The Really Big Cosmological Lie / Alan Guth
6 views
Skip to first unread message
BradGuth
Aug 1, 2011, 1:54:21 PM8/1/11
to Guth Usenet (public but censored)
According to author/contributor B.A.(aka Bad Astronomy insider
whomever), as always having total freedom and self appointed authority
as to published and hype multiple articles on whatever in Astronomy
(including Aug, 2011, page 23), whereas it seems their new and
improved estimate has the likes of our very own galaxy blowing off
1200 Ms/year of its spare/surplus molecular mass. Of course that’s
actually nothing compared to what a certain distant quasar galaxy has
been recently to our perception having been blowing off a good million
Ms/year and creating a considerable surrounding debris cloud of
perhaps carbon buckyballs containing vast amounts of water.
It stands to reason if a given star creation blows off the surrounding
remainders of whatever molecular nebula mass far away at upwards of
3000 km/sec, that within a million years is only covering a distance
of 10e3 ly, so perhaps the creation or possibly re-creation of
galaxies might tend to do the exact same thing, except on a larger
scale at sustaining a somewhat greater volume of molecular surplus
mass exodus and obviously at sufficient escape velocity in order to
put that excess mass far outside of its stars.
We’re also being informed by our upper most caste of mainstream peers
that the minimal Jeans Mass requirement for giving birth to a typical
main sequence star like our sun is 1000 Ms worth of a molecular cloud
(obviously the creation of multiple larger stars or stellar clusters
would tend to push that molecular cloud mass requirement towards a
respectable ratio of 1e6 Ms per stellar mass created, perhaps being
especially necessary of creating those stars having greater
metallicity), with the average molecular cloud mass at somewhere
between 1e4 ~ 1e5 Ms per each created star. This interpretation means
there was originally a great deal of ISM as representing the wandering/
rogue remainders of molecular mass within our galaxy (using a galactic
initial volume of 1e68 cm3 would have to exceed an ISM density of 3e5/
cm3 in order to have produced 5e11 stars), and apparently as of
billions of years after the fact there’s an even greater cosmic volume
and subsequent expelled molecular mass that’s primarily residing
outside of galaxies than ever conceived of by our mainstream peers,
that have usually been extensively textbook hyped as well as public
funded and highly protected from their ever being challenged in
multiple ways (such as when they’re dead makes it kind of harder to
challenge their extensively published interpretations).
What this latest bipolar confession or Freudian slip by B.A. means, is
that I’ve been perfectly correct in that my old assessment as having
stipulated there has never been any “missing mass” as required of the
Alan Guth theory stipulating that we have a forever expanding universe
due to a lack of mass, because it really doesn’t take all that much
complicated math in order to estimate the original amount of cosmic
IGM and subsequent ISM mass that really isn’t hardly insignificant,
nor much less MIA(missing in action).
If we take a conservative estimate of each galaxy blowing off or
expelling 1000 Ms/year, given each billion years = 1e12 Ms worth of
wandering/rogue molecular mass that’s getting set free to move about
between the galaxies. Given a highly conservative 500 billion
galaxies = 500e21 Ms per billion years that’s kinda forever lost in
space (or up for grabs so to speak) but not really MIA, so that’s
hardly suggestive of there being any significant missing mass, whereas
if anything it’s suggesting there’s way more than sufficient mass to
case our universe to eventually reverse its BB expansion and
eventually collapse upon itself.
My previous conservative estimate of the universe volume at 1e87 cm3
means that the IGM is simply not nearly as empty nor as mass deprived
as we’ve always been informed. So, where is this Alan Guth expansion
slowing down, or perhaps having already reversed? (keeping in mind
that our best science of the outer most realm of our universe is
roughly 13.7 billion years outdated, so there’s perhaps no telling as
to how many billion years our universe has been shrinking because,
that less redshifted or possibly blueshift light simply hasn’t gotten
back to us.)
Call this one the BGC (Brad Guth Contraction) theory, if you like,
whereas everything that goes around eventually comes around, ending up
exactly where it started, and the cosmos as well as complex life as we
know it gets another do-over. I bet at least some mainstream
religions that do not really believe in God nor in hell should like my
theory of unlimited do-overs, because they can totally forget about
any remorse for their having trashed this world.
On Jul 16, 12:11 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Current comoving volume within redshift z=3
: 1,129.524 Gpc)^3 = 4.233886 × 10^91 cubic centimeters
:
: See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
Thanks for sharing that update of the 4.234e91 cm3 estimate for the
universe volume that the vast majority (99.9999%) of which humanity
will never get to see or otherwise detect in a billion years because,
most of everything has been happening as of billions of light years
further way than humanity has ever existed, and supposedly according
to Alan Guth it’s forever moving even further way because there’s
supposedly insufficient mass for slowing anything down, much less
retracting it. But how can we ever be certain?
With this new estimate of considerable universe volume and using my
conservative 1e3 Ms/year exiting or getting blown and tossed away from
each galaxy, by now would suggest the average IGM density has received
13.7e54 kg worth of additional mass, which only amounts to 3.2357e-37
kg/cm3 as having been contributed to the existing IGM that may have
been worth at most 1 atom/cm3 but perhaps never having thinned out to
anything less than 0.001/cm3.
Of course such molecular clouds ejected from galaxies do not disperse
evenly, and some form into robust galactic class of Oort like rings so
the whatever existing IGM (including carbon buckyballs) gets this
extra galactic gas or molecular surplus of spent stars and nebula mass
added to the lumpy or clumpy soup of the basic clear/dark stuff we
call the IGM that’s apparently anything but uniform.
When a galaxy is created or re-created and 500+ billion stars plus
loads of everything else materializes into various active kinds of
metallicity, then how much of the original IGM of molecular nebula
cloud stuff gets initially blown away? (seems like it could be worth a
hundred fold to start off with, as having been tossed and blown off
every which way at a sufficient galactic escape velocity). This
estimate could be embarrassing to the astrophysics status-quo if the
clear/dark stuff remains as worth 10~100 fold greater mass than all
the galaxies combined.
So where exactly is the missing mass? (necessary for the Alan Guth
forever expanding universe theory to work)
If anything, this reassessment of the available cosmic IGM mass only
seems to further support the interpretation that our universe has way
too much spare wandering mass for its own good, especially when the
combined mass of an established galaxy can’t even manage to hold onto
some its own molecular clouds or even its water. The Andromeda galaxy
has to be losing at least twice as much, if not near ten fold what our
galaxy is losing, so it’ll be interesting to hear what others have to
say about this molecular exodus from galaxies and especially of those
packing quasar black holes.
Perhaps in addition to the ESA Herschel identifying this molecular
exit velocity of 1000 km/sec and speculating 1200 Ms/year that could
supposedly deplete a galaxy within a few million years (creating stars
needing a minimum of 1e3:1 worth of molecular mass and perhaps an
average as great as 1e5:1 might suggest more a likely billion years
required), whereas our delayed and way over-spendy JWST can help
quantify this sort of cosmic mass exit or exhaust of cool molecular
mass leaving other nearby galaxies.
This interpretation also opens up a couple other interesting notions
for galaxies that are simply not very old, and otherwise for how much
IGM and ISM density per cm3 had to exist in order to have given so
many stars their required bulk and eventual metallicity (the
progenitor Milky Way galaxy probably wasn’t of less volumetric density
than 3e5/cm3, and it most certainly could have been worth 3e6/cm3).
Working the IGM math from another angle; this means the IGM
contributed from our galaxy alone as having loss an average of 2e33 kg/
year has contributed near 2e43 kg within 10 billion years, seems
rather impressive not to mention the thousand fold greater blow-off
from quasar galaxies.
This continual replenishment of spare/surplus mass that’s going back
into the IGM, plus whatever else the expanding universe has been
encountering and/or sucking in, should more than represent sufficient
mass for the universe to eventually collapse and restart everything
from scratch. The local Great Attractor may be a minor pocket of this
contraction process, but first we’ll have to survive the Andromeda
encounter (not that humanity as we know it could possibly outlast the
next million years, because most of us can't envision our species even
lasting the next thousand unless we find an affordable way off of this
rock that used to be our Eden that once had nearly unlimited resources
and unspoiled nature to burn, so to speak).
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
whomever), as always having total freedom and self appointed authority
as to published and hype multiple articles on whatever in Astronomy
(including Aug, 2011, page 23), whereas it seems their new and
improved estimate has the likes of our very own galaxy blowing off
1200 Ms/year of its spare/surplus molecular mass. Of course that’s
actually nothing compared to what a certain distant quasar galaxy has
been recently to our perception having been blowing off a good million
Ms/year and creating a considerable surrounding debris cloud of
perhaps carbon buckyballs containing vast amounts of water.
It stands to reason if a given star creation blows off the surrounding
remainders of whatever molecular nebula mass far away at upwards of
3000 km/sec, that within a million years is only covering a distance
of 10e3 ly, so perhaps the creation or possibly re-creation of
galaxies might tend to do the exact same thing, except on a larger
scale at sustaining a somewhat greater volume of molecular surplus
mass exodus and obviously at sufficient escape velocity in order to
put that excess mass far outside of its stars.
We’re also being informed by our upper most caste of mainstream peers
that the minimal Jeans Mass requirement for giving birth to a typical
main sequence star like our sun is 1000 Ms worth of a molecular cloud
(obviously the creation of multiple larger stars or stellar clusters
would tend to push that molecular cloud mass requirement towards a
respectable ratio of 1e6 Ms per stellar mass created, perhaps being
especially necessary of creating those stars having greater
metallicity), with the average molecular cloud mass at somewhere
between 1e4 ~ 1e5 Ms per each created star. This interpretation means
there was originally a great deal of ISM as representing the wandering/
rogue remainders of molecular mass within our galaxy (using a galactic
initial volume of 1e68 cm3 would have to exceed an ISM density of 3e5/
cm3 in order to have produced 5e11 stars), and apparently as of
billions of years after the fact there’s an even greater cosmic volume
and subsequent expelled molecular mass that’s primarily residing
outside of galaxies than ever conceived of by our mainstream peers,
that have usually been extensively textbook hyped as well as public
funded and highly protected from their ever being challenged in
multiple ways (such as when they’re dead makes it kind of harder to
challenge their extensively published interpretations).
What this latest bipolar confession or Freudian slip by B.A. means, is
that I’ve been perfectly correct in that my old assessment as having
stipulated there has never been any “missing mass” as required of the
Alan Guth theory stipulating that we have a forever expanding universe
due to a lack of mass, because it really doesn’t take all that much
complicated math in order to estimate the original amount of cosmic
IGM and subsequent ISM mass that really isn’t hardly insignificant,
nor much less MIA(missing in action).
If we take a conservative estimate of each galaxy blowing off or
expelling 1000 Ms/year, given each billion years = 1e12 Ms worth of
wandering/rogue molecular mass that’s getting set free to move about
between the galaxies. Given a highly conservative 500 billion
galaxies = 500e21 Ms per billion years that’s kinda forever lost in
space (or up for grabs so to speak) but not really MIA, so that’s
hardly suggestive of there being any significant missing mass, whereas
if anything it’s suggesting there’s way more than sufficient mass to
case our universe to eventually reverse its BB expansion and
eventually collapse upon itself.
My previous conservative estimate of the universe volume at 1e87 cm3
means that the IGM is simply not nearly as empty nor as mass deprived
as we’ve always been informed. So, where is this Alan Guth expansion
slowing down, or perhaps having already reversed? (keeping in mind
that our best science of the outer most realm of our universe is
roughly 13.7 billion years outdated, so there’s perhaps no telling as
to how many billion years our universe has been shrinking because,
that less redshifted or possibly blueshift light simply hasn’t gotten
back to us.)
Call this one the BGC (Brad Guth Contraction) theory, if you like,
whereas everything that goes around eventually comes around, ending up
exactly where it started, and the cosmos as well as complex life as we
know it gets another do-over. I bet at least some mainstream
religions that do not really believe in God nor in hell should like my
theory of unlimited do-overs, because they can totally forget about
any remorse for their having trashed this world.
On Jul 16, 12:11 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Current comoving volume within redshift z=3
: 1,129.524 Gpc)^3 = 4.233886 × 10^91 cubic centimeters
:
: See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
Thanks for sharing that update of the 4.234e91 cm3 estimate for the
universe volume that the vast majority (99.9999%) of which humanity
will never get to see or otherwise detect in a billion years because,
most of everything has been happening as of billions of light years
further way than humanity has ever existed, and supposedly according
to Alan Guth it’s forever moving even further way because there’s
supposedly insufficient mass for slowing anything down, much less
retracting it. But how can we ever be certain?
With this new estimate of considerable universe volume and using my
conservative 1e3 Ms/year exiting or getting blown and tossed away from
each galaxy, by now would suggest the average IGM density has received
13.7e54 kg worth of additional mass, which only amounts to 3.2357e-37
kg/cm3 as having been contributed to the existing IGM that may have
been worth at most 1 atom/cm3 but perhaps never having thinned out to
anything less than 0.001/cm3.
Of course such molecular clouds ejected from galaxies do not disperse
evenly, and some form into robust galactic class of Oort like rings so
the whatever existing IGM (including carbon buckyballs) gets this
extra galactic gas or molecular surplus of spent stars and nebula mass
added to the lumpy or clumpy soup of the basic clear/dark stuff we
call the IGM that’s apparently anything but uniform.
When a galaxy is created or re-created and 500+ billion stars plus
loads of everything else materializes into various active kinds of
metallicity, then how much of the original IGM of molecular nebula
cloud stuff gets initially blown away? (seems like it could be worth a
hundred fold to start off with, as having been tossed and blown off
every which way at a sufficient galactic escape velocity). This
estimate could be embarrassing to the astrophysics status-quo if the
clear/dark stuff remains as worth 10~100 fold greater mass than all
the galaxies combined.
So where exactly is the missing mass? (necessary for the Alan Guth
forever expanding universe theory to work)
If anything, this reassessment of the available cosmic IGM mass only
seems to further support the interpretation that our universe has way
too much spare wandering mass for its own good, especially when the
combined mass of an established galaxy can’t even manage to hold onto
some its own molecular clouds or even its water. The Andromeda galaxy
has to be losing at least twice as much, if not near ten fold what our
galaxy is losing, so it’ll be interesting to hear what others have to
say about this molecular exodus from galaxies and especially of those
packing quasar black holes.
Perhaps in addition to the ESA Herschel identifying this molecular
exit velocity of 1000 km/sec and speculating 1200 Ms/year that could
supposedly deplete a galaxy within a few million years (creating stars
needing a minimum of 1e3:1 worth of molecular mass and perhaps an
average as great as 1e5:1 might suggest more a likely billion years
required), whereas our delayed and way over-spendy JWST can help
quantify this sort of cosmic mass exit or exhaust of cool molecular
mass leaving other nearby galaxies.
This interpretation also opens up a couple other interesting notions
for galaxies that are simply not very old, and otherwise for how much
IGM and ISM density per cm3 had to exist in order to have given so
many stars their required bulk and eventual metallicity (the
progenitor Milky Way galaxy probably wasn’t of less volumetric density
than 3e5/cm3, and it most certainly could have been worth 3e6/cm3).
Working the IGM math from another angle; this means the IGM
contributed from our galaxy alone as having loss an average of 2e33 kg/
year has contributed near 2e43 kg within 10 billion years, seems
rather impressive not to mention the thousand fold greater blow-off
from quasar galaxies.
This continual replenishment of spare/surplus mass that’s going back
into the IGM, plus whatever else the expanding universe has been
encountering and/or sucking in, should more than represent sufficient
mass for the universe to eventually collapse and restart everything
from scratch. The local Great Attractor may be a minor pocket of this
contraction process, but first we’ll have to survive the Andromeda
encounter (not that humanity as we know it could possibly outlast the
next million years, because most of us can't envision our species even
lasting the next thousand unless we find an affordable way off of this
rock that used to be our Eden that once had nearly unlimited resources
and unspoiled nature to burn, so to speak).
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages