More evidence against the Big Bang
Marcel Luttgens
__________________________________
According to the interesting article below,
"Some astronomers are seeing evidence that the first generation of
stars
and galaxies appeared just a few hundred million years after the start
of the universe.
Star formation in that early period could have occurred at a rate
about
ten times as fast as in the present-day universe."
But why were stars and galaxies created so quickly about 14 billion
years ago?
There is no scientific explanation for such phenomenon.
Instead of believing in a Big Bang, thinking that the universe was
created 14 billion
years ago, it is much more sensible to believe that the universe is
isotropic and
homogeneous in space and time. In other words, galaxies were as
numerous in the past
as they are to-day. Contrary to the BB theory, this view is perfectly
compatible with
the latest astronomical observations.
Marcel Luttgens
An Explosion of Light ln the Cosmic Darkness
____________________________________________
(From the International Herald Tribune, Thursday, January 10, 2002)
Scientist Finds Signs of Rapid Star Formation,
By John Noble Wilford NewYork Times Service
WASHINGTON - In the most distant observations yet by the Hubble Space
Telescope,
some astronomers think they are seeing evidence that the universe
emerged from its
initial darkness in a dawn of light that came up like thunder across
the cosmos.
The light of the first stars apparently did not wink on gradually here
and there,
like a drowsy village coming awake. That had been the accepted
thinking.
Instead, in the new and surprising view, the first starlight burst
forth in spectacular
profusion, a fireworks of creation.
If this proves to be true, many theories of the early history and
evolution of
the universe may have to be revised.
The new interpretation of the dawn of cosmic light - the first
generation of stars
and galaxies just a few hundred million years after the start of the
universe - was
reported here at a news conference at the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
The research was described by Kenneth Lanzetta. an astrophysicist at
the State
University of New York at Stony Brook.
After an innovative anaIysis of Hubble images of deep space, close to
the beginning
of time, Mr. Lanzetta said, "We seem to be finding that star and
galaxy formation
started early and rapidly."
But by rapidly, astronomers do not mean aIl at once - they mean in
just a few million
years, fast in cosmic terms.
Further details of the findings are to be reported soon in The
Astrophysical Journal.
Other astronomers and cosmologists greeted the report that was
announced Tuesday with
excitement and caution.
Bruce Margon, associate director for science at the Space Telescope
Science lnstitute
in Baltimore, said by clever and careful analysis, Mr. Lanzetta had
"teased out an
incredibly subtle result" , about early star formation.
Mr. Margon said the result would be controversial "because it is a
very difficult
measurement," and Mr. Lanzetta himself said his conclusions would
require further
analysis and observations.
"If this can be verified, it will dramatically change our
understanding of the
universe," said Anne Kinney, director of astronomy and physics at
NASA. "Because
stars are the building blocks of galaxies and the birthplace of solar
systems, proving
that countless numbers of stars began forming so early after the birth
of the universe
could cause us to rethink a lot of our theories."
Lisa Storrie-Lombardi, an astronomer at the California Institute of
Technology in Pasadena,
said the research appeared indeed to reach back to the first epoch of
star formation.
But because the observed objects are so far away and faint, beyond the
range of the
most trusted means of measuring cosmic distances, some scientists were
reserving judgment.
Calling the results "very important, if true", Mario Livio, a theorist
at the
Space Telescope Science Institute. said:
"There's nothing wrong with what they are doing: it's the best one can
do at
those distances. But il seems to take a necessary leap of faith".
Mr. Lanzetta and his colleagues anaIyzed with different filters the
color of infrared
light from the faint galaxies in the most distant images taken by the
Hubble telescope.
They considered the known relationship of cosmic gas density and star
formation in
near space and the fact that most nearby galaxies are of intermediate
or faint brightness,
the types that could not show up in the most distant images.
From such a study. Mr. Lanzetta concluded that the visible obiects in
the most distant
images were only the "tip of the iceberg." They were only the
brightest galaxies, not
the presumably more numerous intermediate and small ones.
Perhaps 90 percent of the light from the early universe is missing, he
estimated.
Mr. Lanzetta said that star formation in that early period could have
occurred at a
rate about 10 times as fast as in the present-day universe." He
estimated
that this dynamic period began as eariy as 500 million years after the
Big Bang,
the theoretical explosive creation of the universe thought to have
occurred about
14 billion years ago.
In the beginning, the Big Bang spewed intense radiation and energy.
Within a few
cooling minutes, protons and neutrons, the building blocks of atoms,
formed, then
joined to create light elements like hydrogen, helium and lithium.
Finally, these atomic
nuclei captured electrons to form atoms. By 300.000 years, the
universe was composed
mostly of clouds of hydrogen and helium atoms.
But aIl was darkness, and astronomers refer to this as the "dark age."
Little is
known or even surmised about conditions then, but at some point,
slightly higher
densities of hydrogen grew larger and clumpier until they presumably
collapsed of
their own gravity and became stars and galaxies of stars. Then there
was light.
Even though little has been known of the first epoch of star
formation, scientists
have generally thought that il began slowly and did not reach its most
dynamic phase
until about halfway to the present time. And now il has significantly
slowed down.
"But previous measurements had missed the dominant light of the early
galaxies,"
Mr. Lanzetta said.
An assessment of his interpretation of the research will probably
focus on the
fact that it is based largely on extrapolations back in time. The
preferred way
of determining cosmic distances is spectroscopic analysis of light
from faraway objects,
but light from the earliest galaxies is too faint to be studied this
way.
"When we actually see the missing light," Mr. Lanzetta said, "that
would be
the confirmation we need that this research is absolutely true."
That may not be possible until NASA's Next Generation Space Telescope
is put
into orbit, perhaps in 2008.
island
where the... "Big Bang" resulted from an interaction between opposing
levels of vacuum energy on a grand scale.
Assume that vacuum energy "aggregates" and polarizes into levels of
commonly charged objects... in a similar fashion to emr in a
thundercloud.
A "Big Flash" is then plausible at many levels within dynamics of this
scenario, where the Milky Way, for one example, represents the energy
which is produced along the "front" as levels of opposing energy
interact with respect to the severity of the "pressure gradient".
Abhijit
> More evidence against the Big Bang
No. There just can't be.
> Mr. Margon said the result would be controversial "because it is a
> very difficult
> measurement," and Mr. Lanzetta himself said his conclusions would
> require further
> analysis and observations.
What kind of evidence is this if authors themselves says that it
requires further analysis and obsevations?
> "If this can be verified, it will dramatically change our
> understanding of the
> universe," said Anne Kinney, director of astronomy and physics at
> NASA.
Somethings just can't be changed.
> That may not be possible until NASA's Next Generation Space Telescope
> is put
> into orbit, perhaps in 2008.
I am not so patient.
Abhi.
IGNACIO LAMOTHE
Big-Bang never happened. The real origin of Universal Expanssion
is what I call "GRAVITYREPULSION" = "Gravitational Repulsion"
¿Difficult? It is the true, real cause of Univers'expanssion.
11 years ago, in May/1.990 (*), I published a COSMOLOGICAL THEORY -
"Our Four dimmenssion Univers" - In it I predicted that universal
expansion was accelerated and that the origin of that acceleration and
the universal expansion too, was simply gravitational force, but in a
new, till now unknown form: REPULSION FORM.
Electromagnetic force has two forms of interactions; ¿WHY NOT GRAVITY?.
8 Years later the FACTS gave me the confirmation of my THEORY, which is
much more than predict the accelerated universal expansion....
If required I will send a summary of the Theory. (FREE, by E-Mail).
Thanks for your interest. IGNACIO LAMOTHE
(*) I.S.B.N.: 84-404-6610-2 - Depósito Legal: MA-286/1.990
Marcel Luttgens <mlut...@club-internet.fr> escribió en el mensaje de
noticias 243a1189.02040...@posting.google.com...
Harold Ensle
Marcel Luttgens <mlut...@club-internet.fr> wrote in message
news:243a1189.02040...@posting.google.com...
> More evidence against the Big Bang
> __________________________________
>
> According to the interesting article below,
>
> "Some astronomers are seeing evidence that the first generation of
> stars
> and galaxies appeared just a few hundred million years after the start
> of the universe.
> Star formation in that early period could have occurred at a rate
> about
> ten times as fast as in the present-day universe."
>
> But why were stars and galaxies created so quickly about 14 billion
> years ago?
> There is no scientific explanation for such phenomenon.
> Instead of believing in a Big Bang, thinking that the universe was
> created 14 billion
> years ago, it is much more sensible to believe that the universe is
> isotropic and
> homogeneous in space and time. In other words, galaxies were as
> numerous in the past
> as they are to-day. Contrary to the BB theory, this view is perfectly
> compatible with
> the latest astronomical observations.
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Of course, Marcel. reasonable people like yourself and I know that the
universe cannot be expanding, but most physicists really aren't reasonable.
H.Ellis Ensle
Marcel Luttgens
Yes, but before long, they will burn their own idol.
Marcel Luttgens