Is the big bang ready to explode?

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by a1120028

I said I'm not going to post re creation etc but just wanted to clarify why I started this thread.

The idea I brought up was I feel there may be some merit to the idea that there is a non-cosmological component to redshift in high redshift quasars and active galaxies.

Redshift indicates recession. High z objects appear to be at cosmological distances. There is no evidence for a "non-cosmological" component to redshift

Originally Posted by a1120028

Some questions arise
Is there a connection between galaxies and certain types of galaxies and the quasar?

The closest quasers subjected to deep imaging techniques display nebulosity, and are likely the active cores of galaxies in the remote far distant universe.

Originally Posted by a1120028

Are quasars ejected from galaxies, and infact proto-galaxies themselves?

No. Quasers are believed to be super massive black holes on a feeding frenzy in the cores of active galaxies. They are confined to an early epoch in the Uinverse's history. Their vast distances are confirmed by their redshifts and their lyman alpha forests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

Originally Posted by a1120028

Is there some other astrophysical process that can explain the redshift anomalies.

No

Originally Posted by a1120028

These questions are asked and looked at in depth in the documentary "The cosmology quest".

in depth? This sounds like what the anti-evolutionists use in their propoganda - magnify differences of scientific opinion to create the impression that the entire edifice of science is wrong, even though my TV is still working and emitting alpha and beta particles, and the infrared remote control works too. Same with that stupid "documentary" - "what the bleep do we know", which misconstrues evidence and opinions to create a false impression of the state of modern science.

Originally Posted by a1120028

Someone once said, and I fear it's an ominous prediction "In the future whenever we point a telescope skyward, we are only going to find what we already know is there".

To date this has not been the case. The explosion in astronomical knowledge is awesome.

Originally Posted by a1120028

I have become intrigued by the fact that if we take certain quasars associated with galaxies such as NGC 7603 and treat them as is if they are at their observed distance, ie in the vicinity of the associated galaxies, and not at their proposed red shift distances then no new ultra high energy process is needed to explain them. If this idea turns out to have merit it casts new light on things such as dark matter/energy and the BB theory.

That was the general idea.

I didn't intend to get into a theological debate. So if anyone has any ideas on the redshift thing please let me know. I'd be interested to hear them.

But they are not. You are using the discredited ideas of Arp. His observations were made on a previous generation of imaging equipment and have been falsified by modern investigations.

[a1120028]

Thats the sort of discussion I was looking for, the doco I was referring to was certainly not a creationists video. It was put together by Arp and 4 or 5 of his colleagues.

I did study general relativity and astophysics in 3rd yr at Uni and must say their arguments were convincing, but if they have been discredited beyond doubt with new imaging technology then that puts the matter to rest for now. The program was made in 2003 so is not very recent.

I was always better at theoretical/math based research that "hands on" lab work in physics and have only just started astronomy after having to do a 1st year semester course to finish my degree, I did astronomy and it got me hooked. That being my only experience with observational astronomy my knowledge is very limited.

Thanks for your input.

[astroron (Ron)]

I got this info from the HST site, follow the link http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/caption.html

[bojan]

Originally Posted by astroron

I got this info from the HST site, follow the link http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/caption.html

Yes, I remember that one... this object was one of the main arguments for Arp 's ideas about non-cosmological causes of redshift decades ago. Arp was arguing that the proof of connection between the two objects was barely visible "bridge" between them on processed (enhanced) images..
Couple of years back (even before Hubble) this object and photos of it were carefully analysed by others and no traces of "links" between the galaxy and quasar were found.
The images that Arp and al were using to prove their ideas actually proved to be overprocessed, and the conclusion was drawn on basically falsified data.

[astroron (Ron)]

I think it has been proven beyond that this bridge is a furfy.
I wonder if he will be discusing the subject with the MMO forum coming up in the near future

[bojan]

Well... Richard Hoagland is still discussing Cydonia and "Marsface" and "New Physics"....

[Gargoyle_Steve (Steve)]

As small creatures on a small world we have done extremely well in such a short time frame to explore / explain so much of what we see in the Universe all around us, and all of this without the benefit of having actually travelled any further than our own moon away.

Science is an ongoing process, ideas come and ideas go, but theories should only come and go as evidence to support or refute them comes and goes.
The Big Bang theory is currently the favoured theory by the majority of those 'qualified to know what they are taking about' , and so we often consider it to be 'the' theory at present. In time it may be disproven, or it may be modified, or we may find further evidence to support it as is.

One thing we will NOT do is to discard it until a better theory, one that is more accurately supported by actual evidence, comes along. I encourage thinking outside the square, speculative ideas, etc, but unless you have a definitive theory that is better supported by evidence then it is not going to replace Big Bang.

--------------------------------------------------

(Believers in the Great Green Arkleseizure [or other Douglas Adams fans] are obviously excluded from the above constraints)

[PeteMo (Pete)]

ArgoNavis Thanks for the summarised explanations. The world has moved on so much since I did my astro course at uni only 11 years ago. That was a time when objections to big bang seemed to be gaining a bit of popularity.

With the COBE background radiation, I read that there were small fluctuations in temperature, like thousandsths of a Kelvin or less, and that this was used to suggest that maybe it wasn't radiation due to the big bang. But In the grand scheme of thinks I guess a mere 1/1000th of a Kelvin is not enough to rock the boat.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by PeteMo

I guess a mere 1/1000th of a Kelvin is not enough to rock the boat.

Yes and no... the temperature fluctuations, even such a small value, must be explained because measurement instruments onboard KOBE have better accuracy that that, and simple BBG model predicts NO fluctuations. This is where inflation comes into play... and this results are confirming the inflation model.
This is what science is all about: we have observations, we devise a model that explains them. Then, we make predictions based on new model and then we go out and take measurements.. if they are in predicted conformance with the model (including measurement errors etc), fine. If not, back to the drawing board :-)

[PeteMo (Pete)]

Thanks Bojan, You don't sound like an "amateur" to me. But then aren't a lot of astronomical discoveries made by 'amateurs"?
Had a read on the web and the analogy of inflating a balloon whilst an ant walks across its surface helped me understand the Inflation Model much better. :-)
Cheers

[xelasnave]

In the interests of a chat and even with the absence of the math ...From Wiki.....

History of Big Bang nucleosynthesis
The history of Big Bang nucleosynthesis began with the calculations of Ralph Alpher and George Gamow in the 1940s. Together with Hans Bethe they would publish the seminal Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper outlining the theory of light-element production in the early universe.

During the 1970s, there was a major puzzle in that the density of baryons as calculated by Big Bang nucleosynthesis was much less than the observed mass of the universe based on calculations of the expansion rate. This puzzle was resolved in large part by postulating the existence of dark matter.

That's all of it ... Is this the current state of play?

I ask does the non resolution of the dark matter issue place the theory at risk?...

Is this why scientists are so interested in finding dark matter as it is needed to test the theory line?

I see here how the interpretation could be placed that was the underlying concern in the original post... but science has to follow the best course... the way being shown by earlier experiments...current thinking suggests big bang holds water.

I am not trying to be cute but I often wonder why the focus on dark matter...
when there is a better alternative but even in a mag from the early 90,s I recall seeing Vera Rubin holding plates purporting to show dark matter.... that mag also had computer generated maps of the background radiation as being somewhat varied I recall???? they looked like the final maps anyways...

If dark matter does not exist does that destroy the possibility of the big bang theory surviving or does it just need adjustment?
The point is when the result either way is known everything moves forward again on safe footing.

But even without the math the push of gravity is evident in the way the galaxies are held together ... attraction can not hold them so and the math tells us that... but if you believe gravity attracts you need invisible dark matter... but gravity pushes so you don't need "dark matter" to explain what we see so you now only need dark matter for the big bang theory support.

But I say its not there look as long as you like ... machos have been pretty well ruled out... wimps are left... neutrinos etc..or my gravity rain

The scientists still however ignore what they see and try to make the current theory ( the presence of dark matter) work when it is unworkable...

So that's not science and probably should go in the general chat but read it again in 20 years and see what you think.


alex

[bojan]

Alex,
however I try, I can not undrstand how "gravity push" can resolve quiestions you are mentioning.
Basic problem is, there is no way you can derive simple Newtonian formula for invese square law from "gravity rain" idea, that will hold for big and small, dense and thin objects, close and far away... remember, gravity works over cosmological distances as well as for the distances smaller than atom, and the margin of measurement error is miniscule... it can safely be ignored.
Dark matter is dark only because we can not see it, because it does not emit or reflect elecromagnetic radiation that we can detect (that is, radio waves visible light or x, gamma etc). That only means we are not talking about excited atoms here, or free enough-energy level charged particles in strong magnetic fields.. But it does not mean it is necessarily "exotic". It could well be just a normal matter in a form of brown dwarfs, planets.. or neutrinos and/or other form of radiation (remember, energy = mass*c^2). Of course exotic matter is not exluded here and we have to keep our minds open.. but at the same time we should not allow to be carried away by those posibilities :-)
Anyway, time will tell....

[xelasnave]

I am not sure they will but it is my opinion that because one thinks of attraction is the way gravity works one therefore needs mass to explain gravity... mass is relevant but gravity rain or the Universal pressure is there irrespective of matter... in such a pressure style environment the effect of the push will be there without there being matter... it is this push that causes different rotation speeds not the presence of "dark matter"... that my view and I state it to answer "how does yourway fix it"..

But absence or presence of dark matter in this context should not relate to the required dark matter in the big bang model I would think.

Yes a formula is needed but all it can say really is the force from one side of the Universe equals the force from the other side of the Universe ..into that approach you then have to devise how one object can shield another and the results be expressed in terms we expect from a Newtonian formula.

I think I understand the concept of dark matter ... machos being things say like a brown drawf ..there but we have not seen them yet.
Hubble looked for these in Orion and the opinion seemed to be that they found less than they expected if machos were to make up a sizable part of dark matter... or at least I think I have a grip on the concept.

Wimps seems to be a better candidate but these take in neutrinos and I see neutrinos as ( or a close family member) as the candidates for gravity rain.

My point although hidden was simply that the theory, the best we have so far, needs a base, which it has, from there ideas can be tested, predictions noted and exceptions or unusual results fitted in and as a result we move closer.
A am a little anti big bang people would think but I say you have to follow all this thru.. there will be things that dont sit well but follow the results and see where that takes us.

Vera Rubin said she would be much happier if dark matter could be explained with something simple rather than having to come up with a new mysterious particle but I think dark matter will be explained by the pushing or pressure system employed by such a particle... and as such I dont think it will be matter as such but only particles rushing from one place to another at C.
Anyways I am happy those working on the problems are doing well so I think we let them keep up the good work and encourage them to keep going...

alex

[bojan]

Alex,
There is no "Gravity push" thing.
As I said once and I am repeating it here, you will convince me that there may be something in it if you can show me how to derive the inverse square law for the gravity attraction force from the postulated gravity pushing force.
You can not, and this is so not because of lack of maths skills to do it, but you (and noone else) can not do it because it can not be done. The formula you end up with is not F=g*[(m1*.m2)/r^2), simple as that.

[xelasnave]

I am not seeking to convince you as much as explain my statement on my view of dark matter .

I accept everything you say and encouraged that you think I have the sckill as far as the math goes and the problem is that I have taken to face a problem without a solution. A bright side I take from it .

Still what can you say to change my mind that push is not the go I dont know.

The absense of a mathmatical expression does not stop me from looking and wondering.
I understand your respect for math as the only evidence one can take but I feel math finally is there to support a proposition as evidence rather than to be the only player. I would like to think the observation that galaxies are held in place by an external pushing force to offer at least a hope for the idea.
Attraction will not hold galaxies together as far as the math is concerned and I think that is the problem partly as dark matter seeks to explain.

And I like my notion better than anything I have seen so far... I dont buy the graviton thing with particles somehow going to another dimension to explain gravity as a weak force.. and I dont care if the math holds up.. I dont buy it.
String theory talks of messenger particles..for this system to work you need the messenger particles to travel at twice C ... I think anyways... it does not work for me... not that it sinks or floats on my say so.. I never think that. But I put forward my thoughts my idea and that is what it is finally an idea..out of respect for science I never call it a theory.. pity string theorists dont show the same respect for the wiehgt of the word.

Still dont frustrate yourself because I can not see what you see as time goes on I learn more.. that the good thing about my idea it has me at least reading everything I can understand... will I get a job with the sckills .. I doubt it but its fun.
So if I can produce a formula you will come onto the push side???
Thanks for your kind and thoughtful input
alex