Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
In spite of some evidence for the big bang I do not think that it has been conclusively proven. Other theories should be considered. Electromagnetic forces are ignored in the big bang theory among many other flaws of the theory. Sincerely, Gary Vardon The book DO It Right will help you understand vital ideas leading to your greater success. GO to PublishAmerica.com Consulting For Profit is also available. Learn how to make money as a consultant.
It seems to rely on certain assumptions that may not be so sound. I think perhaps the assumptions should be revisited. Not a bad idea in any science. 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.
In spite of some evidence for the big bang I do not think that it has been
conclusively proven. Other theories should be considered. Electromagnetic forces are ignored in the big bang theory among many other flaws of the theory.
Sincerely, Gary Vardon The book DO It Right will help you understand vital ideas leading to your greater success. GO to PublishAmerica.com Consulting For Profit is also available. Learn how to make money as a consultant.
_______________________________________________ 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
--- 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
Dan,
I think that was what I was eluding to. I doubt they would say they know everything about the nature of the universe, otherwise there would be no need for them to do research. I certainly do not believe I know a fraction of what they do on the subject. I am below the hack level on the subject. Erik --- 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
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
Don, This is the most interesting discussion we've had on the UA newsgroup in ages. It really stretches the mind to contemplate these topics. Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote:
From: Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 12:28 PM 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
WHAT IF: What if the Big Bang did not occur in an empty or non-existent Universe but in an old collapsing universe that was consolidating its black holes into a singularity of incredible gravity but before total collapse was finished the BANG occurred mixing mostly newly (re)formed and some old material in a newly forming universe? Yes what I'm proposing is a universe that repeats the cycle of Bang and collapse over and over. The energy that is propelling our universe apart at ever greater speeds may eventually dissipate and a slow collapse will begin, starting the cycle over again, however the collapse does not need to be complete, maybe a 90% collapse, for the new Universe to begin again. Just a thought. Bob -----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
That's what the eminent physicist Roger Penrose, a friend of Stephen Hawking, seems to think. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/science/space/14cosmic.html -- Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 1:02 PM WHAT IF: What if the Big Bang did not occur in an empty or non-existent Universe but in an old collapsing universe that was consolidating its black holes into a singularity of incredible gravity but before total collapse was finished the BANG occurred mixing mostly newly (re)formed and some old material in a newly forming universe?
Yes what I'm proposing is a universe that repeats the cycle of Bang and collapse over and over. The energy that is propelling our universe apart at ever greater speeds may eventually dissipate and a slow collapse will begin, starting the cycle over again, however the collapse does not need to be complete, maybe a 90% collapse, for the new Universe to begin again.
Just a thought.
Bob
-----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
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks, interesting article. Would seem to explain a lot of what we see. One thing I am sure of is that reality is far more interesting than what we can imagine. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:08 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) That's what the eminent physicist Roger Penrose, a friend of Stephen Hawking, seems to think. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/science/space/14cosmic.html -- Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 1:02 PM WHAT IF: What if the Big Bang did not occur in an empty or non-existent Universe but in an old collapsing universe that was consolidating its black holes into a singularity of incredible gravity but before total collapse was finished the BANG occurred mixing mostly newly (re)formed and some old material in a newly forming universe?
Yes what I'm proposing is a universe that repeats the cycle of Bang and collapse over and over. The energy that is propelling our universe apart at ever greater speeds may eventually dissipate and a slow collapse will begin, starting the cycle over again, however the collapse does not need to be complete, maybe a 90% collapse, for the new Universe to begin again.
Just a thought.
Bob
I promise that I'm not trying to interject religion here, but the biblical phrase, "Let there be light" has always sounded an awful lot like the Big Bang to me. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Robert Taylor Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:25 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) Thanks, interesting article. Would seem to explain a lot of what we see. One thing I am sure of is that reality is far more interesting than what we can imagine. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:08 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) That's what the eminent physicist Roger Penrose, a friend of Stephen Hawking, seems to think. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/science/space/14cosmic.html -- Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 1:02 PM WHAT IF: What if the Big Bang did not occur in an empty or non-existent Universe but in an old collapsing universe that was consolidating its black holes into a singularity of incredible gravity but before total collapse was finished the BANG occurred mixing mostly newly (re)formed and some old material in a newly forming universe?
Yes what I'm proposing is a universe that repeats the cycle of Bang and collapse over and over. The energy that is propelling our universe apart at ever greater speeds may eventually dissipate and a slow collapse will begin, starting the cycle over again, however the collapse does not need to be complete, maybe a 90% collapse, for the new Universe to begin again.
Just a thought.
Bob
_______________________________________________ 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
Without getting into specifics there are religions that believe in the re-cycling universe. Some call it the breathing of God. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kim Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:29 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) I promise that I'm not trying to interject religion here, but the biblical phrase, "Let there be light" has always sounded an awful lot like the Big Bang to me. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Robert Taylor Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:25 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) Thanks, interesting article. Would seem to explain a lot of what we see. One thing I am sure of is that reality is far more interesting than what we can imagine. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:08 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) That's what the eminent physicist Roger Penrose, a friend of Stephen Hawking, seems to think. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/science/space/14cosmic.html -- Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 1:02 PM WHAT IF: What if the Big Bang did not occur in an empty or non-existent Universe but in an old collapsing universe that was consolidating its black holes into a singularity of incredible gravity but before total collapse was finished the BANG occurred mixing mostly newly (re)formed and some old material in a newly forming universe?
Yes what I'm proposing is a universe that repeats the cycle of Bang and collapse over and over. The energy that is propelling our universe apart at ever greater speeds may eventually dissipate and a slow collapse will begin, starting the cycle over again, however the collapse does not need to be complete, maybe a 90% collapse, for the new Universe to begin again.
Just a thought.
Bob
_______________________________________________ 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
Except, the phrase "let there be light" came a few "periods of time" after he created Heaven and Earth.
I am found of the idea that what we consider the "universe" is but a small part of the "real" universe. That the singularity referred to in the "Big Bang" has occurred multiple times, our "universe" is simply one of many. And No, I have little science to back that notion, other than it has not been figured out yet. Erik I promise that I'm not trying to interject religion here, but the biblical
phrase, "Let there be light" has always sounded an awful lot like the Big Bang to me.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Robert Taylor Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:25 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
Thanks, interesting article. Would seem to explain a lot of what we see. One thing I am sure of is that reality is far more interesting than what we can imagine.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:08 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
That's what the eminent physicist Roger Penrose, a friend of Stephen Hawking, seems to think. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/science/space/14cosmic.html
-- Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 1:02 PM WHAT IF: What if the Big Bang did not occur in an empty or non-existent Universe but in an old collapsing universe that was consolidating its black holes into a singularity of incredible gravity but before total collapse was finished the BANG occurred mixing mostly newly (re)formed and some old material in a newly forming universe?
Yes what I'm proposing is a universe that repeats the cycle of Bang and collapse over and over. The energy that is propelling our universe apart at ever greater speeds may eventually dissipate and a slow collapse will begin, starting the cycle over again, however the collapse does not need to be complete, maybe a 90% collapse, for the new Universe to begin again.
Just a thought.
Bob
_______________________________________________ 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
My recollection of a layman's understanding of inflation is that one of the possibilities that it implies is that there can be an infinite number of "universes," all presumably a result of multiple singularities. So, congratulations. You and Alan Guth think alike. Maybe. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:57 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
Except, the phrase "let there be light" came a few "periods of time" after he created Heaven and Earth.
I am found of the idea that what we consider the "universe" is but a small part of the "real" universe. That the singularity referred to in the "Big Bang" has occurred multiple times, our "universe" is simply one of many. And No, I have little science to back that notion, other than it has not been figured out yet. Erik
Kim,
I do not pretend that the notion is of my own invention, does seem like it read it some where before. From the Who: "everything I have done has been done before and every idea in my head someone else has said" I does seem to help with the age problem and if the universe is infinite should we be able to see the edge "background radiation". Erik My recollection of a layman's understanding of inflation is that one of
the possibilities that it implies is that there can be an infinite number of "universes," all presumably a result of multiple singularities. So, congratulations. You and Alan Guth think alike. Maybe.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:57 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
Except, the phrase "let there be light" came a few "periods of time" after he created Heaven and Earth.
I am found of the idea that what we consider the "universe" is but a small part of the "real" universe. That the singularity referred to in the "Big Bang" has occurred multiple times, our "universe" is simply one of many. And No, I have little science to back that notion, other than it has not been figured out yet.
Erik
_______________________________________________ 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
"Let There Be light" happened on the first day. Notwithstanding, I still believe too much "how" and even "when" can be taken from what is really there. Spencer Ball -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:57 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
Except, the phrase "let there be light" came a few "periods of time" after he created Heaven and Earth.
I am found of the idea that what we consider the "universe" is but a small part of the "real" universe. That the singularity referred to in the "Big Bang" has occurred multiple times, our "universe" is simply one of many. And No, I have little science to back that notion, other than it has not been figured out yet. Erik I promise that I'm not trying to interject religion here, but the biblical
phrase, "Let there be light" has always sounded an awful lot like the Big Bang to me.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Robert Taylor Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:25 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
Thanks, interesting article. Would seem to explain a lot of what we see. One thing I am sure of is that reality is far more interesting than what we can imagine.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:08 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
That's what the eminent physicist Roger Penrose, a friend of Stephen Hawking, seems to think. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/science/space/14cosmic.html
-- Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 1:02 PM WHAT IF: What if the Big Bang did not occur in an empty or non-existent Universe but in an old collapsing universe that was consolidating its black holes into a singularity of incredible gravity but before total collapse was finished the BANG occurred mixing mostly newly (re)formed and some old material in a newly forming universe?
Yes what I'm proposing is a universe that repeats the cycle of Bang and collapse over and over. The energy that is propelling our universe apart at ever greater speeds may eventually dissipate and a slow collapse will begin, starting the cycle over again, however the collapse does not need to be complete, maybe a 90% collapse, for the new Universe to begin again.
Just a thought.
Bob
_______________________________________________ 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
Bob: The article in question says that the WMAP data that Penrose sites can also be used to refute his assersions. This is a case of "It's not soup yet". We need more data before this one is sorted out. So let's build some more space probes and generate some more data. Always a good answer to unresolved questions. DT --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 12:25 PM Thanks, interesting article. Would seem to explain a lot of what we see. One thing I am sure of is that reality is far more interesting than what we can imagine.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:08 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
That's what the eminent physicist Roger Penrose, a friend of Stephen Hawking, seems to think. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/science/space/14cosmic.html
-- Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 1:02 PM WHAT IF: What if the Big Bang did not occur in an empty or non-existent Universe but in an old collapsing universe that was consolidating its black holes into a singularity of incredible gravity but before total collapse was finished the BANG occurred mixing mostly newly (re)formed and some old material in a newly forming universe?
Yes what I'm proposing is a universe that repeats the cycle of Bang and collapse over and over. The energy that is propelling our universe apart at ever greater speeds may eventually dissipate and a slow collapse will begin, starting the cycle over again, however the collapse does not need to be complete, maybe a 90% collapse, for the new Universe to begin again.
Just a thought.
Bob
_______________________________________________ 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
If I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know. - Kansas I am always amazed at how many people, some on this board, love to claim with certainty that some theories are facts or are above questioning. Treating any opposing theory as below contempt or serious consideration, completely dismissive. In their next breath they will deride the treatment of Galileo by the <religious> authorities of his day. Forgetting that Galileo was way out on a limb, a scientific heretic not in line with the science or other scientists of his day. They don't see themselves as the same people who threatened to burn Galileo at the stake which is in fact what they are. There are too many examples in of this in modern science today to list. There are far more people willing to burn someone at the stake (orthodoxy) then there are Galileos. We should value those that buck the norm, not excoriate them. Science, despite what we like to think, is often not an open process, often the deck is stacked in favor of orthodoxy. Sad to say I took part in bad science when I was in Hawaii. It was very informative and led me to be little more open minded and not so certain. That was my point Dan, there are a lot of open questions. There is so much we don't know that we should be a little more open minded and not so judgmental in our pronouncements as to what is "Settled Science". Many things that have been pronounced "Settled" have proven later to be wrong. My favorite Historian, Barbara Tuchman in her book" Practicing History" said that historically about 90% of what any society believed to be fact was later shown to be incorrect. She said the percentage did not improve in modern times it is just that people had more information but usually drew the wrong conclusions. Societal norms, culture, politics, monetary pressures, personal ambitions, etc. all put pressure to draw conclusions in a specific direction. Eventually truth would come out but by then there were new questions to address and the cycles starts all over again, the percentage stays about the same. It is said that History is written by the winners. I think there is a similar parallel in science. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of daniel turner Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:00 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) Bob: The article in question says that the WMAP data that Penrose sites can also be used to refute his assersions. This is a case of "It's not soup yet". We need more data before this one is sorted out. So let's build some more space probes and generate some more data. Always a good answer to unresolved questions. DT --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Robert Taylor <robtaylorslc@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload) To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, December 16, 2010, 12:25 PM Thanks, interesting article. Would seem to explain a lot of what we see. One thing I am sure of is that reality is far more interesting than what we can imagine.
Bob
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? "
Albert Einstein 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
How can astronomers detect such dim stars in galaxies so far away? Any red spectrum stars might be supergiants, wouldn't they be? Has anyone measured anything smaller than an entire galaxy that far away? Spencer Ball Attorney at Law 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd # 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84121 (801) 453-2000 spencer@spencerball.com This law firm collects debts. This communication may be an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, are confidential and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete this message and its attachments from your computer. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:33 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
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
Kim, see answers below. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kim Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 8:52 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang 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? A. They postulate that none of the laws of physics originally existed except possibly gravity. Taking the same position I could say that before the laws of physics existed any number of things existed including your fairy godmother. What is space? Some physicists believe even empty space has energy states. Why is space exempt from the laws of physics? In the past, when a theory did not follow existing physical laws it was abandoned - the assumption that Einstein used was that we are not in a special situation and that the same laws apply everywhere and at every time. 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. A. I think is does. Otherwise you have just so stories - how the tiger got its stripes etc. A theory that makes no predictions cannot be falsified and hence cannot be verified either. 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. A. Hoyle actually derives the background radiation of 2.73 deg K. and the amplitude of its fluctuations from the thermalization of starlight. See pages 201-207 of "A Different Approach to Cosmology", by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar. The 50 deg value was from George Gamow in 1948, granted it was based on some flawed assumptions (see Wikipedia article and search for 50). 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? A. There have been some strained explanations as I mentioned such as, "Quasar Apparent Proper Motion Observed by Geodetic VLBI Networks", D. S. MacMillian. I don't think the case is closed and more work needs to be done with space telescopes. The proper motion observed for even the Helix is very small. The problem is we need to encourage theories and ideas that question the current paradigm instead of sweeping them under the rug. Anyone who questions the Big Bang such as Halton Arp is in danger of losing his job. 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? Let me address the problem of galaxy clusters. See below quote for circular reasoning from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at- the-edge-of-the-universe/ "And that's the key issue. Clusters are so big that they take quite a bit of time to form. But how long? We're not sure. We're not sure exactly how long galaxies take to be born either. So every time we see one farther away we push back the time it takes to form them. Think of it this way: if it takes, say, 5 billion years to form a cluster, then we wouldn't see any more than 13.7 - 5 = 8.7 billion light years away. This one is 9.6 billion, so we know that clusters cannot take more than 13.7 - 9.6 = 4.1 billion years to form. In reality they probably take quite a bit less time. Observations like this one will help us understand just how much less. The reason this is important is because we don't know the exact timeline of the Universe after the Big Bang. We know when it happened, and we know when the first stars formed, but it's hard to say when the first galaxies and clusters of galaxies started to come together. Most likely that wasn't a firm time, but it was spread out over hundreds of millions or billions of years. But the more we see, the better we can figure that out. As it happens, the colors of the galaxies in this image give a clue as to how old they are: young stars are blue, and old stars are red, so by looking carefully at the mix the age of the galaxies can be estimated. The galaxies in this cluster look like they formed around 11.5 billion years ago, making them already a couple of billion years old when they emitted the light we see in the picture." What they have done is assume the age of the universe has to be 13.7 billion years and so they have backed out how long it took the clusters to form. The point I made is how long would it take the large clusters to form from normal gravitation interaction. G. de Vaucoleurs estimates it would take 100 billion years for a large super cluster to form from normal gravitational interaction. Think about it, the Milky Way is on a collision course with Andromeda in 4.5 billion years. How long do you think it took for galaxies in the Virgo Cluster to merge to form M87 and for the cluster to form under normal gravitational conditions. As Hilton Radcliffe points out on page 160 of the "The Static Universe", stars in elliptical galaxies are generally considered to be about 10 billion years old - yet we have seen elliptical galaxies more than 12 billion light year away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901 In 2007, a star in the Galactic halo, HE 1523-0901, was estimated to be about 13.2 billion years old, nearly as old as the Universe. As the oldest known object in the Milky Way at that time, it placed a lower limit on the age of the Milky Way.[5] This estimate was determined using the UV-Visual Echelle Spectrograph of the Very Large Telescope to measure the relative strengths of spectral lines caused by the presence of Thorium and other elements created by the R-process. The line strengths yield abundances of different elemental isotopes, from which an estimate of the age of the star can be derived using nucleocosmochronology.[5] See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html Radioactive Dating of an Old Star (15.2 Billion years old) A very interesting paper by Cowan et al. (1997, ApJ, 480, 246) discusses the thorium abundance in an old halo star. Normally it is not possible to measure the abundance of radioactive isotopes in other stars because the lines are too weak. But in CS 22892-052 the thorium lines can be seen because the iron lines are very weak. The Th/Eu (Europium) ratio in this star is 0.219 compared to 0.369 in the Solar System now. Thorium decays with a half-life of 14.05 Gyr, so the Solar System formed with Th/Eu = 24.6/14.05*0.369 = 0.463. If CS 22892-052 formed with the same Th/Eu ratio it is then 15.2 +/- 3.5 Gyr old. It is actually probably slightly older because some of the thorium that would have gone into the Solar System decayed before the Sun formed, and this correction depends on the nucleosynthesis history of the Milky Way. Nonetheless, this is still an interesting measure of the age of the oldest stars that is independent of the main-sequence lifetime method. A later paper by Cowan et al. (1999, ApJ, 521, 194) gives 15.6 +/- 4.6 Gyr for the age based on two stars: CS 22892-052 and HD 115444. A another star, CS 31082-001, shows an age of 12.5 +/- 3 Gyr based on the decay of U-238 [Cayrel, et al. 2001, Nature, 409, 691-692]. Wanajo et al. refine the predicted U/Th production ratio and get 14.1 +/- 2.5 Gyr for the age of this star. The Age of the Oldest Star Clusters When stars are burning hydrogen to helium in their cores, they fall on a single curve in the luminosity-temperature plot known as the H-R diagram after its inventors, Hertzsprung and Russell. This track is known as the main sequence, since most stars are found there. Since the luminosity of a star varies like M3 or M4, the lifetime of a star on the main sequence varies like t=const*M/L=k/L0.7. Thus if you measure the luminosity of the most luminous star on the main sequence, you get an upper limit for the age of the cluster: Age < k/L(MS_max)0.7 This is an upper limit because the absence of stars brighter than the observed L(MS_max) could be due to no stars being formed in the appropriate mass range. But for clusters with thousands of members, such a gap in the mass function is very unlikely, the age is equal to k/L(MS_max)0.7. Chaboyer, Demarque, Kernan and Krauss (1996, Science, 271, 957) apply this technique to globular clusters and find that the age of the Universe is greater than 12.07 Gyr with 95% confidence. They say the age is proportional to one over the luminosity of the RR Lyra stars which are used to determine the distances to globular clusters. Chaboyer (1997) gives a best estimate of 14.6 +/- 1.7 Gyr for the age of the globular clusters. But recent Hipparcos results show that the globular clusters are further away than previously thought, so their stars are more luminous. Gratton et al. give ages between 8.5 and 13.3 Gyr with 12.1 being most likely, while Reid gives ages between 11 and 13 Gyr, and Chaboyer et al. give 11.5 +/- 1.3 Gyr for the mean age of the oldest globular clusters. Summary Method Value [Gyr] +Errorbar -Errorbar Elements 14.5 +2.8 -2.5 Old Stars 14.4 +2.2 -2.2 GC MSTO 12.2 +1.3 -1.3 Disk WDs 11.5 +infinity -1 GC WDs 12.8 +1.1 -1.1 Weighted Mean 12.94 +0.75 -0.75 7. Is the Texas A&M paper online, and if so can you share the link? I'm really interested in reading this. See http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/708/ 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. A. The Michelson, Morley experiment showed that the speed of light was a constant regardless of the velocity of the source. If an object is approaching us at 50 percent the speed of light and emits light, the light will still only come to us at the speed of light (instead of one and a half times the speed of light) although it will be blue shifted. This physical result changed the whole field of physics. The problem with the Big Bang is in order to get it to work you have to invoke inflation and say all the current laws of physics didn't apply. 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? A. The old steady state is dead. Current models include Eric J. Lerner's Plasma Universe, the recycling boom and bust theories, Hoyle's ever expanding eternal universe ("A Different Approach to Cosmology"), Radcliffe's "Static Universe" (not really static but not significant expansion). I tried to answer most of the questions but you should read Hoyle's, Arp's, Lerner's and Radcliffe's books. I am not sure what the correct theory is but the Big Bang violates so many physical laws including the law of entropy and the main premise of information theory. You can't get something from nothing. -----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
participants (8)
-
daniel turner -
Don J. Colton -
erikhansen＠thebluezone.net -
Gary Vardon -
Joe Bauman -
Kim -
Robert Taylor -
Spencer Ball