To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: The Big Bang Theory
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Space > Space
Pages: 1, 2

sylvia
Hey Everyone,

I was just thinking about the Big Bang theory and was wondering if anyone had a thoughts on this. BTW If you don't know, the Big Bang Theory is a theory that says that the whole universe was created from a massive explosion that occured billions and billions of years ago. Any thoughts on this?

-Sylvia
kjw
QUOTE
sylvia Posted on Today at 1:28 PM BTW If you don't know, the Big Bang Theory is a theory that says that the whole universe was created from a massive explosion that occured billions and billions of years ago. Any thoughts on this?


hello sylvia biggrin.gif

the big bang theory does not talk about a massive explosion. the theory states that in the past the universe must of been very dense and very hot, then it expanded, became less dense and cooled. the expansion of the universe was not the outward movement of matter, the expansion was the literal stretching of space and during this stretching matter "precipitated" out of the intense energy of the early hot universe.

the theory is the best model of the universe currently available, as it is backed up with lots of experimental data and observations.

start here: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/cosmology.php
StevenA
QUOTE (sylvia+Jan 16 2008, 03:28 AM)
Hey Everyone,

I was just thinking about the Big Bang theory and was wondering if anyone had a thoughts on this. BTW If you don't know, the Big Bang Theory is a theory that says that the whole universe was created from a massive explosion that occured billions and billions of years ago. Any thoughts on this?

-Sylvia


There are multiple possible interpretations that, though quite different in how they're presented, can lead to similar observations.

The truth is that noone can really see back in time nor interact with objects light years away and that whether or not a photon interpreted as representative of residual radiation from some creative event actually travelled through space for billions of years or whether it spawned chaotically in space at some point over time (which some evidence appears to suggest), are rather indistinguishable (at least for observations made over a short period of time relative to the age of the universe).

But I think in the context of quantum mechanics a better description is that the Big Bang is representative of a continual process that injects energy and information over time into structures in space that builds upon them and stable objects remain persistant whereas chaotic ones tend to decay.

If we view something very distant, then we're viewing it over a large distance of space. If space is not entirely uniform, but instead a rather chaotic sea of interactions, then distant observations will inherit these characteristics as well (similar to looking through enough panels of distorted/foggy glass), so without actually being there, something like the presence or absense of dark matter locally in an area is quite debateable and for all intents and purposes you could either say that 1) the Big Bang has passed because if we went out into space to see something of objects representative of it that we'd instead reach it in the future and not see it as it was in the past, means there's an unknown to what's actually there because we're not seeing it as it is now but instead what it was or 2) that time alters space and a constant flow of information changes space as we travel through it and that a distant object will not be what you see it to be now, but the time you get there.

In the first case, the view is the classical deterministic view where everything already happened as some incomprehensible creative force imposed a specific beginning state and from there it's all been playing by specific rules, whereas from the other perspective, reality exists as a transient present and unknowns and possibilities lie beyond what we can immediately observe. In this case the energy we see representative of the Big Bang is a continual flow of new information into the universe and the universe grows outward.

They're really reducible to rather identical forms but presented from different perspectives. I tend to prefer the later view as truly noone can see beyond the present and assuming everything was predetermined isn't very useful in knowing what that predetermination is, though instead we can still look at the past and determine what possibilities are compatible with it for the future and there does exist an effective inertia or conservation of quantities between past and present or future states.

Also considering that quantum mechanics tends to more accurately detect the influence of subjective measures of time and chronology, the influence of an observers actions and reactions form the environment are more difficult to fit into the more predetermined view presented by the Big Bang (in other words, the Big Bang relies upon integrating all random/creative events into a single point in time, which from one perspective occured in the past, but realistically is continually discovered in the present, whereas in quantum mechanics we just see this as a continual unknown to the present). A good integration of these two could be to take the indeterminism in quantum mechanisms and the idea of a common source for such indeterminism in the Big Bang and unite all under a single source of indeterminism or novel information in the present instead.

(I also think that distances in space could be quite misleading and things that appear far away may not always be considered to be so distant and uninfluencial, and that our typical kinetic motion through space is quite similar to trying to drive a large truck through a forest, whereas once we've mapped out where the trees are on a fine scale and build some "slimmer" means of transportation, the distances shouldn't be as difficult to cover ... I guess we'll have to see how history handles this subject in the future)
thinker
Hmmm...sounds like the Bible.
"And God said, 'Let there be light.'" (Genesis 1:4)
Edward 3
Hi Sylvia,
You say that the Big Bang theory states that the universe was "created".....etc.
Wrong - the theory only offers an explanation of how the universe expanded from something very small, very dense and very hot. Big Bang has nothing to say as to how that small something actually came into existence - that is, if it ever had a beginning.
regards
edward 3
magpies
I'm more likely to buy the SMG theory I so proudly came up with! Any theory that discredits mine is obv a fake.
roam

yyyeaahhh, ummm, just to clear this up first, I am sane and am not taking any medication.

my personal belief is that the Big Bang occurred when the a 2nd demensional universe expanded to it's demensional limit, then to accommodate it grew another demension and exploded in the big bang. allthough there is NO science to back this I beleive it untill someone out logics me (aka wins the argument) but there is sufficeant evedence to support the BB theory, such as the residual radio radiation.

-Roan ph34r.gif
Gehn
QUOTE (thinker+Jan 19 2008, 12:28 AM)
Hmmm...sounds like the Bible.
"And God said, 'Let there be light.'" (Genesis 1:4)

If we're talking about explosions here, it sounds more like 2:9 from the Holy Book of Armaments:

QUOTE (Book of Armaments (Chapter 2+ verses 9-21)[/QUOTE)

...And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu...


So, we can therefore assume that God created the universe with a grenade. Well, that's my two cents laugh.gif .

On a more serious note, one possibility is that the universe was created by a quantum fluctuation (Albeit a very, very big one).
- Gehn biggrin.gif
Edward 3
Hi Gehn,
Just wondering what is a "very big quantum fluctuation" - are they not always a bit on the small side??!!
Seriously, is it valid to invoke the Uncertainty Principle, which I would understand to be a feature of a universe already in existence, as an explanation of the actual origin of the universe? In fact, I sometimes have to question if Heisenberg is not an all too convenient fallback when we might be better employed looking for alternative explanations.
regards
edward 3
Gehn
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jan 24 2008, 08:44 PM)
Hi Gehn,
Just wondering what is a "very big quantum fluctuation" - are they not always a bit on the small side??!!
Seriously, is it valid to invoke the Uncertainty Principle, which I would understand to be a feature of a universe already in existence, as an explanation of the actual origin of the universe? In fact, I sometimes have to question if Heisenberg is not an all too convenient fallback when we might be better employed looking for alternative explanations.
regards
edward 3

Hi Edward3

What I was thinking of was a Boltzmann brain. As far as I understand it, a Boltzmann brain is a phenomenon which occurs when an area in the universe becomes more organized than that around it. (Which is rare, as the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy (disorganization) can only increase. As far as I know, this can occur with quantum fluctuations. Every once in a while, a random quantum fluctuation will be bigger than usual. This occurrence will be incredibly rare, but it will happen. Eventually, one of these fluctuations will be big enough to cause a "big bang".

- Gehn biggrin.gif





Majkl
Big bang, whatever it was or wasnt in my opinion was not the begining of universe. It had to come from something or somewhere and the best guess is that it came from different condition of itself. Thus now it is in this condition and it goes to next one and so on and on. Human being comes to be and ceases to exist which it then applies to universe from seeing everything coming into being and vanishing except the reality itself. We seem to have a huge problem of not being capable of accepting a possibility that we are of no significance to reality. Whatever we acomplish, whatever we worship, whatever we invent is of absolutely no significance to reality. Big bang raises more questions than it answers. Certainly all paradoxes are thought to be solved there but there is no paradox if one assumes universe can exist in radically different conditions. What are those conditions? Whatever they are we certainly were not possible to happen there so what would be the significance of such knowledge? Cinically one can say that if you still exercise - what was there before big bang- i suggest studying weather patterns and try to predict what happens next. Those are the light weight complexity of conditions in comparison to the ones beyond big bang. Of course who said those conditions are ever different? We might be in the middle of it all the time. In such case complexity never rises as everything is as complex as it ever was.
Edward 3
Hi Gehn , Majkl,
I have no fundamental problem with the Boltzman Brain concept - but it offers a possible explanation of how our universe came into being only if we define this universe as just another iteration within a bigger framework.
If I were feeling mischievous I might start a thread asking for a definition of what we really mean by the term "universe" - but can you imagine how that would run !!??
edward 3
El_Machinae
QUOTE (sylvia+Jan 16 2008, 03:28 AM)
Hey Everyone,

I was just thinking about the Big Bang theory and was wondering if anyone had a thoughts on this. BTW If you don't know, the Big Bang Theory is a theory that says that the whole universe was created from a massive explosion that occured billions and billions of years ago. Any thoughts on this?

-Sylvia

I like the Big Bang Theory. I have heard (but don't remember where from) that the term "Big Bang" was used by people trying to make fun of the theory (since it's not actually an explosion). But the name still stuck.
paul h
No one said anything about M theory's 11th dimension and branes touching each other to spark off the BB.

OldWoman1904
QUOTE (Majkl+Jan 24 2008, 02:25 PM)
Big bang, whatever it was or wasnt in my opinion was not the begining of universe. It had to come from something or somewhere and the best guess is that it came from different condition of itself. Thus now it is in this condition and it goes to next one and so on and on. Human being comes to be and ceases to exist which it then applies to universe from seeing everything coming into being and vanishing except the reality itself. We seem to have a huge problem of not being capable of accepting a possibility that we are of no significance to reality. Whatever we acomplish, whatever we worship, whatever we invent is of absolutely no significance to reality. Big bang raises more questions than it answers. Certainly all paradoxes are thought to be solved there but there is no paradox if one assumes universe can exist in radically different conditions. What are those conditions? Whatever they are we certainly were not possible to happen there so what would be the significance of such knowledge? Cinically one can say that if you still exercise - what was there before big bang- i suggest studying weather patterns and try to predict what happens next. Those are the light weight complexity of conditions in comparison to the ones beyond big bang. Of course who said those conditions are ever different? We might be in the middle of it all the time. In such case complexity never rises as everything is as complex as it ever was.

maybe it's true that our human existence could be meaningless...but.....life...in all forms, think of that..that's big....

meaningful? no?
OldWoman1904
one more thing...i was reading about time...and ages....there's this theory about the end of ages....the very end...after light...after black holes.....

anyway, the idea is that what is left after the "death" of the universe is photons....

unorganized indestructible photons....

so.....would that be a white.....uh.... blink.gif

just a big white blob?

im still not understanding boundaries and structure of the universe.......

anyone?
kjw
QUOTE
OldWoman1904 Posted on Yesterday at 10:09 AM i was reading about time...and ages....there's this theory about the end of ages....the very end...after light...after black holes.....

what were you reading? i am interested.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
OldWoman1904 Posted on Yesterday at 10:09 AM i was reading about time...and ages....there's this theory about the end of ages....the very end...after light...after black holes.....

what were you reading? i am interested.

anyway, the idea is that what is left after the "death" of the universe is photons....

unorganized indestructible photons....

so.....would that be a white.....uh.... 

just a big white blob?

if there were nothing but photons, what would the photons reflect off to produce white ? (or any colour)

QUOTE
im still not understanding boundaries and structure of the universe.......

anyone?

but you are able to question them which puts you in the best possible starting position to understand them. what particular do you want to understand about boundaries and structure of the universe?
OldWoman1904
i cant remember what i was reading, and i cant remember the author, but i will describe him for you....you will surely know......he is a physicist on a lot of science channel shows....he is american but looks asian.....there....somebody help me out...he is about 50 and has wavy hair

youre right...if there were just photons, there would be nothing to see....right?
im confused...

where did all the matter go? you cant tell me it is just spread out, bit by bit into infinity.....that can't be it.....

huh.gif wont matter always clump.....?

it's because of expansion huh?

damn expanding universe dry.gif

i dont believe it....dont wanna...

i mean, i believe the universe is expanding...but i........ unsure.gif i dont know...

when im questioning the structure...im wondering why we cant determine the point of origin?

am i wrong? the current model of the universe looks like a tree.....a little more concentrated in the center and kind of branching out.....

then it began in the center? blink.gif

and what is beyond our visible universe......just take a wild guess...... ph34r.gif

[CODE]
Harry Costas
Hello All

People hear of the Big Bang and offer their own ideas.

The expansion that they talk about is space/time and not actual distance.

OldWoman1904
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Feb 2 2008, 01:18 AM)
Hello All

People hear of the Big Bang and offer their own ideas.

The expansion that they talk about is space/time and not actual distance.

You are right sir...

Let's not even pretend to have a theory of how it all began....I am a Silly monkey...

But what do you mean? Expansion is just spacetime, not distance?

I dont get it blink.gif ?
Montec
Hello Oldwoman1904, et al.

If I may add a point or two.

Expansion is a vectorial based change or a change with direction. Expanding space/time is therefore an accelerating directional change.

The Hubble red shift implies (in current mainstream thought) that the father an object is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. This requires a dynamic (ie changing/accelerating) vectorial change (expansion) based only on the distance between objects. There is no possible way to explain the acceleration of these objects through normal impulse (force on an object) methods. To overcome this limitation the idea that space itself is expanding at an accelerated rate is required. To drive this ever changing expansion requires a "dark" force to be continually applied. This is where things get difficult. How do you measure something that cannot be isolated?

Space/time is a composite of two ideas into one. The Hubble red shift deals only with the space or changing distance aspect of space/time and ignores the possibility of a changing time aspect.

I have proposed this question before: Can anyone tell the difference between "expanding space" and "an accelerating time rate" as an explanation for the Hubble red shift?

A new question is: How fast would time pass (the rate of time) if no mass was around to slow it down? Cosmic inflation comes to mind.

smile.gif
Harry Costas
Hello All

The Big Bang theory is based on AD HOV ideas. That is ideas and not evidence to back up the theory.

Yes you will read hundreds of papers supporting the theory and yet when you look at the evidence, its not solid.

Metric expansion of space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_uni...tional_evidence

QUOTE
The expansion of space is conceptually different from other kinds of expansions and explosions that are seen in nature. Our understanding of the "fabric of the universe" (spacetime) requires that what we see normally as "space", "time", and "distance" are not absolutes, but are determined by a metric that can change. In the metric expansion of space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into "emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself changing. It is as if without objects themselves moving, space is somehow "growing" in between them. In the language of Riemannian geometry, expansion is an intrinsic effect: the universe is expanding, as measured intrinsically by distances between points, in contrast to the familiar extrinsic notion of an object expanding within an ambient space—there is no need for an ambient space to define expansion.

Because it is the metric defining distance that is changing rather than objects moving in space, this expansion (and the resultant movement apart of objects) is not restricted by the speed of light upper bound that results from special relativity.

Theory and observations suggest that very early in the history of the universe, there was an "inflationary" phase where this metric changed very rapidly, and that the remaining time-dependence of this metric is what we observe as the so-called Hubble expansion, the moving apart of all gravitationally unbound objects in the universe. The expanding universe is therefore a fundamental feature of the universe we inhabit—a universe fundamentally different from the static universe Albert Einstein first considered when he developed his gravitational theory.



The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The expansion of space is conceptually different from other kinds of expansions and explosions that are seen in nature. Our understanding of the "fabric of the universe" (spacetime) requires that what we see normally as "space", "time", and "distance" are not absolutes, but are determined by a metric that can change. In the metric expansion of space, rather than objects in a fixed "space" moving apart into "emptiness", it is the space that contains the objects which is itself changing. It is as if without objects themselves moving, space is somehow "growing" in between them. In the language of Riemannian geometry, expansion is an intrinsic effect: the universe is expanding, as measured intrinsically by distances between points, in contrast to the familiar extrinsic notion of an object expanding within an ambient space—there is no need for an ambient space to define expansion.

Because it is the metric defining distance that is changing rather than objects moving in space, this expansion (and the resultant movement apart of objects) is not restricted by the speed of light upper bound that results from special relativity.

Theory and observations suggest that very early in the history of the universe, there was an "inflationary" phase where this metric changed very rapidly, and that the remaining time-dependence of this metric is what we observe as the so-called Hubble expansion, the moving apart of all gravitationally unbound objects in the universe. The expanding universe is therefore a fundamental feature of the universe we inhabit—a universe fundamentally different from the static universe Albert Einstein first considered when he developed his gravitational theory.



The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

(1)  Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

            Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. [[2],[3]] Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained, Occam’s razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters – the static universe model.



and another 29 problems to read.

Have a nice day.
Grumpy
Harry Costas

I'm sorry, but your last post is disinformation.

The Big Bang theory is based on good solid evidence, the Cosmic Background radiation being only one piece. Space IS expanding and a Constant, Static Universe is simply not possible, given our current knowledge and observation. We still have much to learn, but a Static Universe can safely be discarded(as almost all Astronomers have done).

Meta Research is a crackpot site devoted mostly to the self flagellation of Tom Van Flandern.

Some of their ideas...


Artificial Structures on Mars

Proof of artificiality of Face on Mars

Does space curve?

And, of course, the whole reason the site exists...

On-line Store

Where they will sell you...

"Gravity" CD ($19)

Evolving Mars CD ($19)

Don't be a sucker, real scientists will gladly educate you for free.

Grumpy cool.gif
insight
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 9 2008, 08:34 AM)
Harry Costas

I'm sorry, but your last post is disinformation.

The Big Bang theory is based on good solid evidence, the Cosmic Background radiation being only one piece. Space IS expanding and a Constant, Static Universe is simply not possible, given our current knowledge and observation. We still have much to learn, but a Static Universe can safely be discarded(as almost all Astronomers have done).

Meta Research is a crackpot site devoted mostly to the self flagellation of Tom Van Flandern.

Some of their ideas...


Artificial Structures on Mars

Proof of artificiality of Face on Mars

Does space curve?

And, of course, the whole reason the site exists...

On-line Store

Where they will sell you...

"Gravity" CD ($19)

Evolving Mars CD ($19)

Don't be a sucker, real scientists will gladly educate you for free.

Grumpy cool.gif

This is true, but even people who enjoy the term "real scientists" have been stuck within their own egos and sometimes can not see real science or deduction because it counteracts their belief system. When logic and fact betray belief even " real scientists" let their ego, their blind am ambition ruin the way the facts show how the universe is really.
OldWoman1904
Montec......what do you mean vectoral?
tell me why it's wrong of me to think that it's growing.....like a tree...

so, the center is where the matter came from?
or where the energy came from?
Montec
Hello OldWoman1904, et al.

The term "vectorial" implies direction. In terms of a tree it could apply to the degree/number of branches as you move from the trunk to the leaves. The vector or direction is in the increasing number of branches. You can also apply direction or vector to the growth, girth and hight, of the tree over time.

I suppose that you could look at the universe as a growing tree and equate sunlight to "dark energy". Not sure if this comparison is very useful. I guess it would depend on the mind set (poetical?) of the individual.

In regaurd to the Big Bang, only energy came from the center. Matter condensed later from the expanded energy. It is conceivable that there was not just one point of expansion. There may have been many points of expansion. There is noway to tell.

smile.gif


OldWoman1904
are photons really indestructible?

if so, are there a fininte number of photons in the universe?

blink.gif
insight
No one knows if photons are indestructible in the sense of always able to stay intact with out time, but if it costs energy to propel energy and if it is not 100 % return then maybe the gravitational wave is given off.



Has anyone thought that the big bang was a critical mass of monopole waves and the big bang and inflation was the release of this critical monopole waves and the resulting volume increase is the substance that is called space yesterday and dark matter today and the gravitational wave tomorrow?





Imagine that matter still is releasing this gravitational monopole wave but at a constant slow rate per unit density. This kinda of explains the continuous expansion at an increased rate, and with out the necessity of a pulling but a wave alignment.
Michael Mozina
QUOTE
Has anyone thought that the big bang was a critical mass of monopole waves and the big bang and inflation was the release of this critical monopole waves and the resulting volume increase is the substance that is called space yesterday and dark matter today and the gravitational wave tomorrow?


From a skeptics perspective, I'm sure Guth and his followers have "thought" of, and *imagined* a lot of things. However, without any tangible empirical evidence that monopoles even exist in nature, let alone that they create "waves", it's hard to to put any faith in the concept.

The BB is littered with metaphysical constructs that tend to be a turn off to most skeptics of the concept.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

K. Margiani
If there would be even only one gigantic explosion, every galaxy would be moving without resistance through the universe after explosion. The universe would grow in volume little by little, galaxies would not be come into collision and quasars wouldn’t be create. If the theory of Hubbell is right, scientists couldn’t be able to see any quasars, galaxy merges, galaxy cannibalism and galaxies conglomerates with their powerful telescopes. We would not be discovered the invisible “Galaxy cannibalisms” in the universe (within centre of Andromeda) and we could have seen only red-shifts into nearest galaxies' spectrums. We would not be discovering M-87 and its similar centers of huge explosions.

The result of only one gigantic explosion would be cause to grow old all of the galaxies little by little. Every star would explode little by little, when they would exhaust their energy resources. Finish of the Hubbell’s theory is night sky without stars. After for milliards of years evolution whole universe would grow old little by little, galaxies would not be destroyed and stop its existence. Only the black holes, black interstellar clouds formed from the collapsed stars, and the night sky without stars would be left (DEAD UNIVERSE!!!). Hubble’s theory can not explain elementary cosmic phenomena; about future merging of Andromeda and our galaxies. Andromeda doesn’t has red-shift in its spectrum, why???

Red-shift is result of quantum tiredness only. Quantum help us to understand distance to the galaxy.


K. Margiani
BB-The dead universe theory

I’ve tired to discuss BB-The dead universe theory. We’ve discovered very many recycling and renewing processes. Galaxies chaotically moving in the universe, creating conglomerations by own huge gravitations. Galaxies have different direction in the conglomerations and this is reason hit and destroy or formation giant elliptical galaxies.
There are old red stars only within elliptical galaxies. Elliptical galaxies are formed after cyclonic merging. Merging two old spiral galaxies are reason of quasars formation inside.

1. Universe has no borders.
2. Universe has no origin.
3. Distribution galaxies are chaotically.
4. Distribution quasars are chaotically
5. Movement galaxies are very different (evidence is merging)
6. Main source of transfer energy in the universe is quasar.
7. Main recycling source in the renewable universe are hit between galaxies, quasars, black holes and stars.
You can read many interesting topics in the link.
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-9.htm

Lasand
Hello OldWoman1904,

In my view quanta can no longer be created or destroyed.

I read somewhere that there are a billion photons per particle.

Lasand
Harry Costas
Hello Margiani

you said

QUOTE
Elliptical galaxies are formed after cyclonic merging. Merging two old spiral galaxies are reason of quasars formation inside.


Read up on galaxy evolution and formation of quasars.

=============
Anatomy of a Galaxy in Evolution
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/anatomy.html#GalaxyList

=============
Galaxy evolution explorer

http://www.galex.caltech.edu/

=============
Recent and Ongoing Research Projects

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~spekkens/research.html

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

Galaxy Evolution

http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/teaching/phy111/summary9.html

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


Galaxy Formation and Evolution

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/galaxy00/

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


The Hubble Tuning Fork

http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/basic/gala.../tuningfork.asp


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Elliptical galaxies are formed after cyclonic merging. Merging two old spiral galaxies are reason of quasars formation inside.


Read up on galaxy evolution and formation of quasars.

=============
Anatomy of a Galaxy in Evolution
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/anatomy.html#GalaxyList

=============
Galaxy evolution explorer

http://www.galex.caltech.edu/

=============
Recent and Ongoing Research Projects

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~spekkens/research.html

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

Galaxy Evolution

http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/teaching/phy111/summary9.html

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


Galaxy Formation and Evolution

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/galaxy00/

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


The Hubble Tuning Fork

http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/basic/gala.../tuningfork.asp


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 my opinion hubble was right in the formation of the galaxies.

But! the funny thing is that a cyclic process exists Elliptical to Spiral to Elliptical to spiral and so on and it relates to the size and activity of the active neucleon that some call black hole.

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

Formation of a galaxy

http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/gal.html

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

In my opinion the above links are only theory
K. Margiani
Hello Harry Costas,

There are not true some links in the internet.
K. Margiani
RECYCLING AND RENEWABLE UNIVERSE
According scientific investigations axial merging (hit) impossible between Andromeda and our galaxies.
Future cyclonic merging of Andromeda and our galaxies will destroy its gravitational order. They will create elliptical galaxy. After billions of years mainly old red stars can form the new galaxy. We can observe very many different phase of similar events in the universe. Why elliptical galaxies consist of red stars mainly, clue is in the formation.
in the references links of wikipedia you can find many interesting topics about future merging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda-Milky_Way_collision


About cyclonic and axial merging you can read in the link.
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-9.htm
Harry Costas
Hello All


Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2965

QUOTE
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)
Abstract: In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.
The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He$^3$ and He$^4$). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.
In the later parts of the paper we briefly discuss the major unsolved problems of this integrated cosmological and cosmogonical scheme. These are the understanding of the origin of the intrinsic redshifts, and the periodicities in the redshift distribution of the QSOs.


Grumpy
K. Margiani

QUOTE
  If there would be even only one gigantic explosion, every galaxy would be moving without resistance through the universe after explosion. The universe would grow in volume little by little, galaxies would not be come into collision and quasars wouldn’t be create. If the theory of Hubbell is right, scientists couldn’t be able to see any quasars, galaxy merges, galaxy cannibalism and galaxies conglomerates with their powerful telescopes. We would not be discovered the invisible “Galaxy cannibalisms” in the universe (within centre of Andromeda) and we could have seen only red-shifts into nearest galaxies' spectrums. We would not be discovering M-87 and its similar centers of huge explosions.

The result of only one gigantic explosion would be cause to grow old all of the galaxies little by little. Every star would explode little by little, when they would exhaust their energy resources. Finish of the Hubbell’s theory is night sky without stars. After for milliards of years evolution whole universe would grow old little by little, galaxies would not be destroyed and stop its existence. Only the black holes, black interstellar clouds formed from the collapsed stars, and the night sky without stars would be left (DEAD UNIVERSE!!!). Hubble’s theory can not explain elementary cosmic phenomena; about future merging of Andromeda and our galaxies. Andromeda doesn’t has red-shift in its spectrum, why???

Red-shift is result of quantum tiredness only. Quantum help us to understand distance to the galaxy.


Absolute non-sense. Expansion from the BB is only ONE of the forces shaping our universe. Gravity also plays an important role in the evolution of the Galaxies, in fact, it plays the dominate role. And red shift is a direct result of the expansion of the universe, photons DO NOT GET TIRED.

Andromeda is actually traveling toward us because gravity is dominate, the expansion of the universe is not a factor in gravity bound systems(stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters and super clusters), it's affects are only measurable over extreme distances, gravity easily overpowers it at shorter ranges, just as magnetism, strong and weak forces overpower gravity at even shorter distances.

If you know nothing, you will believe anything.

Grumpy cool.gif
Harry Costas
Hello All


Grumpy said

QUOTE
Expansion from the BB is only ONE of the forces shaping our universe. Gravity also plays an important role in the evolution of the Galaxies, in fact, it plays the dominate role. And red shift is a direct result of the expansion of the universe, photons DO NOT GET TIRED.


Is there an expansion?

What type is it?

Is it actual distances?

or a space time thing?

What force are you talking about?

What created this force?

Can this force be duplicated?

Gravity and the Electromagnetic forces play a tango dance in the evolution and the formation of stars and galaxies. More so EM forces.

Gorgeous
"It should be pointed out that Hubble himself was not convinced that red shift was exclusively due to Doppler effect. Up to the time of his death he maintained that velocities inferred from red shift measurements should be referred to as apparent velocities." (Mitchell, 1997)


'Huygens principle' explanation for 'red shift'...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-hu...th-distance.htm



g.
Grumpy
Harry Costas

QUOTE
Is there an expansion?


Yes.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Is there an expansion?


Yes.

What type is it?

Is it actual distances?

or a space time thing?


Do you want the whole college level course???

QUOTE
What force are you talking about?


ForceS

Electro/magnetic
Gravity
Strong Nuclear
Weak Nuclear
Vacuum Energy?


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What force are you talking about?


ForceS

Electro/magnetic
Gravity
Strong Nuclear
Weak Nuclear
Vacuum Energy?


What created this force?

Can this force be duplicated?


Again, do you want the whole college level course in one post???

QUOTE
Gravity and the Electromagnetic forces play a tango dance in the evolution and the formation of stars and galaxies. More so EM forces.


Ummm...No.

Gorgeous

The Big Bang theories are (almost) universally accepted because of the mounting evidence. Someday evidence for other explanations COULD be found(as in all science), but I wouldn't bet on it.

Grumpy cool.gif
DavidD
Big bang theory is speculative like faster than light expansion. All energy was in one point - this statement is speculative.
Grumpy
DavidD

QUOTE
  Big bang theory is speculative like faster than light expansion. All energy was in one point - this statement is speculative.


Only in the sense that if you saw a brilliant flash and a huge mushroom cloud, if you measured radiation and fallout as well as massive destruction and cockroaches grew to the size of a bus it would be speculative to say that an Atomic weapon had detonated. There is actually much more evidence of the Big Bang, but you get my point.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims and flies like a duck and has a ducky girlfriend and a bunch of little ducky kids, it's fairly safe to speculate that it is, indeed, a duck.

At least that's what all those guys who make their living studying these things say.

But the uneducated amateur says....


Grumpy cool.gif
Gorgeous
Gorgeous

QUOTE
The Big Bang theories are (almost) universally accepted because of the mounting evidence. Someday evidence for other explanations COULD be found(as in all science), but I wouldn't bet on it.


Strange statement, Grumpy, 'universally accepted'? If Hubble himself was skeptical (a Real scientist!) it must be quite a shaky premise indeed. I think the 'popularity' is due to politics, not necessarily many people actually understanding much at all.

Can you explain exactly what the universe is 'banging' into...?



g.
Grumpy
Gorgeous

QUOTE
Strange statement, Grumpy, 'universally accepted'? If Hubble himself was skeptical (a Real scientist!) it must be quite a shaky premise indeed


Are you assuming that we haven't learned anything since Hubble expressed his doubts??? The Big Bang theories are not chiseled in stone, but they are very solid, nonetheless. They are "almost universally accepted" because the evidence supports them and for no other reason. In fact, the more we have studied them, the more certain they have become, our universe began as a hot, dense one which has been expanding ever since. The latest studies indicate that the expansion is speeding up, due to a previously unknown force called Dark Energy. We still have much to learn, but that does not mean we know nothing.

Grumpy cool.gif
K. Margiani
Grumpy sorry, I don’t like discuss to the grumpy opponent.
You’ve studied nothing (the dead theory) for decades. Good for you.
I’m fighting for young generation only
Grumpy
K. Margiani

QUOTE
Grumpy sorry, I don’t like discuss to the grumpy opponent.
You’ve studied nothing (the dead theory) for decades. Good for you.
I’m fighting for young generation only


I don't like to fight with an unarmed opponent, so it's best you avoid me. But the young have no desire to be stupid, so no, you are not doing anything for them, in fact it was a very young researcher who found the Dark Energy causing the accelerating expansion of the universe. You and your delusions are as useless to them as they are to anyone else. Go and learn something before you try challenging the results of lifetimes of work by some very smart people.

Grumpy cool.gif
Gorgeous
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 27 2008, 12:02 PM)
Gorgeous



Are you assuming that we haven't learned anything since Hubble expressed his doubts??? The Big Bang theories are not chiseled in stone, but they are very solid, nonetheless. They are "almost universally accepted" because the evidence supports them and for no other reason. In fact, the more we have studied them, the more certain they have become, our universe began as a hot, dense one which has been expanding ever since. The latest studies indicate that the expansion is speeding up, due to a previously unknown force called Dark Energy. We still have much to learn, but that does not mean we know nothing.

Grumpy cool.gif

QUOTE
Can you explain exactly what the universe is 'banging' into...?


And how about the above?




I never said that 'we know nothing' - quite the contrary. We know plenty...too much for some people, it would seem.



QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Can you explain exactly what the universe is 'banging' into...?


And how about the above?




I never said that 'we know nothing' - quite the contrary. We know plenty...too much for some people, it would seem.



the more certain they have become
laugh.gif - A joke, right?



g.
K. Margiani
GRUMPY OPPONENT
True theory has no problems for decades.
The old scientific fairy-tale has proved velocity of extended matter is higher of light???
The dead theory can not explain still, which force gathered all universe matter in one point.

Quantum is moving for billions of light years through inter-galaxy space. It meets enough barriers of wandering nuclear and molecular masses. This is clue of its wave frequency reduction and red shift (quantum tiredness). Truth is easy to explain. Truth is victorious. You are discussing endless about dark energy, dark matter, etc and earn a lot of money for foolish evidences.
I'm author of modern cosmogeological theory about recycling and renewing in the universe
www.cosmogeology.ge
iseason
QUOTE (kjw+Jan 16 2008, 06:14 AM)

hello sylvia biggrin.gif

the big bang theory does not talk about a massive explosion. the theory states that in the past the universe must of been very dense and very hot, then it expanded, became less dense and cooled. the expansion of the universe was not the outward movement of matter, the expansion was the literal stretching of space and during this stretching matter "precipitated" out of the intense energy of the early hot universe.

the theory is the best model of the universe currently available, as it is backed up with lots of experimental data and observations.

start here: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/cosmology.php

KJW

The problem is that big bang actually prevents the interaction of the smallest particles, (and therefore any other size) because it represents the densest possible state.

Unless that state can be reproduced, there is no way the smallest state of matter (and any forces) could affect each other.You could argue that the state does exist as subatomic energies. The trouble is that in order for a smallest energy or particle to remain glued together is to use another smaller particle.

This can only leave an external energy to create the pressure. But that is not what Big Bang is about and is not possible while there is any unevenness about the universes distribution.

Iseason
Grumpy
iseason

At the energy levels of a hot dense early universe no particle CAN exist, in fact, until the inflation process occurred it is thought that gravity, EM, strong and weak forces were all one force and that time, as we know it now, was non-existent, thus no speed of light problem(for the first few milliseconds).

K. Margiani

I don't know, nor do I care, who you think you are, but you are no Einstein, judging solely by the gobbledegoop you have posted. It's pure rubbish.

Gorgeous

QUOTE
Can you explain exactly what the universe is 'banging' into...?


It is EXPANDING into existence, it is called an explosion(thus the "bang"), but it is closer to bread rising, that is, if that bread was all that existed.

Grumpy cool.gif
K. Margiani
Grumpy opponent you and your adherents never support Truth, because they are spending a lot of money for your wrong and rubbish but truth is victorious.
Harry Costas
Hello All

Grumpy said

QUOTE
The Big Bang theories are (almost) universally accepted because of the mounting evidence. Someday evidence for other explanations COULD be found(as in all science), but I wouldn't bet on it.


In the last 6 months many cosmologists are having second thoughts over the BBT.

Particularly with the super cluster of clusters of galaxies unable to be formed in just 14 billion years in comparison to a super star having the same age. Imagine the difference between one star and trillion and trillion within a super cluster of glusters of galaxies containing these stars.

As for the mounting evidence for the BBT. Name one evidence that is not build up with ad hoc ideas.

We are entering a new ERA in cosmology. NO BULL THEORIES. Supported by cash flows and politics.

Sir Carnage
It saddens me to think that the elctromegnetic force failed to split apart when the superforce split off into gravity then into the nuclear strong force,weak force and then the electromagnetic force.

I believe that the electromagnetic failed to split up into 2 separate forces such as the electro and magnetics force, hence the others splitting up.....

The universe is expanding - and so it stands to reason that, in the past , everything must have been closer together.

If the motion of the galaxies we see today is reversed , it leads back to an instant 13 billion years ago when they all occupied a single point . This was the origin of the explosion we now call, the big bang.
Harry Costas
Hello Sir


Two points

Look up expansion and singularity.


And you will find a per the BBT. Expansion refers to space/time and not actual expansion and that the single point spoken is not one point but very many throughout space that occured at the same time.

Here are a few links on the BBT

A Brief History of the Universe
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_history.html

Creation of a Cosmology:
Big Bang Theory
http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html


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

Five Ages of the Universe
http://www.fathom.com/course/10701055/index.html

History of the Big Bang Theory
http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.c...big_bang_theory

The Expanding Universe

http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/astro/universe/universe.asp


14. Cosmology: The Birth and Life of the Cosmos
http://itc.gsw.edu/faculty/skostov/Old%20S...20Cosmology.pdf

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

Simulating the joint evolution of quasars, galaxies
and their large-scale distribution
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/mil...ium/0504097.pdf


I could post hundreds of links supporting the BBT and yet you need to see the trees through the forest.

Lord Vladimir
If you were smart enough "Harry", you would have noticed, that you could use the original post and change it from " it leads back to an instant 13 billion years ago when they all occupied a single point . " to " it leads back to an instant 13 billion years ago when they all occupied multiple points" instead of bragging about and trying to exploit me like how you just did.

That's IF you were smart.
Gorgeous
QUOTE
Gorgeous
QUOTE
Can you explain exactly what the universe is 'banging' into...?


It is EXPANDING into existence, it is called an explosion(thus the "bang"), but it is closer to bread rising, that is, if that bread was all that existed.



So, it is 'expanding' into itself, then?



g.
K. Margiani
Where you come from Lord Vladimir?
Cкажите пожалуйста! Какая сила из собиратель всю массу вселенни в одной точке.
You and your adherents could not explain “creator” of the initial point for decades???
Lord Vladimir
QUOTE (K. Margiani+Feb 29 2008, 08:29 AM)
Where you come from Lord Vladimir?
Cкажите пожалуйста! Какая сила из собиратель всю массу вселенни в одной точке.
You and your adherents could not explain “creator” of the initial point for decades???

посмотрите, я был рожден в Австралии, но я посещаю vladivostok и moscow regurarly, dont I beleive в боге достаточно сказали
K. Margiani
Да вы вытрехиваите эти старие научные сказки из голови о большом взрыве, новая эра начинается.
iseason
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 28 2008, 02:43 PM)
iseason

At the energy levels of a hot dense early universe no particle CAN exist, in fact, until the inflation process occurred it is thought that gravity, EM, strong and weak forces were all one force and that time, as we know it now, was non-existent, thus no speed of light problem(for the first few milliseconds).

K. Margiani

I don't know, nor do I care, who you think you are, but you are no Einstein, judging solely by the gobbledegoop you have posted. It's pure rubbish.

Gorgeous



It is EXPANDING into existence, it is called an explosion(thus the "bang"), but it is closer to bread rising, that is, if that bread was all that existed.

Grumpy cool.gif

Grumpy

I am so hurt that you don't think I am an Einstein.....Makes me want to give up learning and asking questions now.......Now back to reality..

No matter what you view the original "force" "particle" Soup" or "broccoli", there is a point of indivisibility. At the level, it creates all the other conditions, whether they are heat , photon' , what existed before photons.....everything....
Something must expand to push out and something causes pressure to hold mass together. Given that there will be a smaller state, there is nothing it can do to bind the next size up (Multiples of itself).....All you are actually using in big bang is creating time to present an illusion. Fortunately , you have managed to convince people that time IS something .....time on it's own is nothing,,,,,,motion needs time and space to measure it...space needs time and motion to measure it......But none of there can stand in their own right and so cannot actually exist.

Cheers
Iseason
Gorgeous
Iseason,
Grumpy was pointing out to k. margarini, that s/he 'is no Einstein', as I am pointing out to you your lack of attention to detail. (Unless, of course, you are the same 'poster', with two separate names?)

'Time' is not separate from Motion. The one 'ticking' is a subjective description of the 'other'.


g.
Grumpy
Georgeous

The expansion of the universe can be thought of as the unfolding of the three space dimensions and the beginning of time. The evidence of this event is overwhelming and cannot be dismissed by...the less informed members posting on this thread. You, at least, seem willing to ask questions, instead of just asserting crank theories.

BDW posted this excellent resource, I hope he doesn't mind if I "Plagiarize" him.


Classical Physics
Classical Mechanics
Special Relativity
General Relativity
Nuclear Physics
Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Field Theory
String Theory
M-Theory

Big Bang Theory - The Premise

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory

What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

So that is the BB theory in a nutshell. And it is accepted as valid by almost all Astronomers and Astrophysicists, despite any agenda driven claims to the contrary.

Grumpy cool.gif
Gorgeous
QUOTE
Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing



It is this 'nothing' that causes all the problems, Grumpy.

What do YOU think? Do YOU think that something (actually, the entirety of Existence!) can come from 'nothing'?

If so, what is it that makes YOU think this is so?




g.
Grumpy
Gorgeous

QUOTE
It is this 'nothing' that causes all the problems, Grumpy.

What do YOU think? Do YOU think that something (actually, the entirety of Existence!) can come from 'nothing'?

If so, what is it that makes YOU think this is so?


Actually, the universe(something) came from something else, but what that something else was is not visible from our side of the singularity. And that something else did not have width, breadth or length, nor did it experience time as we know it, all of these were "born" at the moment of expansion and only exist inside the area of that expansion. What, if anything, exists outside the Universe is not accessible from inside.

Grumpy cool.gif
K. Margiani
Cosmic Evolution in a Cyclic Universe
Grumpy opponent open your mind.
Evolution stages of galaxy formation:
1. Axial hit between galaxies
2. Extension stage. Erupted proto-galactic masses moving through elliptical galaxy begin extending.
3. Compression stage. Extended thick proto-galactic plasmatic masses begin compressing. There is forming ultra dense nucleus (UDN) inside, by huge gravitation of thick proto-galactic plasmatic masses. There are demolishing everything to the level of protons and neutrons within UDN.
4. Formation working core and shell (Super-massive parent star of a galaxy). At the end of compression, enormous star-like body is formed. It can has mass of millions or billions of times bigger mass of our Sun.
Dwarf and giant spiral galaxies formation after powerful eruptions from poles of parent star.
After powerful eruptions from poles of parent star are formed spiral galaxies. Of course size of future spiral galaxy is closely connected to the size of its parent star.
a) Small parent star creates globular cluster. (there is eruption all over the surface of small parent star)
cool.gif Average sized parent star creates small spiral galaxies. (There is eruption from magnetic poles and formation two branches).
c) Super-massive parent star creates giant spiral galaxy. (There is eruption from magnetic poles and formation two branches too).
Note. dwarf galaxies are ejected in the inter-galactic space. They are very different small conglomeration of stars. After powerful eruptions from magnetic poles; size, eruption process and gravitation of parent star permanently is decreasing. because it can loss small parts to the end of a branches.
dwarf galaxies are ejected in the inter-galactic space by Quasars too. We can see proto-galactic fiery masses on the radio map of M87 ejected from quasar. They can create globular clusters mainly.
Elliptical galaxy M87 is a type of galaxy that looks much different than our own Milky Way Galaxy. Even for an elliptical galaxy, though, M87 is peculiar. M87 is much bigger than an average galaxy, appears near the center of a whole cluster of galaxies known as the Virgo Cluster, and shows an unusually high number of globular clusters. These globular clusters are visible as faint spots surrounding the bright center of M87. In general, elliptical galaxies contain similar numbers of stars as spiral galaxies, but are ellipsoidal in shape (spirals are mostly flat), have no spiral structure, and little gas and dust. The above image of M87 was taken recently by the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on top of the dormant volcano Mauna Kea in Hawaii, USA.
usually dwarf neighbors galaxies can cannibalized by giant spiral or elliptical galaxies. At the end of the XX century scientific technical progress enabled us to follow such a strange process as the birth of the proto-galaxies masses. space event in the 3C438 is one of the evidences of recycling and renewing in the universe.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c438/3c438_radio.jpg
 We can see extended proto-galactic plasma clouds of different size. Galaxy M87 has the active small quasar inside. From its one of the magnetic poles is the process of permanent eruption still. Radio astronomy enabled us to look into the center of Galaxy M87.
Centaurus A is merging of two galaxies. Radio Map has decoded event (axial hit) after hit two galactic nucleuses.
CentaurusA (Radio map) http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu//cosmic...ultiwavelength_
museum/cenA.html
3C438 (Radio map) http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c438/3c438_radio.jpg
There are almost same radio images of Centaurus A and 3C438. Both hit of two galaxies are reason of formation two proto-galactic nuclear and molecular thick clouds.
Gorgeous
QUOTE
Gorgeous

QUOTE
It is this 'nothing' that causes all the problems, Grumpy.

What do YOU think? Do YOU think that something (actually, the entirety of Existence!) can come from 'nothing'?

If so, what is it that makes YOU think this is so?


Actually, the universe(something) came from something else, but what that something else was is not visible from our side of the singularity. And that something else did not have width, breadth or length, nor did it experience time as we know it, all of these were "born" at the moment of expansion and only exist inside the area of that expansion. What, if anything, exists outside the Universe is not accessible from inside.

Grumpy cool.gif


And this is all YOUR thinking, is it?

So tell, HOW do YOU know this is so? What is this 'something else' that you are so certain actually exists?



g.
Grumpy
Gorgeous

QUOTE
And this is all YOUR thinking, is it?

So tell, HOW do YOU know this is so? What is this 'something else' that you are so certain actually exists?


It is a distillation of 8 years of study and over 30 years of teaching and continuing education in the Physics field, yes.

What the "something else" is or was, we have no clues(at least, not yet). "Something else" is what we call it to distinguish it from "nothing", though, by the measures available in our universe, it could well be nothing. In any case, speculation about the whatever that came before the BB is useless, our kind of "existence" started there.

Grumpy cool.gif
K. Margiani
Grumpy opponent. Epoch of your dead theory is come close to the grave. Do you want to go in the grave? Now is beginning new great epoch of cyclic universe. Print in the search bar of the Google “cyclic universe”. If you are not blind man, you can find very many researches. There are the topics for open minds only!!! Not for closed minds…
Watch and listen attentively
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/roger-pe...odel/2235950917
8 years of study and over 30 years of teaching does not mean every topic was right. You have to change your teaching topics. You have to teach cyclic theory too. Your students will choose what the truth is
Gorgeous
QUOTE
What the "something else" is or was, we have no clues(at least, not yet).


So how do you know it is true then?



g.
Montec
Hello all

I prefer to view the "Big Bang" as the "Big Crunch". For a visual model just look at two colliding soap bubbles. The interface between them forms a flat surface. The energy of the collision was the Big Bang. The expansion phase was, in part, a geometric result of the collision. The "bubbles" are also likely to be sliding past each other since a head on collision has a low probability.

Matter can then be looked at as an "oil" that lubricates the interface between the colliding "bubbles". It does this by reflecting back and forth as "energy packets" across the collision zone. In the act of reflecting the "bubbles" are pushed apart which causes a deformation in the bubble's surfaces. The angle of reflection is thus changed for any other "energy packets" in the local area. IE gravity is the warping of two surfaces.

Just some thoughts.

smile.gif

K. Margiani
Hello all. midnight here now 00:02 in the Georgia.
I wish you very many SPRINGS!!!
axial Hit, and cyclonic merging between galaxies are the possibility of a recycles in the Universe, a cosmology in which the Universe matter undergoes a periodic sequence of expansion and contraction. Each cycle begins with a “big bang” and ends in a “big merging,” only to emerge in a big bang once again. The expansion phase of each cycle includes a period of radiation-, matter-, and quintessence-domination, the last phase of which corresponds to the current epoch of nuclear and molecular acceleration. The accelerated expansion phase dilutes by an exponential factor the entropy and the density of black holes and any other debris produced since the preceding big bang. The acceleration ultimately ends, and it is followed by a period of decelerating expansion and then contraction. At the transition from big expansion to big contraction, matter and radiation are created, restoring the parent nucleus of proto-galaxies nebulas, and its high density required for formation ultra dense nucleus (working core), fiery shell of light elements and eruption new stars. Historically, cyclic models have been considered attractive because they avoid the issue of initial conditions.(important problem of the BB theory for decades) Examples can be found in mythologies and philosophies dating back to the beginning of recorded history. Since the introduction of general relativity, though, various problems with the cyclic concept have emerged. In the 1930’s, Richard Tolman3 discussed cyclic models consisting of a closed Universe with zero cosmological constant. He pointed out that entropy generated in one cycle would add to the entropy created in the next. Consequently, the maximal size of the Universe, and the duration of a cycle, increase from bounce to bounce. Extrapolating backwards, the duration of the bounce converges to zero in a finite time.
CentaurusA (Radio map)
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu//cosmic...useum/cenA.html

3C438 (Radio map)
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c438/3c438_radio.jpg
The links above are very strong evidences of my modern cosmogeological Theory about recycling and renewing in the universe.
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/
Grumpy
K. Margiani

You confuse an open mind with an empty one. I have been studying physics my whole life, including many theories outside the mainstream. Those theories just do not hold up(example, yours), while the Hot/Dense beginning has been confirmed over and over. Relativity itself shows a static universe is not stable and quickly collapses, so a continuously recycling universe is also impossible.

So stop wasting our time with this crackpot, claptrap, garbage. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Gorgeous

QUOTE
So how do you know it is true then?


Because it fits all the available evidence??? What is your point???

Grumpy cool.gif
K. Margiani
Grumpy opponent
All modern theories about cyclic universe are for open minds only, not for you. Good lack! Please follow the dead theory to the graveyard. I’ll help you.
- video http://video.aol.com/video-detail/roger-pe...odel/2235950917
It means Roger Penrose is crackpot, claptrap, garbage…
crackpot, claptrap, garbage,.. You need doctor, I’m sorry for your students>>>
K. Margiani
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
It is supported by my modern cosmogeological theory http://www.cosmogeology.ge/
Jayant V. Narlikar, Geofrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma
1.Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune 411007,Indiai
2.Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California, SanDiego, CA 92093-0424, USA
3.Department of Mathematics, Autonomous University of Zacatecas, Zacatecas, ZAC C.P. 98060, Mexico
We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.
The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He3 and He4). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.2965v1.pdf
Grumpy opponent please don’t answer. This is not for your mind.
I’ve tired discussing to you. Good bye.
Edward 3
Hey Guys,
Why are you arguing about theory? Have you not heard - the expansion rate is increasing all the time. The cyclical model is dead, except for those who are too blind to see!!
iseason
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Feb 29 2008, 11:50 AM)
Iseason,
Grumpy was pointing out to k. margarini, that s/he 'is no Einstein', as I am pointing out to you your lack of attention to detail. (Unless, of course, you are the same 'poster', with two separate names?)

'Time' is not separate from Motion. The one 'ticking' is a subjective description of the 'other'.


g.

My apologies to grumpy

I ALWAYS post as Iseason.

Unlike the person I am replying to
Grumpy
iseason

QUOTE
I ALWAYS post as Iseason.

Unlike the person I am replying to


I am Grumpy, and have always been Grumpy. It is what my students named me and I have never(IE not once) posted ANYWHERE under any other name.

Edward 3

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I ALWAYS post as Iseason.

Unlike the person I am replying to


I am Grumpy, and have always been Grumpy. It is what my students named me and I have never(IE not once) posted ANYWHERE under any other name.

Edward 3

Hey Guys,
Why are you arguing about theory? Have you not heard - the expansion rate is increasing all the time. The cyclical model is dead, except for those who are too blind to see!!


Thank you, that is exactly what I have been telling K. Margiani. His "recyclic" universe is not a possibility, the evidence does not support it. Montec had some interesting input, similar to the branes of M theory, and a cyclic universe was always concidered possible(until the latest observations ruled it out). But the Hot/Dense early universe has been confirmed to a high degree, there are still a lot of details to be determined, but the basic facts are known. K. Margiani is a crackpot, wanabe cosmologist who is unwilling to learn what is already known before he makes up stuff of his own.

K. Margiani

QUOTE
It means Roger Penrose is crackpot, claptrap, garbage…


Penrose, Hawking and Ellis actually studied the universe and were able to connect Relativity to Space/Time in an extention of Einsteins work. They PROVED a static eternal universe is not possible. Forgive me if I accept the work of all these great minds over the spew of a nut on the internet. When it comes to cosmology, you're not qualified to make their coffee(or tea as the case may be).

BUG OFF.

Grumpy cool.gif
K. Margiani
QUOTE (Edward 3+Feb 29 2008, 09:30 PM)
Why are you arguing about theory? Have you not heard - the expansion rate is increasing all the time. The cyclical model is dead, except for those who are too blind to see!!

Where you from? I think you were in the cave. What is dead! It is creating just!
If you are not blind man search through the Google “cyclic universe”. You’ll find very many researches.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19...-from-ours.html
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/medi...uldResize=False

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.2965v1.pdf

Roger Penrose – video interview
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/roger-pe...odel/2235950917
………….. I can sand thousands of links…
iseason
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 1 2008, 05:42 AM)
iseason



I am Grumpy, and have always been Grumpy. It is what my students named me and I have never(IE not once) posted ANYWHERE under any other name.

Edward 3



Thank you, that is exactly what I have been telling K. Margiani. His "recyclic" universe is not a possibility, the evidence does not support it. Montec had some interesting input, similar to the branes of M theory, and a cyclic universe was always concidered possible(until the latest observations ruled it out). But the Hot/Dense early universe has been confirmed to a high degree, there are still a lot of details to be determined, but the basic facts are known. K. Margiani is a crackpot, wanabe cosmologist who is unwilling to learn what is already known before he makes up stuff of his own.

K. Margiani



Penrose, Hawking and Ellis actually studied the universe and were able to connect Relativity to Space/Time in an extention of Einsteins work. They PROVED a static eternal universe is not possible. Forgive me if I accept the work of all these great minds over the spew of a nut on the internet. When it comes to cosmology, you're not qualified to make their coffee(or tea as the case may be).

BUG OFF.

Grumpy cool.gif


LOL...............You didn't read who I was replying to in the quote....

Oh...Good times.......LOL

Cheers
Iseason
Harry Costas
Hello All

Grumpy said

QUOTE
Thank you, that is exactly what I have been telling K. Margiani. His "recyclic" universe is not a possibility, the evidence does not support it. Montec had some interesting input, similar to the branes of M theory, and a cyclic universe was always concidered possible(until the latest observations ruled it out). But the Hot/Dense early universe has been confirmed to a high degree, there are still a lot of details to be determined, but the basic facts are known. K. Margiani is a crackpot, wanabe cosmologist who is unwilling to learn what is already known before he makes up stuff of his own.


The recyclic universe has no ownership, it is one theory just like the BBT.

The hot/dense universe has not been confirmed with evidence but with add hoc ideas to make it fit the model.

Naming people as crank pots is a cop out to try to win an arguement.

Margiani may not have all the answers, but his not unwilling to learn.

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

Critical comment on Crisis in Cosmology

http://www.marxist.com/crisis-in-cosmology-reply061205.htm


The New Cosmology Confronts
Observation

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/cmb_c02.../pdf/Nelson.pdf


The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-03-03.PDF


Fingers of God

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Thank you, that is exactly what I have been telling K. Margiani. His "recyclic" universe is not a possibility, the evidence does not support it. Montec had some interesting input, similar to the branes of M theory, and a cyclic universe was always concidered possible(until the latest observations ruled it out). But the Hot/Dense early universe has been confirmed to a high degree, there are still a lot of details to be determined, but the basic facts are known. K. Margiani is a crackpot, wanabe cosmologist who is unwilling to learn what is already known before he makes up stuff of his own.


The recyclic universe has no ownership, it is one theory just like the BBT.

The hot/dense universe has not been confirmed with evidence but with add hoc ideas to make it fit the model.

Naming people as crank pots is a cop out to try to win an arguement.

Margiani may not have all the answers, but his not unwilling to learn.

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

Critical comment on Crisis in Cosmology

http://www.marxist.com/crisis-in-cosmology-reply061205.htm


The New Cosmology Confronts
Observation

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/cmb_c02.../pdf/Nelson.pdf


The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-03-03.PDF


Fingers of God

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm

The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe.



Introduction to Cosmology: Problems of the Big bang Theory

http://open-site.org/Science/Physics/Cosmo...blems_Big_Bang/

QUOTE
Since the Big Bang theory of Cosmology is so commonly accepted it is important that suitable scientific scrutiny is focussed on this theory.
Here we consider the old big bang problems (of the singularity, smoothness, horizon, and flatness) and the failed solutions of inflation theory; newer Big Bang problems relating to missing mass (as required for a flat inflationary universe), the age of the universe, radiation from the "decoupling" ("smearing" of black body spectrum), Big Bang chronology, the abundance of light elements, and red shift anomalies; and problems, newer yet, regarding inconsistencies of red shift interpretation, curved space, inflation theory, the decelerating expansion of a Big Bang universe, and some additional logical inconsistencies of Big Bang theory.



Before the Big Bang
by John G. Cramer

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw94.html
Interesting reading


The Big Bang – Common Misconceptions
http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/0...onceptions.html


The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
A must read.


Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Since the Big Bang theory of Cosmology is so commonly accepted it is important that suitable scientific scrutiny is focussed on this theory.
Here we consider the old big bang problems (of the singularity, smoothness, horizon, and flatness) and the failed solutions of inflation theory; newer Big Bang problems relating to missing mass (as required for a flat inflationary universe), the age of the universe, radiation from the "decoupling" ("smearing" of black body spectrum), Big Bang chronology, the abundance of light elements, and red shift anomalies; and problems, newer yet, regarding inconsistencies of red shift interpretation, curved space, inflation theory, the decelerating expansion of a Big Bang universe, and some additional logical inconsistencies of Big Bang theory.



Before the Big Bang
by John G. Cramer

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw94.html
Interesting reading


The Big Bang – Common Misconceptions
http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/0...onceptions.html


The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
A must read.


Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm


A concession speech may be unlikely in 2005, but the progressive decline of one of the twentieth century’s most popular theories now seems inescapable. The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us). It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter. Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.



Big Bang Distortions
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050214bigbang.htm

QUOTE
Halton Arp's intrinsic redshift observations contradict the big bang's assumption that redshift is a measure of distance (and thus of age; the higher the redshift, the farther away  from us and the closer to the beginning of the universe). Can this contradiction be tested? Three clues should be obvious: if redshift is distorting distance, then size, energy and distribution will all be systematically out of proportion as well.



Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Halton Arp's intrinsic redshift observations contradict the big bang's assumption that redshift is a measure of distance (and thus of age; the higher the redshift, the farther away  from us and the closer to the beginning of the universe). Can this contradiction be tested? Three clues should be obvious: if redshift is distorting distance, then size, energy and distribution will all be systematically out of proportion as well.



Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."



Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/...lletcluster.htm

QUOTE
Optical and x-ray images of the galaxy cluster named 1E0657-56 have provided direct proof that these clumps of disturbed galaxies are small, faint, and nearby. These and many similar observations directly contradict the foundational assumptions of the Big Bang, which place the objects far away.



Two world systems revisited: A comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15526487

Cosmology and the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/cosmo.htm


Crisis in Cosmology
http://www.marxist.com/crisis-in-cosmology241105.htm



Death Star
The Galaxy that Killed the Big Bang

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040914star.htm

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Optical and x-ray images of the galaxy cluster named 1E0657-56 have provided direct proof that these clumps of disturbed galaxies are small, faint, and nearby. These and many similar observations directly contradict the foundational assumptions of the Big Bang, which place the objects far away.



Two world systems revisited: A comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15526487

Cosmology and the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/cosmo.htm


Crisis in Cosmology
http://www.marxist.com/crisis-in-cosmology241105.htm



Death Star
The Galaxy that Killed the Big Bang

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040914star.htm

For 80 years cosmology has been cascading down a riverbed carved through disciplines and institutions, careers, funding and journals.  It began with an assumption now proven false by the image above, and it must begin again from its source in empiricism and flow in another direction.  All that's counted as known -- the Big Bang, the expanding universe, the structure of the cosmos--must be left as a dry stream in history books.



A Prosaic Explanation for the Observation of Red Shifts in Distant Galaxies
http://www.contrarianthinker.com/Red%20Shift.htm

QUOTE
Let me begin by drawing your attention to the following critique of current Big Bang Theory (BBT)

"In 1929, a Cal-Tech astronomer named Edwin Hubble observed that objects which appeared to be much further away showed a more pronounced shift towards the red end of the spectrum. Scientists building on Hubble's discovery concluded that the farther an object was away from Earth, the faster it was receding, and calculated the relationship between distance and velocity, called the "Hubble Constant" and concluded on the basis of this one observed fact and the assumption that there was no other explanation for that observed fact that the universe was expanding."

and

"Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe. 

  Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the "explanation" that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology theory is that the universe enjoyed a period of "rulelessness" of about  3 seconds, after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe, gravity included, were functioning as we see them today.

  Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large.

  Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is found at  http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060.



The Top 30 Problems with
the Big Bang
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF


Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

http://metaresearch.org/publications/bulle...Mrb06cp8.asp#T1

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

What I'm trying to say is keep an open mind to other options and theories.


Lord Vladimir
QUOTE (K. Margiani+Feb 29 2008, 10:35 AM)
Да вы вытрехиваите эти старие научные сказки из голови о большом взрыве, новая эра начинается.

здравствулте! там, помилованием я, а моими "теориями" не будут сказки...... пожалуйста было более вежливо следующее время..., котор я не очень fond быть сделанным потехой!!
Grumpy
Harry Costas

Crack pot is as Crackpot does.

You just posted the biggest load of unprocessed male Bovine feces I have seen in some while. Everything I said to K. Margianai applies equally as well to you.

The Hot/Dense early universe isn't going away, almost daily new observations give more evidence of it's simple truth.

Have you ever wondered why no one usually answers any of your posts??? Ever read any of your feedback??? Do you know why your threads end up being so short lived???

NO ONE HERE WANTS TO WASTE ANY TIME WITH YOUR CONCENTRATED BULL POO, NOR DO THEY WANT TO INTERRUPT YOUR MENTAL MASTURBATION.

Grumpy cool.gif
K. Margiani
Grumpy opponent: I’ll continue discussing to you, but before discussing you have to send paper of your doctor about your health.
You have closed and cloned mind! You and your adherents are blame for crises in the Cosmology, because BB is wrong.

space and time exist forever
the big bang is not the beginning of time; rather, it is a bridge to a pre-existing contracting era
the Universe matter undergoes an endless sequence of cycles in which it contracts in a big merge and re-emerges in an expanding big bang, with trillions of years of evolution in between
the temperature and density of the universe do not become infinite at any point in the cycle; indeed, they never exceed a finite bound (about a trillion trillion degrees)
inflation of nuclear and molecular masses (matter) have taken place since the big bang; the current homogeneity and flatness were created by next events that occurred after big compression of the matter and formation of the parent star.
the seed for our galaxy formation was created by instabilities arising as the Universe matter was collapsing towards a big merge, prior to our big bang
New matter of galaxy is formed after recycling of matter from big merging and big bang.
K. Margiani
QUOTE (Lord Vladimir+Mar 1 2008, 11:12 AM)
здравствулте! там, помилованием я, а моими "теориями" не будут сказки...... пожалуйста было более вежливо следующее время..., котор я не очень fond быть сделанным потехой!!

Да ты парен я выжу барахтаешся в русском писаные. Ты что потомок князов что-ли. Я автор новой теорий и могильшик Хабла. http://www.cosmogeology.ge
удача тебе… Kaxa.
Grumpy
K. Margiani

QUOTE
You have closed and cloned mind!


No, I have a well educated and open mind, but it is not an empty one and I can spot a crackpot by simply viewing what they post. You are the poster boy of all crackpots and your so called "secrets of the universe" is pure male bovine barnyard fertilizer.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You have closed and cloned mind!


No, I have a well educated and open mind, but it is not an empty one and I can spot a crackpot by simply viewing what they post. You are the poster boy of all crackpots and your so called "secrets of the universe" is pure male bovine barnyard fertilizer.

You and your adherents are blame for crises in the Cosmology, because BB is wrong.


What crisis??? The Hot/ Dense early universe is universally accepted by almost all real cosmologists and new evidence supporting it is found almost daily(hourly, at times). Your site, conversely, hasn't been updated since 2001. You really are WAY behind the learning curve(and you started out wrong from the beginning)!!!

How much are you charging for your book???

Grumpy cool.gif
rmuldavin
[New Physics and the Mind]
Einstein's Greatest Mistake?

COPYRIGHT CERTAIN
COPY-WRITE CAREFUL
FOAM UNIVERSES
RIGHLY VERSUS
BIG BANGING, or
RAPID EXPANSES


Robert Paster from his book page 86:

[rm:I am taking Liberty for a walk, statue frozen in time, Amazon she is, the author's book on String Theory (18.95$ soft cover) was not, 30$ for on line reading for listed books, Paster is not so included, but he has allowed page by page reading, and page 86 is enough for now.

I type this out by hand, no robots of sub-wagged females on the typer, and so I start his page 86 title: {{

Copyrighted Material
Einstein' Greatest Mistake

Albert Einstein called "my greatest mistake" his invention of a "cosmological constant" to answer and early form of the question of the universe's shape.
There was no theory of the big bang when Einstein postulated the cosmological constant, and Einstein believed that the universe was, is, and will be a large and static space. No astronomical observations had yet taken place to confirm what we know today about the expansion of the universe. In fact, the problem that Einstein was faced was that it was hard to understand why the universe wasn't shrinking: gravitation seemed to be the dominant force of the far reachers of the universe, and gravitation should cause the matter within the universe to pull in towards the universe's center.
In order to construct a theory of a static universe -- one that is not shrinking -- Einstein postulated (with no evidence to support it, but with only his conviction that the universe must be in a steady state) that a cosmological constant must exist and the measure of a basic force of nature that pushes the universe outward, against its otherwise shrinking gravitational tendencies.
By the late 1920s, American astronomer Edwin Hubble and his colleagues had convinced the scientific world that the universe was in fact expanding. The did this by observation of the "red shift" of the light of distant galaxies, which indicates that the galaxies are moving away from us. At first, some thought that this was just further confirmation of the Earth' being the center of the universe -- why else would every-thing, in every direction, be moving away from us? But other realized that actually everything in the universe is moving away
Copyrighted Material
New Physics and the Mind [87]
from everything, similar to all points on the surface of a balloon getting farther away from each other balloon [rm-see comment 1] is blown up.
Hubble's analysis gained widespread acceptance, although convincing experimental verification was not published until 1965. Two Bell Lab scientists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, where disturbed by observation of some background radiation that just did not seem to go away, even after all earthbound, solar- system- based, and Milky Way sources were eliminated as possible causes. Penzias and Wilson were winner of the 1978 Nobel Prize for physics for their discovery of this cosmic background radiation -- radiation which emanates with equal strength everywhere ("homogeneity) and from every direction ("isotropy"), as remnant of the big bang.
So Einstein's "greatest mistake" was really two - pronged: the universe is expanding, not static, and we don't need a cosmological constant to represent a hypothetical new force to cause expansion -- expansion results from the Big bang.
With expansion established, this led to a natural question: will the universe expand forever? Or will there be some point at which the inward gravitational force will overtake the outward pull that originated with the big bang, resulting in a reversal towards a 'big crunch"? It is because of the flatness problem that these questions are so hard to answer.

The Horizon Problem...}}
============================
[comment 1-rm: Personally, idiosyncratically writing, or talking to myself and an imagined audience, the foamy universe proposed over a year ago in popular Scientific American stated we, our "universe' is inside a shell of dark matter, and I think, energy riding along the conjectured G-strings, individual g-string to collections of closely spaced dot masses, the manifolds of string theories.

The foam are like bubbles in the background of a bathing goddess (my preference), it was no "big bang", Chauvinistic violence upon woman, but here a compromise between male and female, from my end the "Big (rapid) Expansion", thus the Viagra Salespeople would have to change their adds "if persisting for more than four hours, consult a physician" to this:

if "...more than 15 billion years".

Doctor Love!
Peace warrior,
Dove above,
sorrowful fray,
layman sure.

Hope stays,
mindful ways,
survival insures,
some unlucky,
change's here.

Read and write on,
copy write is safe,

best rmuldavin ]






K. Margiani
Grumpy opponent! First drawing is sold. I’m editing the new book day by day. It needs agreement to Professor Oliver’s team for publishing. Because I’ve edited fully their excellent research:
Isotopes Tell Sun’s Origin and Operation
http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm
I will send the book.

Grumpy
K. Margiani

QUOTE
I will send the book.


Don't bother, that is not why I asked.

Grumpy cool.gif
Gorgeous
QUOTE
What the "something else" is or was, we have no clues(at least, not yet).





QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What the "something else" is or was, we have no clues(at least, not yet).





Gorgeous

QUOTE
So how do you know it is true then?



Because it fits all the available evidence??? What is your point???

Grumpy cool.gif






My point is that you are calling 'all the available evidence'...'no clues'!
biggrin.gif


Would you not be open to a theory that was not contradictory, or that at least had many plausible answers for all those 'something else's'?




g.



Lord Vladimir
QUOTE (K. Margiani+Feb 29 2008, 10:35 AM)
Да вы вытрехиваите эти старие научные сказки из голови о большом взрыве, новая эра начинается.

Я не fond бога, и am безбожное... и если бог существовал, то, я презрел бы его, потому что он не сумел убедить меня его существования!
EarthScientist
The earth the center of the universe?? My, My.

The big bang from observing gaseous states. My,my

Planets are grown. FACT

The sun is grown. Fact.

Moons are towed into place when a speed balance is needed. Fact.

There are cymatic rings every 48 thousand feet ,they are a frequency ring that helps keep our gases in.fact

Please help keep the airplane idiots away from our rings,can you guess why. ??

The moon runs on one of those same rings. Fact

Lifter instruments to identify the cymatic lines to follow oxygen lines in space to be drawn or "Fall' towards other spheres can detect those rings also.fact.

The BIG Bang, NOT A FACT, ...GARBAGE... GET OVER IT!!!

Grid science, FACT

Aetheric force, Fact

Gravity explained by grid science. FACT.

The suns average burn time is 10,000 years. Fact

The sun is a frequency burn. FACT

Comets are system explosion core remnants on short and long oxygen lines. FACT. GET OVER IT ,YOU DIRTY SNOWBALL NASA,never a straight answer boys.
Harry Costas
Hello All

Looks like Grumpy wants to agree to disagree.

He reminds me of that other guy that was kicked out.

What was his name???
sw81245
QUOTE
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory

What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

So that is the BB theory in a nutshell. And it is accepted as valid by almost all Astronomers and Astrophysicists, despite any agenda driven claims to the contrary.

Grumpy 


Haven't read the whole thread but here are some points
1. The first statement is conjecture.
2. The redshift is the empirical evidence supporting expansion. Finding another explanation for the redshift sets the scene for a new theory altogether. Fighting the Big Bang theory starts here.
3. Microwave background radiation, 'remnant of this heat'. Paraded as evidence for Big Bang and 'could be' if the BB existed. Doesn't convince some of us that it is evidence for the Big Bang.
4. Why should an abundance of 'light elements' support the Big Bang model? Again a tenuous argument.

So fighting the theory starts with a pot shot at the redshift and here is one:
yeoldelog.com/feature/redshift.shtml
yeoldelog.com/feature/redshiftpoem.shtml
- more digestable.
The basic redshift could just be caused by light cooling down.
There could be other reasons for redshift too: Doppler, escape from heavy mass etc. These could all be contributing factors to a redshift.
Here are some points to consider why it might be true.
1. When a photon loses energy, its frequency redshifts E=hf. (redshift - decrease in frequency).
2. The microwave radiation has a 'temperature' associated with it. It is even called here a 'remnant of this heat'
3. E=mc^2 means mass is lost when a heat loss of energy occurs, and suggests similarly then a loss of momentum in light when heat loss occurs (E/c)^2=|p|^2.
4. De Broglie: p=h/λ shows that the frequency would then redshift.
5. Even the Open University describes space metaphorically as an 'oven'.
6. There exist quantum mechanical entities that 'can' have a temperature associated with them. Electrons can exist in a plasma of a given temperature. Even above the author has associated the microwave radiation, photons, with a temperature.
7. The redshift relation z = Hr/c + 1/2{Hr/c}^2 to second order can be derived from the the relativistic Doppler shift: f0= f1√{ (1 – v/c) / (1 + v/c)} (from Open University notes) and also using Newton's Law of Cooling:
dE/dt is proportional to – (T1 – T0) or
E0 = E1exp(-εt) where Hubble's constant becomes the exponential decay constant ε
see web addresses above
8. What looks like an unexplained 'deceleration' using expansion theory is incorporated into the exponential at distances that are large (Hr approaching c)
9. Redshifts which suggest greater than the speed of light velocities are allowed in the exponential explanation (further order terms) indicating objects just further away

The flaws in the Big Bang theory are numerous and well-documented and I won't have a go here.
K. Margiani
Hello unknown opponent!
Your claim is best evidence why is wrong a BB.
1. When a photon loses energy, its frequency redshifts E=hf. (redshift - decrease in frequency). Because more farther galaxy has high redshift in its spectrum. There no extending.

Universe is not extending. It consist hundreds of billions galaxies. Universe has no age, origins and border.
We can see only 0.000000001% of galaxies. They are moving chaotically in the universe. They are creating conglomerations, merging, recycling by parent stars. We’ve already proved! Proof about the parent stars you can read in the sensational research of the XXI century.

Here: http://www.cosmogeology.ge/chapter-28.htm

The research is revolution in the Astronomy and Cosmology.


Space and time exist forever
• the big bang is not the beginning of time; rather, it is a bridge to a pre-existing contracting era
• the Universe matter undergoes an endless sequence of cycles in which it contracts in a big merge and re-emerges in an expanding big bang, within trillion years of evolution in between
• the temperature and density of the universe do not become infinite at any point in the cycle; indeed, they never exceed a finite bound (about a trillion degrees)
• inflation of nuclear and molecular masses (matter) have taken place since the big bang; the current homogeneity and flatness were created by next events that occurred after big compression of the matter and formation of the parent star.
• the seed for our galaxy formation was created by instabilities arising as the
Universe matter was collapsing towards a big merge, prior to our big bang

We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts. The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He3 and He4). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.2965v1.pdf Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe Jayant V. Narlikar, Geofrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma


After eruption stars from spiral galaxy nucleus, oxide mixtures of gaseous (spot) masses are forming planets in the tails of stars. After this stage proto-planetary masses are starting rotation around their own stars. It is possible that one isotope of a definite chemical element is fundamental into one planet and into another planet another isotope. The active parts of starburst galactic nucleus shell are alike active parts of the Sun - (spots). There is possible only one chemical reaction. It is the reaction of oxidation. There is discovered H2O in the Sun’s spots spectrum, nothing strange because after heavy atom nuclear synthesis reaction in the spots of the shell, huge number oxygen nucleuses are formed. There is clue of different chemical oxides formation. After erupting oxygen and other chemical elements are connecting with other chemical elements and a lot of chemical admixtures are formed. As a result, planets and their satellites formed from those spot masses are mainly made up of oxides. We must remember the active role of helium in heavy atom-nuclear synthesis reactions and we have to come closely analyze why almost 50% of heavy atom-nuclear synthesis reactions are finished on the oxygen. Why great number of reactions into spots stopped on the silicone dioxide and no other elements? Radioactive elements afterwards, in the depth of planets inner nucleuses decompose to the level of lead and xenon.
Only axial hit and cyclonic merging between galaxies are the possibility of a recycles in the Universe, a cosmology in which the Universe matter undergoes a periodic sequence of expansion and contraction. Each cycle begins with a “big bang” and ends in a “big merging,” only to emerge in a big bang once again. The expansion phase of each cycle includes a period of radiation-, matter-, and quintessence-domination, the last phase of which corresponds to the current epoch created by parent star after nuclear and molecular (matter) compression. The accelerated expansion phase dilutes by an exponential factor the entropy and by huge gravitation of extending matter formed by big bang. The acceleration ultimately ends, and it is followed by a period of decelerating expansion and then contraction. After the transition big expansion and big contraction, fiery matter and its huge gravitation are creating the parent star of a proto-galaxies, and high density of its new formed ultra dense nucleus required for formation (working core), fiery shell of light elements and then eruption new stars. Historically, cyclic models have been considered attractive because they avoid the issue of initial conditions (important problem of the BB theory for decades). Examples can be found in mythologies and philosophies dating back to the beginning of recorded history. Since the introduction of general relativity, though,

Good luck!
sw81245
Thanks for your feedback and encouragement.
You are obviously well informed here. I don't follow it very well
Good luck too.
Gorgeous
QUOTE
(If the redshifts are a Doppler shift) ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time. (E. Hubble, Roy. Astron. Soc. M. N., 17, 506, 1937)


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-hu...th-distance.htm




g.
sw81245
Thanks for this. It's a good quote and a good website which I'll investigate further later. Thankfully the real physicists talk in a way you can understand.
Gorgeous
QUOTE (sw81245+Mar 9 2008, 01:09 AM)
Thanks for this. It's a good quote and a good website which I'll investigate further later. Thankfully the real physicists talk in a way you can understand.

smile.gif

That would be a sign of someone who may have something genuine to communicate, and consequently sees the importance of the Honest approach!



g.
Grumpy
Before all three of you start telling us about Cosmology, read

Grumpy cool.gif
sw81245
Have your read: orionfdn.org/papers/index.htm?
Even a layman like myself can understand it. Something to say so strives to simplify not to impress. I don't agree with the model with which he wishes to replace the Big Bang theory (although I'm sure he does it brilliantly) but he is pulling the rug from under the feet of cosmologists today.

From Wikipaedia: 'After confirmation of the Hubble Law by observation, the two most popular cosmological theories became the steady-state theory of Hoyle, Gold and Bondi, and the big bang theory of Ralph Alpher, George Gamow, and Robert Dicke with a small number of supporters of a smattering of alternatives'

So it began with Hubble and his v=Hr. Simplicity itself
This led to z = Hr/c for redshift/distance relation (first order) using the relativistic Doppler shift theory: f0= f1√{ (1 – v/c) / (1 + v/c)}.

Newton's Law of Cooling: the rate of heat loss of a body is proportional to the difference in temperatures between the body and its surroundings, or environment.
Body = mass = energy {E=mc^2}
but also
Light = momentum = energy {(E/c)^2=|p|^2}

From: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_Law_of_Cooling#Newton.27s_law_of_cooling
Let Tenv= 0 since temperature in space (3K) with respect to an 'associated temperature of light from hot star' would be negligible, giving:
T(t)= T(0)exp(-εt)
There is a direct relationship between the frequency (so energy) of light emitted and the temperature of a star. So assumption: T is proportional to E (this may not need to be completely linear.)
(all physics have assumptions here or there)
so
E(t)=E1= E0exp(-εt)
z = -Δf/f0 = -hΔf/hf0 = ΔE/E0 = E1(1-exp(-εt)/E0
(h: Planck constant, f: frequency, Δf: change in frequency)
giving, where t=r/c,
z ≈ εr/c
Equate ε with H Hubble's constant gives
z = Hr/c to first order
Simplicity itself again and Hubble's constant figures as the exponential decay constant rather than the constant of proportionality

No expansion
Light just cooling down. Why shouldn't light, like every other physical entity. cool down?
Maybe it's just best to presume the CMBR just 'is' instead of trying to consider that it's explained by crude theories.

Copernicus principle not violated
Sometimes even a layman has something to say.
Detailed at: Ye Olde Log, yeoldelog.com/feature/redshift.shtml
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.