20 Dec
2010
20 Dec
'10
3:57 p.m.
Unfortunately, I don't think Wikipedia can always be relied on. -- Joe
--- On Mon, 12/20/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
> From: erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net>
> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com>
> Date: Monday, December 20, 2010, 2:32 PM
> >Kim, It appears you have asked
> the question cosmologists are divided on,
> and your 1st thought may be correct. IE, only high mass
> stars made up Pop
> 3 stars.
>
> from Wiki, on metallicity.
>
> "Current theory is divided on whether the first stars were
> very massive or
> not. One theory, which seems to be borne out by computer
> models of star
> formation, is that with no heavy elements from the Big
> Bang, it was easy
> to form stars with much more total mass than the ones
> visible today.
> Typical masses for Population III stars would be expected
> to be about
> several hundred solar masses, which is much larger than the
> current stars.
> Analysis of data on extremely low-metallicity Population II
> stars such as
> HE0107-5240, which are thought to contain the metals
> produced by
> Population III stars, suggest that these metal-free stars
> had masses of 20
> to 130 solar masses instead. On the other hand, analysis of
> globular
> clusters associated with elliptical galaxies suggests
> pair-instability
> supernovae were responsible for their metallic composition.
> This also
> explains why there have been no low-mass stars with zero
> metallicity
> observed, although models have been constructed for smaller
> Pop III stars.
> Clusters containing zero-metallicity red dwarfs or brown
> dwarfs (possibly
> created by pair-instability supernovae have been proposed
> as dark matter
> candidates, but there is disagreement on this theory"
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, that is a good question. Does anyone know if
> cosmologists have
> > estimated what the ratio of low- or zero-metal red
> dwarfs should be? And,
> > can we observe enough of them in near space to have a
> representative
> > picture
> > of what might have occurred shortly after the big
> bang? Would the density
> > of
> > the early universe have limited the formation of red
> dwarfs?
> >
> > Kim
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com
> > [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com]
> On Behalf Of Don J.
> > Colton
> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 1:37 PM
> > To: 'Utah Astronomy'
> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
> >
> > Good point Eric.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com
> > [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com]
> On
> > Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net
> > Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:13 AM
> > To: Utah Astronomy
> > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
> >
> >>
> > Well, the Red Dwarfs observed today do have metals and
> none have been
> > observed that contain only hydrogen and helium. There
> should be Red Dwarfs
> > with no metals if some formed during the Big Bang (in
> theory at least),
> > since the are believed to have a longer life than
> current estimates of the
> > age of the universe. Would only the massive stars,
> needed to create the
> > metals, have formed initially?
> >
> > I guess it is possible metals were created during Big
> Bang, but I am not a
> > physicist.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Erik, As I understand it, there was plenty of
> time in the early universe
> >> (800 million years or so) for super massive
> Population III stars to
> >> form,
> >> and due to their accelerated evolution they
> provided the metals found in
> >> the
> >> red dwarfs and globular clusters observed in the
> deep field objects.
> >> There
> >> is no need to invoke a time interval greater than
> that between the big
> >> bang
> >> and the formation of the red dwarfs, etc. to
> account for their advent. I
> >> don't understand the assertion that 100 billion
> years are required for
> >> the
> >> formation of galactic clusters.
> >>
> >> Kim
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com
> >> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com]
> On Behalf Of
> >> erikhansen@thebluezone.net
> >> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:47 AM
> >> To: Utah Astronomy
> >> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
> >>
> >>>Kim,
> >>
> >> As for Red Dwarfs and Globular Clusters (made
> largely of red giants),
> >> yes,
> >> they are about the age of what we consider the age
> of the universe. The
> >> problem is where did the material they formed from
> come from. There must
> >> have been stars before that the material came
> from, 1st generation stars
> >> or Population 3 stars.
> >> So by default the universe must be older because
> our oldest stars formed
> >> from older stars still.
> >>
> >> At least thats how I understand it, but I would
> agree Don is more
> >> informed
> >> about this and I.
> >>
> >> Erik
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Somehow this thread began as a discussion
> about space exploration...
> >>>
> >>> Don, I'm sure that I haven't read as much as
> you or others about
> >>> cosmology
> >>> and the big bang theory, but I'm wondering
> about some of the comments
> >>> that
> >>> you made. I truly am not criticizing or
> mocking - I really do have
> >>> questions. And I promise not to mention God.
> Here are my questions,
> >>> numbered
> >>> according to your post from yesterday:
> >>>
> >>> 1 and 2. I don't believe that an object moving
> through space is
> >>> comparable
> >>> to the expansion of space itself; hence the
> limitation of the speed of
> >>> light
> >>> wouldn't apply. What other laws of physics
> would have to have been
> >>> different
> >>> or not exist?
> >>> 3. Does it matter whether or not the theory is
> predictive (unless they
> >>> really do succeed in creating a singularity at
> CERN)? Discoveries of
> >>> things
> >>> such as dark matter, dark energy, etc. haven't
> invalidated the theory,
> >>> but
> >>> yes, these nasty surprises have certainly
> given the theorists more to
> >>> ponder. Perhaps they will eventually have to
> discard the big bang, but
> >>> from
> >>> everything with which I'm familiar I don't see
> that happening.
> >>> 4. I know that Wikipedia isn't 100 percent
> reliable, but under the
> >>> article
> >>> "Cosmic microwave background radiation" I read
> that a 1948 estimate by
> >>> Gamow
> >>> and others of the CMBR was 5K, later
> re-estimated at 28K. The higher
> >>> estimate was based on someone's mis-estimate
> of the Hubble constant and
> >>> was
> >>> soon abandoned in favor of the original, lower
> estimate. I also
> >>> understand
> >>> that the suggestion that the CMBR is
> background stellar radiation
> >>> cannot
> >>> account for the black body nature of the CMBR.
> From what I read in
> >>> Wikipedia, numerous lines of observations and
> experiment all support
> >>> the
> >>> hypothesis that the CMBR is a remnant of the
> big bang.
> >>> 5. I wish I could remember where I read about
> it, but I think this
> >>> "problem"
> >>> was put to bed some time ago. Does anyone else
> have information about
> >>> this,
> >>> one way or the other?
> >>> 6. Again, I'm probably not as knowledgeable,
> but I've never read
> >>> anything
> >>> about observations of red dwarfs, globular
> clusters, or other objects
> >>> that
> >>> indicate greater age than the accepted age of
> the universe, 13.75+/-
> >>> billion
> >>> years, or that galaxy clusters would take 100
> billion years to form.
> >>> What
> >>> have I missed?
> >>> 7. Is the Texas A&M paper online, and if
> so can you share the link? I'm
> >>> really interested in reading this.
> >>> 8. I'm not sure what you're saying here
> relative to Michelson, Morley
> >>> and
> >>> Einstein. I admit to not being able to wrap my
> mind around a lot of
> >>> scientific thought, especially in relation to
> cosmology. Can anyone
> >>> truly
> >>> imagine what a singularity looks like (or
> tastes, smells, feels, sounds
> >>> like) or how the universe as we see it came
> from such a thing? I have a
> >>> difficult time imagining a neutron star, or
> why my son just left for
> >>> school
> >>> with a light jacket when the temperature
> outside is only about 15
> >>> degrees.
> >>> Still, I've not read any credible science that
> supports a steady state
> >>> universe or any other alternative to the big
> bang. A steady state
> >>> universe,
> >>> for example, is just as hard for me to fathom
> as a universe that began
> >>> as
> >>> an
> >>> infinitesimally small point.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Don for your willingness to share your
> opinion, even when you
> >>> know
> >>> many of us believe something different.
> >>>
> >>> A general question for everyone: Besides
> steady state, what alternate
> >>> theories exist?
> >>>
> >>> Kim
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com
> >>> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com]
> On Behalf Of Don
> >>> J.
> >>> Colton
> >>> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:28 PM
> >>> To: 'Utah Astronomy'
> >>> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization
> (Was: SpaceX ?Secret?
> >>> Payload)
> >>>
> >>> The Big Bang Theory is the most generally
> accepted theory but it has
> >>> many
> >>> problems. Unfortunately consensus
> science seems to be more important
> >>> than
> >>> really questioning the current paradigm.
> >>>
> >>> Significant Problems with the Big Bang are as
> follows:
> >>>
> >>> 1. You have to suppose that the current laws
> of physics did not exist
> >>> originally.
> >>> 2. Inflation dramatically violates the speed
> of light (see one above).
> >>> 3. Big Bang Theory is not a predictive theory
> like Einstein's Theory of
> >>> Relativity. Astrophysicists continually
> have to patch it together when
> >>> such
> >>> things as acceleration of the universe, dark
> matter, dark energy and
> >>> other
> >>> nasty surprises occur.
> >>> 4. The original prediction of microwave
> background radiation by Gamow
> >>> was
> >>> 50
> >>> deg. Kelvin - 17 times greater than measured.
> The 3 deg Kelvin
> >>> microwave
> >>> background radiation is explained well by
> Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar and
> >>> Ratcliffe as background stellar radiation (not
> remnant big bang
> >>> radiation).
> >>> 5. The problem with the proper motion of
> quasars, some of which show
> >>> proper
> >>> motions similar to the Helix Nebula. There are
> various strained
> >>> explanations
> >>> of this phenomenon.
> >>> 6. The age problem. Red Dwarfs, many
> globular clusters, large galaxy
> >>> clusters all appear to be much older than 13
> billion years. You have
> >>> to
> >>> invent ad hoc assumptions about early clumping
> etc. in the Big Bang to
> >>> account for the large galaxy clusters, which
> under normal gravitation
> >>> interactions must be at least 100 billion
> years old.
> >>> 7. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field shows galaxies
> from about 13.3 billion
> >>> years
> >>> ago that appear very similar to nearby
> galaxies. The Texas A&M team
> >>> that
> >>> studied the Hubble Deep field concluded "After
> comparing them with the
> >>> bluest nearby galaxies, the team concluded
> that, while their galaxies
> >>> were
> >>> fairly primitive in composition, they did not
> have zero metallicity,
> >>> meaning
> >>> that these galaxies contain stars not unlike
> those we see today, even
> >>> though
> >>> the Universe was only five percent of its
> current age of 13.7 billion
> >>> years.
> >>> This implies that they are not the first-ever
> galaxies formed after the
> >>> Big
> >>> Bang as other international teams of
> astronomers analyzing the same
> >>> data
> >>> have implied." The Hubble Ultra Deep Field
> also shows many large
> >>> spirals
> >>> and
> >>> elliptical galaxies which take on the order of
> 10 billion years to
> >>> form.
> >>> Could such galaxies and stars have formed in
> 500 million years?
> >>> Considering
> >>> that large spiral galaxies take 300 million
> years to rotate also argues
> >>> against an age of only 500 million years.
> >>> 8. The idea that the whole universe was
> created from nothing also
> >>> appears
> >>> to
> >>> be the kind of nonsense results Michelson and
> Morley got when their
> >>> experiments along with Einstein overturned
> classical physics.
> >>>
> >>> As the history of science has shown, each new
> generation thinks they
> >>> know
> >>> it
> >>> all.
> >>>
> >>> Clear Skies,
> >>>
> >>> Don
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com
> >>> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com]
> On Behalf Of
> >>> daniel
> >>> turner
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:49 PM
> >>> To: Utah Astronomy
> >>> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization
> (Was: SpaceX ?Secret?
> >>> Payload)
> >>>
> >>> --- On Wed, 12/15/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net
> >>> <erikhansen@thebluezone.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It does seem the U of U Physics agrees
> with the
> >>>> Big Bang Theory,
> >>>> at least thats my memory when we have had
> some of the
> >>>> Faculty speak.
> >>>> The grand Unified Theory has gained some
> ground but not
> >>>> enough, resolving
> >>>> those issue seems key to a better
> understanding of the
> >>>> Universe.
> >>>
> >>> Eric:
> >>>
> >>> It's entirely possible that these faculty
> people actually know
> >>> something
> >>> about the subject matter. They have access to
> the observational data.
> >>> They
> >>> can't all be deluded or lying to advance an
> agenda. Perhaps the debate
> >>> is
> >>> over among the people who know the most about
> it.
> >>>
> >>> DT
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list
> >>> Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
> >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
> >>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
> >>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list
> >>> Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
> >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
> >>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
> >>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----
> >>> No virus found in this message.
> >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3319
> - Release Date: 12/16/10
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list
> >>> Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
> >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
> >>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
> >>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list
> >> Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
> >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
> >> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
> >> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
> >>
> >>
> >> -----
> >> No virus found in this message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3321 -
> Release Date: 12/17/10
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list
> >> Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
> >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
> >> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
> >> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Utah-Astronomy mailing list
> > Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
> > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
> > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
> > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Utah-Astronomy mailing list
> > Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
> > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
> > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
> > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
> >
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3327 -
> Release Date: 12/20/10
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Utah-Astronomy mailing list
> > Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
> > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
> > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
> > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Utah-Astronomy mailing list
> Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
>