions and millions of black holes and we should be able to find more and more of them with no problems.
Is it really so hard to believe that black holes are the cause and creation of the forming of galaxies? I mean come on you have your greater force ( black holes ) pulling all matter and mass towards them which in return form our galaxies. And in time the same black hole that gave us life, will destroy it. Natures cycle of life.
Nasa should study that black hole they just found and see if any other suns start to move towards it.
See thats mainly everybodys problems, why do you limit your self to only 3 choices? All your going on is what you know and expect those to be the answers. People high up in this feild confuse the masses with their theories and we as a whole are expect to think the same way they do? Whats makes it so hard to think that something greater are making the black holes? that we have no ideal whats the cause of?
Id just like to know what makes you so sure a sun causes a black hole? if that was the case .. in each galaxy there should be millions and millions of black holes and we should be able to find more and more of them with no problems.
Is it really so hard to believe that black holes are the cause and creation of the forming of galaxies? I mean come on you have your greater force ( black holes ) pulling all matter and mass towards them which in return form our galaxies. And in time the same black hole that gave us life, will destroy it. Natures cycle of life.
Nasa should study that black hole they just found and see if any other suns start to move towards it.
Redshift. Discerning whether it is an Einstein Shift or comes from the universal expansion will give the age.
QUOTE
Even black holes obey conversation of angular momentum so they spin too if you throw in enough objects with angular momentum.
A couple of questions:
I thought a black hole is the event horison surrounding a singularity. Is it the event horison or the singularity that is spinning?
What happens when this spin approaches the speed of light?
br4sco,
I am sorry I did not understand, have faith, I am sure you will find your answers.
Nick,
The current theory suggests that the expansion was not linear. This was to protect the big bang theory yet again. No matter how much crazy glue they put on it ,its going to unravel. So is the red shift linear (always been the same) a gradient (increasing all the time) or was it one speed for a few billion years and then changed?
I am sorry I did not understand, have faith, I am sure you will find your answers.
Nick,
QUOTE
Redshift. Discerning whether it is an Einstein Shift or comes from the universal expansion will give the age.
The current theory suggests that the expansion was not linear. This was to protect the big bang theory yet again. No matter how much crazy glue they put on it ,its going to unravel. So is the red shift linear (always been the same) a gradient (increasing all the time) or was it one speed for a few billion years and then changed?
QUOTE (Duality+Dec 7 2006, 04:15 PM)
Check into the studies made by scientists reading the information provided by, WMAP & cosmology dynamics.
The WMAP satellite has measured the echo of the big bang itself to give us the most authoritative age of the universe, about 14 billion years old.
The results, visible matter that includes what is around us on earth as well as the stars & galaxies makes up a small amount as in 4%, most is in the form of helium & hydrogen but you must include due to the elements in the building blocks of matter around 0.03% that takes the form of the heavy elements.
WMAP data seems to indicate about 23% of the universe is made of a strange, undetermined substance called DM-[dark matter]
Then you have about 73% of the universe which is unknown and is called D/E [dark energy] which makes up a very large part.
Hi Lisa, All
I find Lisa's post very interesting, unfortunately my understanding of cosmology is somewhat limited mostly because I feel cosmology is an intangible subject. The latter statement is by no means a belittlement of cosmology, there have been enormous strides made in cosmology recently and I have nothing but respect for those that work in the field.
What interest me here is that there appears to be a difference between dark energy and dark matter?, Surely on a cosmological scale can't we add the two together and refer to the sum as either mass or energy?, i.e., mass energy equivalence principle?. However, if there are specific reasons for separating the two then what are they and why?
Also, from the point of view of the evolution of matter, where exactly does dark energy/mass spring from or slot into? Was this dark energy/mass around at the beginning of the universe or did/does dark energy/mass have to evolve through stratified integration processes?
The other question I'd like to ask, is there any evidence or thoughts that the universe might be leaking or gaining mass/energy by some process in nature which ultimately means something might be going on outside of our known universe?.
Bye Bye for now
Darren
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 11 2006, 02:46 AM)
br4sco,
I am sorry I did not understand, have faith, I am sure you will find your answers.
Nick,
The current theory suggests that the expansion was not linear. This was to protect the big bang theory yet again. No matter how much crazy glue they put on it ,its going to unravel. So is the red shift linear (always been the same) a gradient (increasing all the time) or was it one speed for a few billion years and then changed?
This is a keen point: how do we know the exact rate of expansion throughout time? We only see what we see NOW. And what about inflation which is really another form of super-expansion?
We will have to know the hypersphere.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
I am sorry I did not understand, have faith, I am sure you will find your answers.
Nick,
The current theory suggests that the expansion was not linear. This was to protect the big bang theory yet again. No matter how much crazy glue they put on it ,its going to unravel. So is the red shift linear (always been the same) a gradient (increasing all the time) or was it one speed for a few billion years and then changed?
This is a keen point: how do we know the exact rate of expansion throughout time? We only see what we see NOW. And what about inflation which is really another form of super-expansion?
We will have to know the hypersphere.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
QUOTE (N O M+Dec 11 2006, 03:34 AM)
A couple of questions:
I thought a black hole is the event horison surrounding a singularity. Is it the event horison or the singularity that is spinning?
What happens when this spin approaches the speed of light?
The event horizon isn't a physical thing, it's a surface of special interest due to light's behaviour there.
The singularity itself spins, though in the case of spinning black hole the singularity is actually a ring, not a point. As said, the event horizon isn't a physical thing, but the effect known as 'frame dragging' means that the spinning singularity causes the surrounding space-time to 'wrap around' the black hole a bit. The same happens to the space-time around the Earth, there's a satellite which is hoping to experimentally measure the effect called 'Gravity Probe 2'.
I thought a black hole is the event horison surrounding a singularity. Is it the event horison or the singularity that is spinning?
What happens when this spin approaches the speed of light?
The event horizon isn't a physical thing, it's a surface of special interest due to light's behaviour there.
The singularity itself spins, though in the case of spinning black hole the singularity is actually a ring, not a point. As said, the event horizon isn't a physical thing, but the effect known as 'frame dragging' means that the spinning singularity causes the surrounding space-time to 'wrap around' the black hole a bit. The same happens to the space-time around the Earth, there's a satellite which is hoping to experimentally measure the effect called 'Gravity Probe 2'.
Darren,
This might give you a more balanced perspective.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
This might give you a more balanced perspective.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
^ Hardly a well researched page. It thinks the BB model is responsible for the dark matter hypothesis. Nope, even a steady state universe would need dark matter if our understanding of gravity is right, it's totally seperate from the development and age of the universe.
Many of those points just skim over parts of cosmology. While I'm no expert, the cosmology courses I have done were lectured by experts and they readily bring up some of those points as seeming problems, only to then explain why they aren't and why the BB fits such evidence.
Many of those points just skim over parts of cosmology. While I'm no expert, the cosmology courses I have done were lectured by experts and they readily bring up some of those points as seeming problems, only to then explain why they aren't and why the BB fits such evidence.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 11 2006, 11:56 PM)
Darren,
This might give you a more balanced perspective.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Hi 4dguy and others,
I'm a thoroughbred BB believer, steady state theory doesn't seem to work for me. Perhaps, the only possible resurrection for SS theory would be if our known universe was exchanging energy with something outside itself.
Yes, there are many problems with the BB model but there's even more with SS theory.
Nice to see everyone actively discussing these things
Bye Bye for now
Darren
This might give you a more balanced perspective.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Hi 4dguy and others,
I'm a thoroughbred BB believer, steady state theory doesn't seem to work for me. Perhaps, the only possible resurrection for SS theory would be if our known universe was exchanging energy with something outside itself.
Yes, there are many problems with the BB model but there's even more with SS theory.
Nice to see everyone actively discussing these things
Bye Bye for now
Darren
AlphaNumeric,
Do you have a understanding of gravity? I notice you did not say the SS theory was responsible for the dark matter hypothesis. I am curious what theory is responsible for the dark matter hypothesis, if as you say this paper is wrong?
Do you have a understanding of gravity? I notice you did not say the SS theory was responsible for the dark matter hypothesis. I am curious what theory is responsible for the dark matter hypothesis, if as you say this paper is wrong?
Many of those points just skim over parts of cosmology. While I'm no expert, the cosmology courses I have done were lectured by experts and they readily bring up some of those points as seeming problems, only to then explain why they aren't and why the BB fits such evidence.
Oh yes lets play the expert card again. I do not understand it but they explained it away. The king is naked. Experts are a dime a dozen.
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_...w_Test_999.html
Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html
Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUn...eABeginning.asp
Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/
Exploding the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm
Redshift
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html
A Bang into Nowhere
Comments on the
Universe Expansion Theory
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf
On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
by Mark Stewart
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
THE REDSHIFT AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY
http://www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm
The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html
QUOTE
^ Hardly a well researched page. It thinks the BB model is responsible for the dark matter hypothesis. Nope, even a steady state universe would need dark matter if our understanding of gravity is right, it's totally seperate from the development and age of the universe.
Do you have a understanding of gravity? I notice you did not say the SS theory was responsible for the dark matter hypothesis. I am curious what theory is responsible for the dark matter hypothesis, if as you say this paper is wrong?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ^ Hardly a well researched page. It thinks the BB model is responsible for the dark matter hypothesis. Nope, even a steady state universe would need dark matter if our understanding of gravity is right, it's totally seperate from the development and age of the universe. |
Do you have a understanding of gravity? I notice you did not say the SS theory was responsible for the dark matter hypothesis. I am curious what theory is responsible for the dark matter hypothesis, if as you say this paper is wrong?
Many of those points just skim over parts of cosmology. While I'm no expert, the cosmology courses I have done were lectured by experts and they readily bring up some of those points as seeming problems, only to then explain why they aren't and why the BB fits such evidence.
Oh yes lets play the expert card again. I do not understand it but they explained it away. The king is naked. Experts are a dime a dozen.
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_...w_Test_999.html
Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html
Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUn...eABeginning.asp
Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/
Exploding the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm
Redshift
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html
A Bang into Nowhere
Comments on the
Universe Expansion Theory
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf
On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
by Mark Stewart
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
THE REDSHIFT AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY
http://www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm
The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 12 2006, 05:28 AM)
Do you have a understanding of gravity? I notice you did not say the SS theory was responsible for the dark matter hypothesis. I am curious what theory is responsible for the dark matter hypothesis, if as you say this paper is wrong?
Yes I have a decent understanding of gravity. The dark matter hypothesis arises from the fact that most, if not all, galaxies observed (even the very close ones, so the expansions, or not, of the universe is irrelevent) spin too fast to be gravitationally bound by the material they appear to be made of.
What the rest of the universe is doing or wether it's of finite age etc is irrelevent, you consider the galaxies one at a time and you find that there's a problem. They must be much more massive than their visible matter implies. Therefore there's some matter which doesn't interact with light, ie it's 'dark', but interacts via gravity, making up about 90% of the mass of each galaxy. That or we rewrite our understanding of gravity, which is so well tested.
This is utterly asside from the expansion of the universe or it's origins. Even if the SS theory was right, the galaxies are still spinning too fast! Anyone who even knew a little history of dark matter would know this and why it's not relevent to the BB/SS debate. You don't have to be an expert, a casual reader of Wikipedia would do!
Yes I have a decent understanding of gravity. The dark matter hypothesis arises from the fact that most, if not all, galaxies observed (even the very close ones, so the expansions, or not, of the universe is irrelevent) spin too fast to be gravitationally bound by the material they appear to be made of.
What the rest of the universe is doing or wether it's of finite age etc is irrelevent, you consider the galaxies one at a time and you find that there's a problem. They must be much more massive than their visible matter implies. Therefore there's some matter which doesn't interact with light, ie it's 'dark', but interacts via gravity, making up about 90% of the mass of each galaxy. That or we rewrite our understanding of gravity, which is so well tested.
This is utterly asside from the expansion of the universe or it's origins. Even if the SS theory was right, the galaxies are still spinning too fast! Anyone who even knew a little history of dark matter would know this and why it's not relevent to the BB/SS debate. You don't have to be an expert, a casual reader of Wikipedia would do!
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 12 2006, 05:28 AM)
Oh yes lets play the expert card again. I do not understand it but they explained it away. The king is naked. Experts are a dime a dozen.
Yes 'experts' are when you consider such crank websites as Newtonphysics.on.ca. Most of those 'papers' (if not all!) are not peer reviewed and fly in the face of not just more tentative mainstream theories but very well established ones.
Half the authors aren't even academics, so it's like claiming Armit is an expert in relativity because he's got someone else to host his 'views' on it. Infact, most of them seem to be by one guy who just has a beef with mainstream physics. The few academics (or claimed ones!) challenge elementary things in physics like GR and the equivalence principle. As demonstrated in a recent thread here, GR is perfectly compatible with the equivalence principle, it's well derived and well tested.
Half the authors aren't even academics, so it's like claiming Armit is an expert in relativity because he's got someone else to host his 'views' on it. Infact, most of them seem to be by one guy who just has a beef with mainstream physics. The few academics (or claimed ones!) challenge elementary things in physics like GR and the equivalence principle. As demonstrated in a recent thread here, GR is perfectly compatible with the equivalence principle, it's well derived and well tested.
AlphaNumeric,
That is the whole point Nothing but the big bang is being peer reviewed so there is no evidence allowed that challenges the big bang. Like you in order to be considered main stream you have to have faith that the big bang is the only explanation so no other research into other explanations are tolerated. Listen to your self. Using Amrit is not a fair example although he has some ideas that are close to possible I believe just not fully formed.
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
You consider him a crank?
Peer reviews should be on the quality of the paper not the position of whether the auther believes in the big bang or not.
What kind of junk science is saying the speed of expansion of the universe was at different speeds at different times to make the facts fit the observations?
That is the whole point Nothing but the big bang is being peer reviewed so there is no evidence allowed that challenges the big bang. Like you in order to be considered main stream you have to have faith that the big bang is the only explanation so no other research into other explanations are tolerated. Listen to your self. Using Amrit is not a fair example although he has some ideas that are close to possible I believe just not fully formed.
QUOTE
Yes 'experts' are when you consider such crank websites as Newtonphysics.on.ca. Most of those 'papers' (if not all!) are not peer reviewed and fly in the face of not just more tentative mainstream theories but very well established ones.
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
You consider him a crank?
Peer reviews should be on the quality of the paper not the position of whether the auther believes in the big bang or not.
What kind of junk science is saying the speed of expansion of the universe was at different speeds at different times to make the facts fit the observations?
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 12 2006, 04:08 PM)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
You consider him a crank?
It would seem that he doesn't have a good grasp of relativity (his specialism is quantum mechanics). Someone whose put more time into researching him gives a quick rundown of his work here : http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?act...g&f=2&t=184&m=1
It would seem he suffers from the same problem Nick does with relativity, mistaking flaws in his understanding for flaws in the theory. His other work is either tentative or pretty much ruled out by experiment.
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
You consider him a crank?
It would seem that he doesn't have a good grasp of relativity (his specialism is quantum mechanics). Someone whose put more time into researching him gives a quick rundown of his work here : http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?act...g&f=2&t=184&m=1
It would seem he suffers from the same problem Nick does with relativity, mistaking flaws in his understanding for flaws in the theory. His other work is either tentative or pretty much ruled out by experiment.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 12 2006, 04:08 PM)
Like you in order to be considered main stream you have to have faith that the big bang is the only explanation so no other research into other explanations are tolerated.
To be considered mainstream yes, of course you have to think the mainstream view is right (that's practically a definition!) but that doesn't mean other lines of research aren't tolerated. If someone wants to investigate photon interactions with interstellar gases over large distances, noone is going to change the locks on their university office and demand they be thrown out of academia!
A paper demonstrating that there's a very viable explaination for such things as redshifting of distant galaxy spectra which doesn't involve space-time expansion would get published, it's just such work so far hasn't been phenomenologically viable, certain effects aren't seen which would need to be in order for the alternative explaination to be considered more likely.
There is no dark matter. Energy is rotating with the galaxy and is expanded and reduced. The more excited less expanded energy is keeping the mass inside of the galaxy bound. The threshold boundary is at the outer edge of the lens. This is the effect we see when we view one galaxy behind another.
A paper demonstrating that there's a very viable explaination for such things as redshifting of distant galaxy spectra which doesn't involve space-time expansion would get published, it's just such work so far hasn't been phenomenologically viable, certain effects aren't seen which would need to be in order for the alternative explaination to be considered more likely.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 12 2006, 04:08 PM)
What kind of junk science is saying the speed of expansion of the universe was at different speeds at different times to make the facts fit the observations?
Wouldn't a constant rate of expansion be even more 'junk' ?
AlphaNumeric,
Considering I do not believe the universe is expanding I would believe both are junk. There are different explanations than expansion and velocity for the red shift without even considering tired light.
There has been a methodical misinterpretation of observations with designed parameters and results interpreted outside of those parameters of experimentation. I am speaking about the results as far back as the MM experiments.
With these subjective results taken as unshakable facts we will remain off on a branch of the tree of knowledge.
QUOTE
Wouldn't a constant rate of expansion be even more 'junk' ?
Considering I do not believe the universe is expanding I would believe both are junk. There are different explanations than expansion and velocity for the red shift without even considering tired light.
There has been a methodical misinterpretation of observations with designed parameters and results interpreted outside of those parameters of experimentation. I am speaking about the results as far back as the MM experiments.
With these subjective results taken as unshakable facts we will remain off on a branch of the tree of knowledge.
AlphaNumeric,
Sylas does not know why the big bang is correct only that you are a crank if you doubt it. Is this the best you have?
QUOTE
My amateur reading of Arp�s papers and those of his critics suggest to me that the critics are right in this.
Sylas does not know why the big bang is correct only that you are a crank if you doubt it. Is this the best you have?
4Dguy. The Fudge theory:
So what's hard to believe about branes from Dimension Z (sounds like a 50's horror film) bashing together (add fudge in the form of an unproven multiverse to conserve energy) and forming all the mass and energy in our universe (add more fudge as such ultra dense objects are ultra stable) which then inflates at 10^20 times the speed of light (a mountain of fudge to produce uniformity), then slows down magically below light speed (more fudge, more fudge). Then you have enough material for 2,000,000,001 universes (more fudge. That is a huge multiverse we have somewhere), only 1,000,000,000 universes worth are anti-matter and 1,000,000,001 universes worth are matter so we get a bang that makes the big bang look like the small fire cracker to produce (extra fudge) the CMB (which should light up the early Universe like a nova instead of being a faint 2.7K.) Then several billion years ago, more fudge is ordered so that the universe can suddenly start expanding faster. And so on.
If you had told serious astronomers this back in 1960, they would have called for the people in white coats.
So what's hard to believe about branes from Dimension Z (sounds like a 50's horror film) bashing together (add fudge in the form of an unproven multiverse to conserve energy) and forming all the mass and energy in our universe (add more fudge as such ultra dense objects are ultra stable) which then inflates at 10^20 times the speed of light (a mountain of fudge to produce uniformity), then slows down magically below light speed (more fudge, more fudge). Then you have enough material for 2,000,000,001 universes (more fudge. That is a huge multiverse we have somewhere), only 1,000,000,000 universes worth are anti-matter and 1,000,000,001 universes worth are matter so we get a bang that makes the big bang look like the small fire cracker to produce (extra fudge) the CMB (which should light up the early Universe like a nova instead of being a faint 2.7K.) Then several billion years ago, more fudge is ordered so that the universe can suddenly start expanding faster. And so on.
If you had told serious astronomers this back in 1960, they would have called for the people in white coats.
Kaneda,
Science fiction and science fact have somehow melded together. We have given up on the scientific method in favor of scientific imagination.
Science fiction and science fact have somehow melded together. We have given up on the scientific method in favor of scientific imagination.
What makes me laugh is that people actually believe in this bullshit, and then call me a crank. In-f*cking-credible.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 12 2006, 10:02 AM)
The dark matter hypothesis arises from the fact that most, if not all, galaxies observed (even the very close ones, so the expansions, or not, of the universe is irrelevent) spin too fast to be gravitationally bound by the material they appear to be made of.
Do these calculations take into account the rather large black holes at the centre of the observed galaxies? Or are the predicted sizes of the black holes an attempt to account for some or all of the dark matter?
Do these calculations take into account the rather large black holes at the centre of the observed galaxies? Or are the predicted sizes of the black holes an attempt to account for some or all of the dark matter?
There is no dark matter. Energy is rotating with the galaxy and is expanded and reduced. The more excited less expanded energy is keeping the mass inside of the galaxy bound. The threshold boundary is at the outer edge of the lens. This is the effect we see when we view one galaxy behind another.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 18 2006, 01:57 AM)
There is no dark matter. Energy is rotating with the galaxy and is expanded and reduced.
Wheres does the energy come from then to keep everything bound in a galaxy? I think the black holes are sucking in all this DE so fast that all mass gets sucked in right along with the DE .....
Wheres does the energy come from then to keep everything bound in a galaxy? I think the black holes are sucking in all this DE so fast that all mass gets sucked in right along with the DE .....
The age of the universe is consistent with the Big Bang Theory. All observation supports the Big Bang Theory. When looked at, the Big Bang shows us the nature of dimensions and the physical reality of time. The Big Bang, the age of the universe, the nature of time, and the nature of dimensions are all supported by observation and the math. When the geometry of the math for the Big Bang is considered it is quite clear that the effect attributed to Dark Matter is just a consequence that geometry.
The transition outward from the Big Bang is limited by the speed of light and all objects must be at equal distance from the Big Bang. This requirement forces the universe into a curved space. Observation of any part of the sky shows that there is a preference for rotation. Objects find that a curved path is just as or more efficient then a straight line. This is the same as objects in a curved shaped bowl. If you place marbles in a bowl and apply energy to the bowl you will find that marbles do not prefer a straight-line path across the bowl but will go into a circular path just as easy. When this is considered in the universe with the gravity of objects the preferred path is circular. It is clear that there is no need for Dark Matter when the curve of the universe is added to gravity.
The transition outward from the Big Bang is limited by the speed of light and all objects must be at equal distance from the Big Bang. This requirement forces the universe into a curved space. Observation of any part of the sky shows that there is a preference for rotation. Objects find that a curved path is just as or more efficient then a straight line. This is the same as objects in a curved shaped bowl. If you place marbles in a bowl and apply energy to the bowl you will find that marbles do not prefer a straight-line path across the bowl but will go into a circular path just as easy. When this is considered in the universe with the gravity of objects the preferred path is circular. It is clear that there is no need for Dark Matter when the curve of the universe is added to gravity.
This post is just a line of thought spawned by reading this thread.
Is it wrong to think of Dark Engery/Dark Matter as a sort of "pressure" acting on the matter and energy that we do see. As I've learned more about the BB and considered what the state of the universe was prior, I like to think of that original singularity as something that was momentarily constrained by the "pressure" of DM/DE. It helps me to think of universe creation as a cyclical event. Obviously I have no answer for the first origin but I'm getting comfortable with the following happening over and over making the universe's age ... INCOMPARABLE:
All encompassing singularity expands (BB) ...
The initial expansion is then accellerated by DM/DE "pressure" ...
Stars form and die and reform eventually producing galaxies and supermassive black holes at their centers ...
Expansion continues accellerating via DM/DE "pressure" until DM/DE massively overcomes it (ie.. Big Crunch ... but not as the term was originally conceived) forcing it all back to the all encompassing singularity ...
Repeat ad infinitum ...
It's just like the shampoo bottle says .... "Lather, rinse, repeat". Best guess per cycle? Um ... 300 billion years +/- 100 billion. But it could just as easily be 3,000,000,000 billion years +/- 1,000,000,000 billion.
Oh yeah ... the supermassive black holes slowly remove matter (which keeps the whole conservation of matter/engery in balance) "enabling" DM/DE to do it's "big crunch" thing just before the next BB.
Like I said ... I have no idea really about the nature of DM/DE but I "like" the pressure idea and it makes it easier for me. Is that a horribly "wrong" way to think of it?
Dont jump on me ... this is just my neophyte way of thinking about it all. And yes ... time is a human construct.
edit: So yeah ... there's a sort of "critical" point (amount of matter in the universe not trapped in supermassive black holes) where DM/DE changes from forcing expansion to forcing contraction.
Is it wrong to think of Dark Engery/Dark Matter as a sort of "pressure" acting on the matter and energy that we do see. As I've learned more about the BB and considered what the state of the universe was prior, I like to think of that original singularity as something that was momentarily constrained by the "pressure" of DM/DE. It helps me to think of universe creation as a cyclical event. Obviously I have no answer for the first origin but I'm getting comfortable with the following happening over and over making the universe's age ... INCOMPARABLE:
All encompassing singularity expands (BB) ...
The initial expansion is then accellerated by DM/DE "pressure" ...
Stars form and die and reform eventually producing galaxies and supermassive black holes at their centers ...
Expansion continues accellerating via DM/DE "pressure" until DM/DE massively overcomes it (ie.. Big Crunch ... but not as the term was originally conceived) forcing it all back to the all encompassing singularity ...
Repeat ad infinitum ...
It's just like the shampoo bottle says .... "Lather, rinse, repeat". Best guess per cycle? Um ... 300 billion years +/- 100 billion. But it could just as easily be 3,000,000,000 billion years +/- 1,000,000,000 billion.
Oh yeah ... the supermassive black holes slowly remove matter (which keeps the whole conservation of matter/engery in balance) "enabling" DM/DE to do it's "big crunch" thing just before the next BB.
Like I said ... I have no idea really about the nature of DM/DE but I "like" the pressure idea and it makes it easier for me. Is that a horribly "wrong" way to think of it?
Dont jump on me ... this is just my neophyte way of thinking about it all. And yes ... time is a human construct.
edit: So yeah ... there's a sort of "critical" point (amount of matter in the universe not trapped in supermassive black holes) where DM/DE changes from forcing expansion to forcing contraction.
Tlocity,
Yes, Most observations that are not ignored have been adjusted to support the big bang theory.
Yes, Most observations that are not ignored have been adjusted to support the big bang theory.
The Big Bang, the age of the universe, the nature of time, and the nature of dimensions are all supported by observation and the math. When the geometry of the math for the Big Bang is considered it is quite clear that the effect attributed to Dark Matter is just a consequence that geometry.
Math is just like a politician it does not have to agree with reality but reality has to agree with math. Math is a double edged sword. The age of the universe is by the use of subjective logic. If a is true then b is true,if b is true than c is true. Where was the scientific method used in this theory? Dark matter is a consequence of geometry or a need to explain observations?
Its being suggested that the BB was faster than light then slowed down then speed back up. There are too many colliding galaxies to suggest all objects be at equal distance. That is one of the struggles the BB is having today. They are finding a pattern in the galaxies that suggest it would take 100 billion years to create. What is next time moved 10 times as fast the first billion years?
Its being suggested that the BB was faster than light then slowed down then speed back up. There are too many colliding galaxies to suggest all objects be at equal distance. That is one of the struggles the BB is having today. They are finding a pattern in the galaxies that suggest it would take 100 billion years to create. What is next time moved 10 times as fast the first billion years?
This is the same as objects in a curved shaped bowl. If you place marbles in a bowl and apply energy to the bowl you will find that marbles do not prefer a straight-line path across the bowl but will go into a circular path just as easy. When this is considered in the universe with the gravity of objects the preferred path is circular. It is clear that there is no need for Dark Matter when the curve of the universe is added to gravity.
The preferred path of moving objects are circular not unmoving objects.
br4sco,
A better question might be how does the energy keep everything bound. Most scientist do not know the nature of energy let alone where it comes from. I do not know where it came from its the same quandary as you asking where God came from. But I am not going to make up a fairy tail about a mythical BB.
Mass itself creates its own drain on energy that extends outwards. As the planets and solar systems rotate they rotate with the reduced and expanded energy. The outside higher more compressed energy forces the lower energy into a disk because of the rotation of the SS or galaxy. This is due to its energy viscosity.
thanx Mediocre-Minded, i was feeling a bit small in the brain. dropped out of school after the ninth grade. took some test to try to get into tech college and scores put me in the 90th percentile.meanig i was in the top ten percent of the people tested.this being after 25 years of drug and alchohol abuse.(clean and sober now thank the almighty)not bad for a drop out huh!anyway what i meant was people wonder how long the universe will continue to go on and i think if its 15 billion years old or whatever then it will exist for at least another 15 billion.(we got the light from distant source 15 billion yrs ago and it will take 15 billion yrs for our light to get to distant source)something like that.again thanx Mediocre-Minded i'll continue to add my two cents(worth about one and a half cents maybe the full two on a good day)Peace brothers and sisters(i'm also an ordained minister but who gives a sh*t) 
Sincerely,
Ricky Ty:D
QUOTE
The age of the universe is consistent with the Big Bang Theory. All observation supports the Big Bang Theory.
Yes, Most observations that are not ignored have been adjusted to support the big bang theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The age of the universe is consistent with the Big Bang Theory. All observation supports the Big Bang Theory. |
Yes, Most observations that are not ignored have been adjusted to support the big bang theory.
The Big Bang, the age of the universe, the nature of time, and the nature of dimensions are all supported by observation and the math. When the geometry of the math for the Big Bang is considered it is quite clear that the effect attributed to Dark Matter is just a consequence that geometry.
Math is just like a politician it does not have to agree with reality but reality has to agree with math. Math is a double edged sword. The age of the universe is by the use of subjective logic. If a is true then b is true,if b is true than c is true. Where was the scientific method used in this theory? Dark matter is a consequence of geometry or a need to explain observations?
QUOTE
The transition outward from the Big Bang is limited by the speed of light and all objects must be at equal distance from the Big Bang.
Its being suggested that the BB was faster than light then slowed down then speed back up. There are too many colliding galaxies to suggest all objects be at equal distance. That is one of the struggles the BB is having today. They are finding a pattern in the galaxies that suggest it would take 100 billion years to create. What is next time moved 10 times as fast the first billion years?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The transition outward from the Big Bang is limited by the speed of light and all objects must be at equal distance from the Big Bang. |
Its being suggested that the BB was faster than light then slowed down then speed back up. There are too many colliding galaxies to suggest all objects be at equal distance. That is one of the struggles the BB is having today. They are finding a pattern in the galaxies that suggest it would take 100 billion years to create. What is next time moved 10 times as fast the first billion years?
This is the same as objects in a curved shaped bowl. If you place marbles in a bowl and apply energy to the bowl you will find that marbles do not prefer a straight-line path across the bowl but will go into a circular path just as easy. When this is considered in the universe with the gravity of objects the preferred path is circular. It is clear that there is no need for Dark Matter when the curve of the universe is added to gravity.
The preferred path of moving objects are circular not unmoving objects.
br4sco,
QUOTE
Wheres does the energy come from then to keep everything bound in a galaxy?
A better question might be how does the energy keep everything bound. Most scientist do not know the nature of energy let alone where it comes from. I do not know where it came from its the same quandary as you asking where God came from. But I am not going to make up a fairy tail about a mythical BB.
Mass itself creates its own drain on energy that extends outwards. As the planets and solar systems rotate they rotate with the reduced and expanded energy. The outside higher more compressed energy forces the lower energy into a disk because of the rotation of the SS or galaxy. This is due to its energy viscosity.
Someone mentioned subjective logic.
If we use a bit of objective logic, and common sense, we could look at the observational
evidence by Hubble that put distance of the furthest galaxy seen at 13 billion light years
using the CMB and correlation function.
Why would it not be logical to infer from the above observation that the age of the Universe,
as far as we can see today, is about 26 billion years??
If we take the Hubble and turn it 180 degrees, and see other distance galaxies at 13 billion
light years. Then, we must deduce the Universe has to be, at the least, 26 billion years old.
Unless, of course, we insist on “us” being the center of the Universe !
Someone mentioned subjective logic.
If we use a bit of objective logic, and common sense, we could look at the observational
evidence by Hubble that put distance of the furthest galaxy seen at 13 billion light years
using the CMB and correlation function.
Why would it not be logical to infer from the above observation that the age of the Universe,
as far as we can see today, is about 26 billion years??
If we take the Hubble and turn it 180 degrees, and see other distance galaxies at 13 billion
light years. Then, we must deduce the Universe has to be, at the least, 26 billion years old.
Unless, of course, we insist on “us” being the center of the Universe !
Mediocre-Minded,
The thought is that no matter where you are in the universe, you are in the middle. Apparently everything is on the edge and light curves around the outer edge until you can see yourself. But you would not recognize the milky way because its features have changed or might not even been in existence. That was the theory quite a while back its changed since then. Objective reasoning and scientific method have been replaced by the big bang no objections tolerated scientific faith full steam (roll anybody in its way) ahead.
The thought is that no matter where you are in the universe, you are in the middle. Apparently everything is on the edge and light curves around the outer edge until you can see yourself. But you would not recognize the milky way because its features have changed or might not even been in existence. That was the theory quite a while back its changed since then. Objective reasoning and scientific method have been replaced by the big bang no objections tolerated scientific faith full steam (roll anybody in its way) ahead.
QUOTE (Mediocre-Minded+Dec 19 2006, 09:25 AM)
Someone mentioned subjective logic.
If we use a bit of objective logic, and common sense, we could look at the observational
evidence by Hubble that put distance of the furthest galaxy seen at 13 billion light years
using the CMB and correlation function.
Why would it not be logical to infer from the above observation that the age of the Universe,
as far as we can see today, is about 26 billion years??
If we take the Hubble and turn it 180 degrees, and see other distance galaxies at 13 billion
light years. Then, we must deduce the Universe has to be, at the least, 26 billion years old.
Unless, of course, we insist on “us” being the center of the Universe !
I have had a similar thought, if we are recieving the light from an object 13 billion light years after it was emited then wouldnt that guarantee the universe will be around for at least 13 billion light years more? being that we are now sending our light back to that same source which will take 13 billion light years?even if what was there the time the source sent the light was gone now the space it occupied would still exist waiting 13 billion light years to recieve this post?am i making any sense or should i just hide and watch?
Someone mentioned subjective logic.
If we use a bit of objective logic, and common sense, we could look at the observational
evidence by Hubble that put distance of the furthest galaxy seen at 13 billion light years
using the CMB and correlation function.
Why would it not be logical to infer from the above observation that the age of the Universe,
as far as we can see today, is about 26 billion years??
If we take the Hubble and turn it 180 degrees, and see other distance galaxies at 13 billion
light years. Then, we must deduce the Universe has to be, at the least, 26 billion years old.
Unless, of course, we insist on “us” being the center of the Universe !
I have had a similar thought, if we are recieving the light from an object 13 billion light years after it was emited then wouldnt that guarantee the universe will be around for at least 13 billion light years more? being that we are now sending our light back to that same source which will take 13 billion light years?even if what was there the time the source sent the light was gone now the space it occupied would still exist waiting 13 billion light years to recieve this post?am i making any sense or should i just hide and watch?
Hey RickyTv,
Don’t get intimidated by the company you are in. Unlike myself, most may be highly educated
(in physics), and some may snap, ignore or insult anybody without a PHD or of the same
opinion. But, a lot of the same educated individuals are chasing wild geese, in wasting their
knowledge on garbage like the String Theory, and apparently (I have just deduced) the similarly
irrational BB.
Feel free to put your 2-cents in. I do. (And, mine is not worth much more than 2 cents).
Incidentally, no, I couldn’t make out what you were trying to say. If something takes 13 B years
to reach us, then it is 13 B years old, no more. Then again !!
4Dguy,
If what you say is the accepted theory (to suit the BB’s purpose)(to make BB work, postulation
after postulation is employed to make up for the paradoxes BB presents) being that “we are in
the middle,” then shouldn’t we see, at the least, 2 image of each celestial body. That being, since
the light curves around the outer edge(absurd), then there is “the other side(s)” to consider. If
you can picture an Oval Universe.
Furthermore, the “curved light” and the BB both present this paradox, among many more, that if
there IS an outer edge, then the Universe is not infinite. If the Universe is expanding, then it
can’t be infinite. The BB theory kills the idea of infinite space. Well, thanx a lot for that.
As for the BB supposing that the Universe “banged” all over at the same time, then “where” is
the Universe expanding into ? I mean wouldn’t that suggest that not only the Universe is
expanding into something “outwards,” but also, “into” itself !? Therefore, if the BB is using the
RS as its proof, then, shouldn’t the “bang all over at the same time” create BS ( ^_^) at the same
time. And, we should see Galaxies approaching us as well !?
Don’t get intimidated by the company you are in. Unlike myself, most may be highly educated
(in physics), and some may snap, ignore or insult anybody without a PHD or of the same
opinion. But, a lot of the same educated individuals are chasing wild geese, in wasting their
knowledge on garbage like the String Theory, and apparently (I have just deduced) the similarly
irrational BB.
Feel free to put your 2-cents in. I do. (And, mine is not worth much more than 2 cents).
Incidentally, no, I couldn’t make out what you were trying to say. If something takes 13 B years
to reach us, then it is 13 B years old, no more. Then again !!
4Dguy,
If what you say is the accepted theory (to suit the BB’s purpose)(to make BB work, postulation
after postulation is employed to make up for the paradoxes BB presents) being that “we are in
the middle,” then shouldn’t we see, at the least, 2 image of each celestial body. That being, since
the light curves around the outer edge(absurd), then there is “the other side(s)” to consider. If
you can picture an Oval Universe.
Furthermore, the “curved light” and the BB both present this paradox, among many more, that if
there IS an outer edge, then the Universe is not infinite. If the Universe is expanding, then it
can’t be infinite. The BB theory kills the idea of infinite space. Well, thanx a lot for that.
As for the BB supposing that the Universe “banged” all over at the same time, then “where” is
the Universe expanding into ? I mean wouldn’t that suggest that not only the Universe is
expanding into something “outwards,” but also, “into” itself !? Therefore, if the BB is using the
RS as its proof, then, shouldn’t the “bang all over at the same time” create BS ( ^_^) at the same
time. And, we should see Galaxies approaching us as well !?
Mediocre-Minded,
I do not believe in the big bang theory. I find it to be illogical.
I do not believe in the big bang theory. I find it to be illogical.
We do see galaxies approaching us.
A good portion of the Virgo cluster is highly blueshifted.
M87 is a good example.
Age of the Universe = pi * 4 * Infinity
Get it? Pie for Infinity.
A good portion of the Virgo cluster is highly blueshifted.
M87 is a good example.
Age of the Universe = pi * 4 * Infinity
Get it? Pie for Infinity.
How old is the Universe?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3732157.stm
Even the BB-ers may have their own sums wrong.
Calculating the size depends on a standard candle, type 1A supernovae. Yet one was found to be twice as massive as was believed possible because the dwarf star was "rotating fast" so could support more material before exploding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3732157.stm
Even the BB-ers may have their own sums wrong.
Calculating the size depends on a standard candle, type 1A supernovae. Yet one was found to be twice as massive as was believed possible because the dwarf star was "rotating fast" so could support more material before exploding.
I admit I may be out of my league here. But, why is the Redshift or the Blueshift generally
attributed to the Big Bang ? What about the Gravity pull of super clusters?
I thought it was accepted that we (the Local Group) are being pulled towards the “Great
Attractor”. Or, has that gone out of fashion.
attributed to the Big Bang ? What about the Gravity pull of super clusters?
I thought it was accepted that we (the Local Group) are being pulled towards the “Great
Attractor”. Or, has that gone out of fashion.
thanx Mediocre-Minded, i was feeling a bit small in the brain. dropped out of school after the ninth grade. took some test to try to get into tech college and scores put me in the 90th percentile.meanig i was in the top ten percent of the people tested.this being after 25 years of drug and alchohol abuse.(clean and sober now thank the almighty)not bad for a drop out huh!anyway what i meant was people wonder how long the universe will continue to go on and i think if its 15 billion years old or whatever then it will exist for at least another 15 billion.(we got the light from distant source 15 billion yrs ago and it will take 15 billion yrs for our light to get to distant source)something like that.again thanx Mediocre-Minded i'll continue to add my two cents(worth about one and a half cents maybe the full two on a good day)Peace brothers and sisters(i'm also an ordained minister but who gives a sh*t) Sincerely,
Ricky Ty:D
QUOTE (4Dguy+Dec 20 2006, 03:10 PM)
Mediocre-Minded,
The thought is that no matter where you are in the universe, you are in the middle. Apparently everything is on the edge and light curves around the outer edge until you can see yourself. But you would not recognize the milky way because its features have changed or might not even been in existence. That was the theory quite a while back its changed since then. Objective reasoning and scientific method have been replaced by the big bang no objections tolerated scientific faith full steam (roll anybody in its way) ahead.
I like it!
The thought is that no matter where you are in the universe, you are in the middle. Apparently everything is on the edge and light curves around the outer edge until you can see yourself. But you would not recognize the milky way because its features have changed or might not even been in existence. That was the theory quite a while back its changed since then. Objective reasoning and scientific method have been replaced by the big bang no objections tolerated scientific faith full steam (roll anybody in its way) ahead.
I like it!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.