Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT
r...@firstpr.com.au
carried an interview with Chris Mullis about a galaxy cluster,
discovered initially with X-rays and then confirmed
spectroscopically with the VLT.
http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/~cmullis/research/xmmuj2235/
Discovery of an X-ray-Luminous Galaxy Cluster at z=1.4
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503004
The interview should soon be available at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/
Chris Mullis et al. say their technique could be used to find
many such objects with relative ease.
. . . XMMUJ2235.3-2557 is likely more massive
than RDCS1252-29 (previously the most massive, distant
cluster known at z = 1.24).
They estimate the cluster is 9 billion light years away. In
the interview Chris Mullis indicated that he thought the cluster
must have begun forming 11 billion years ago. He referred to
the age of the Universe as being 13.7 billion years.
He indicated that this cluster is a major challenge to theories
of galaxy formation - which will need to be revised in order to
account for them forming and collecting themselves into clusters
so rapidly.
I think that a better approach would be to question the Big Bang
Theory. All we need to disprove it is a mechanism by which
light is redshifted 1 part in about 15 billion per year of
travel in the intergalactic plasma. See
http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/
for such theories and discussion of problems with the BBT and
some alternative theories, concerning:
Heating and acceleration of stellar coronae and winds.
How galaxy clusters do not resemble the shapes one would
expect to result from gravitational formation, but rather
the liquid between bubbles in a foam. I propose the void
IGM is heated to extreme temperatures by a plasma redshift
(I plan to reformulate this as sparse particle redshift)
of distant starlight, creating high enough pressures,
despite the very low density, to push galaxies (and their
more massive surrounding coronae) into the cluster or
supercluster shapes we observe.
Plasma (sparse particle) redshift occurring close to quasars -
so the Lyman forest is local to the quasar. This would also
explain the failure to find the transverse proximity effect
with a foreground quasar - a failure which directly challenges
the Doppler / expansion assumption about redshift on which the
Big Bang Theory is based.
A theory of dark matter in galactic halos consisting of black
dwarfs and their collision fragments. This would be
impossible if the galaxies are less than 14 billion years
old or so, since (according to conventional theories, which
I think are probably fine) stars would take too long to cool.
However, if we we abandon the BBT and consider that galaxies
are probably much older than this, with some as-yet unknown
source of matter/energy, then they could be old enough to
generate collapsed and cooled stars with a mass exceeding that
of the luminous stars. I propose how these would eventually
wind up in widely dispersed elliptical orbits around a spiral
galaxy - so explaining the long-standing problem of galactic
rotation curves.
Pointers to Jerry Jensen's critique of the conventional
analysis of supernova light curves. This conventional finding
of time dilation would need to be disproven in order to
abandon the BBT.
jacob navia
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/galaxies_early_universe.html
What did the universe look like when it was only 2 to 3 billion years=20
old? Astronomers used to think it was a pretty simple place containing=20
relatively small, young star-forming galaxies. Researchers now are=20
realizing that the truth is not that simple. Even the early universe was=20
a wildly complex place. Studying the universe at this early stage is=20
important in understanding how the galaxies near us were assembled over=20
time.
Jiasheng Huang (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) said, "It=20
looks like vegetable soup! We're detecting galaxies we never expected to=20
find, having a wide range of properties we never expected to see."
"It's becoming more and more clear that the young universe was a big zoo=20
with animals of all sorts," said Ivo Labb=EF=BF=BD (Observatories of the=20
Carnegie Institution of Washington), lead author on the study announcing=20
this result.
Using the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) aboard NASA's Spitzer Space=20
Telescope, the astronomers searched for distant, red galaxies in the=20
Hubble Deep Field South-a region of the southern sky previously observed=20
by the Hubble Space Telescope.
Their search was successful. The IRAC images displayed about a dozen=20
very red galaxies lurking at distances of 10 to 12 billion light-years.=20
Those galaxies existed when the universe was only about 1/5 of its=20
present age of 14 billion years. Analysis showed that the galaxies=20
exhibit a large range of properties.
"Overall, we're seeing young galaxies with lots of dust, young galaxies=20
with no dust, old galaxies with lots of dust, and old galaxies with no=20
dust. There's as much variety in the early universe as we see around us=20
today," said Labb=EF=BF=BD.
The team was particularly surprised to find a curious breed of galaxy=20
never seen before at such an early stage in the universe--
*old, red galaxies that had stopped forming new stars altogether.*
Those galaxies had rapidly formed large numbers of stars much earlier in=20
the universe's history, raising the question of what caused them to=20
"die" so soon.
The unpredicted existence of such "red and dead" galaxies so early in=20
time challenges theorists who model galaxy formation.
"We're trying to understand how galaxies like the Milky Way assembled=20
and how they got to look the way they appear today," said Giovanni Fazio=20
(CfA), a co-author on the study. "Spitzer offers capabilities that=20
Hubble and other instruments don't, giving us a unique way to study very=20
distant galaxies that eventually became the galaxies we see around us now=
.."
The study will be published in an upcoming issue of The Astrophysical=20
Journal Letters.
This press release is being issued in conjunction with the Observatories=20
of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.
---------------------------------------------
Emphasis in
*old, red galaxies that had stopped forming new stars altogether.*
added by me.
How can an old galaxy form and die in only 2 Bill years?
Assuming a rotation rate identical to the milky way, it has
the time to make only 8 turns abd it is already dead and old...
Every months we have discoveries like this:
*There's as much variety in the early universe as we see around us today*
The scopes have arrived at the immediate neighborurhood of the
supposed big bang and there is not the slightest hint of a bang
to see.
jacob
Max Keon
>
> One more data point in the same direction:
> http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/galaxies_early_universe.html
> What did the universe look like when it was only 2 to 3 billion years
> old? Astronomers used to think it was a pretty simple place containing
> relatively small, young star-forming galaxies. Researchers now are
> realizing that the truth is not that simple. Even the early universe was
> a wildly complex place.
The complex evolutionary state of the "early" universe described
in your post certainly can't be logically justified within the
scope of the BBT. While researchers are out there realizing the
"truth", they should also realize that continually upgrading the
theory to incorporate emerging, and damning evidence, will only
serve to further embarrass the entire physics community.
One theory has so far passed every test, with flying colors.
-----
Max Keon
xant...@well.com
> How can an old galaxy form and die in only 2 Bill
> years?
One can envision lots of mechanisms; all it takes is
something to sweep the galaxy clear of dust and gas
from which to create more stars.
A glancing collision with a larger galaxy could do
that.
The "big enough" jet from another galaxy's massive
black hole could perhaps do that, hosing away the
dust but leaving the existing stars.
Flying through a dust-thick extensive unconsolidated
cloud at relativistic relative velocities could
probably do that too; the stars would bully on
through, but the galactic dust between them would be
stopped in its tracks.
Once you stop forming stars, the blue ones die their
quick deaths, and soon only the longer-lived red
ones remain, and the galaxy looks "old" only because
it no longer has any surviving blue stars to make it
look "young". That is just as should be expected if
you take out the loose dust by _any_ mechanism.
There's nothing "contradictory to the big bang
theory" about finding a _few_ anamolous objects.
The universe is plenty big enough for a few highly
unlikely happenings nontheless to have occurred.
The more data we find, the more fractal-like the
universe seems, and fractals provide lots of room
for extremal cases.
Finding the anomalous objects to be the _prevalent_
types would certainly be worrisome to the BBT; any
theory which finds mostly exceptions to its
predictions hasn't long to live.
> Assuming a rotation rate identical to the milky
> way, it has the time to make only 8 turns a[n]d it
> is already dead and old...
Which is completely irrelevant to the issue.
> Every months we have discoveries like this:
> *There's as much variety in the early universe as
> we see around us today*
Yep; like every other theory of the real world,
things grow more interesting the better your ability
gets to resolve details in the data.
That doesn't necessarily invalidate the larger
theory.
What would be absolutely mind boggling would be if
the _opposite_ were the case, if all the new
instruments' resolving power were a waste of effort,
because nothing new or unexpected or interesting at
all were there to be seen.
> The scopes have arrived at the immediate
> neighborhood of the supposed big bang and there
> is not the slightest hint of a bang to see.
You mean besides the cosmic microwave background
radiation that already confirms the BBT to several
decimals of precision?
That _is_ the Big Bang, granted you aren't going to
see it in an optical telescope, which would be
looking among the wrong
wavelengths for the Big Bang in any case.
Were you looking for some _other_ Big Bang?
If so, why?
One more than suffices, I would think.
xanthian, amused that _every_ theory finds its
_inevitable_ gathering of naysayers.
jacob navia
> jacob navia wrote:
>
>
>>How can an old galaxy form and die in only 2 Bill
>>years?
>
>
> One can envision lots of mechanisms; all it takes is
> something to sweep the galaxy clear of dust and gas
> from which to create more stars.
>
> A glancing collision with a larger galaxy could do
> that.
>
> The "big enough" jet from another galaxy's massive
> black hole could perhaps do that, hosing away the
> dust but leaving the existing stars.
>
> Flying through a dust-thick extensive unconsolidated
> cloud at relativistic relative velocities could
> probably do that too; the stars would bully on
> through, but the galactic dust between them would be
> stopped in its tracks.
>
Relativistic relative velocities???
One of the fastest moving galaxies (NGC 1427A ) is falling into the
Fornax cluster at ... 600 Km/sec.
(http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/09)
To accelerate *A GALAXY* to relativistic speeds would require so
much energy that I can safely bet that there will never be an
observation of such an object. Besides, the high speed of the
galaxy should be *noticable* in its spectra, either in an increased
or decreased red/blue shift.
This looks like a desperate explanation. Yes; it is *possible* but...
is it likely?
> Once you stop forming stars, the blue ones die their
> quick deaths, and soon only the longer-lived red
> ones remain, and the galaxy looks "old" only because
> it no longer has any surviving blue stars to make it
> look "young". That is just as should be expected if
> you take out the loose dust by _any_ mechanism.
>
Just 2 Billion years?
A sun-like star lives 10 Billion years. Even if there weren't
any new star formations, sun-like stars should go on for quite
a while. Supposing this "encounter at relativistic speeds" takes
place 1 Bill years after the bang, we should see a lot of blue
stars 1 Billion years later, not enough to make the galaxy red.
> There's nothing "contradictory to the big bang
> theory" about finding a _few_ anamolous objects.
>
Sorry but this is *one* from many examples discovered.
Old galaxies with iron in it, galaxy clusters at
9 Billion years
(http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-04-05.html)
and *many* others.
> The universe is plenty big enough for a few highly
> unlikely happenings nontheless to have occurred.
>
Probably. The point is, the more "unlikely" events we find, the
more unlikely the theory becomes, that is my point. I am not
saying that this is 100% impossible to explain with BB theory, just
that BB theory becomes more and more unlikely as more facts are
known.
Ptolomeus rotating spheres model could ALWAYS accomodate new
observations by making a NEW sphere. But at some point people
just preferred the new model because it was simpler...
Now, the big problem here is that there isn't any Galileo
around :-)
> The more data we find, the more fractal-like the
> universe seems, and fractals provide lots of room
> for extremal cases.
>
> Finding the anomalous objects to be the _prevalent_
> types would certainly be worrisome to the BBT; any
> theory which finds mostly exceptions to its
> predictions hasn't long to live.
>
That's exactly my point.
>
>>Assuming a rotation rate identical to the milky
>>way, it has the time to make only 8 turns a[n]d it
>>is already dead and old...
>
>
> Which is completely irrelevant to the issue.
>
>
No. Galaxies are flat, and to get flat they have to
rotate for some time to flatten themselves isn't it?
>>Every months we have discoveries like this:
>>*There's as much variety in the early universe as
>>we see around us today*
>
>
> Yep; like every other theory of the real world,
> things grow more interesting the better your ability
> gets to resolve details in the data.
>
I agree
> That doesn't necessarily invalidate the larger
> theory.
>
> What would be absolutely mind boggling would be if
> the _opposite_ were the case, if all the new
> instruments' resolving power were a waste of effort,
> because nothing new or unexpected or interesting at
> all were there to be seen.
>
>
>>The scopes have arrived at the immediate
>>neighborhood of the supposed big bang and there
>>is not the slightest hint of a bang to see.
>
>
> You mean besides the cosmic microwave background
> radiation that already confirms the BBT to several
> decimals of precision?
>
There was a discussion in sci.astro about "overaveraging"
and the whole "wrinkles in the face of god"
story. I remain a sceptic about that. But yes, there
is no alternative explanation to the cosmic background.
The problem is that it could very well be that we just
do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*, and we see it
as we can: as a "BB " relic.
> That _is_ the Big Bang, granted you aren't going to
> see it in an optical telescope, which would be
> looking among the wrong
> wavelengths for the Big Bang in any case.
>
I am not so stupid to believe we could "see" the big bang.
Of course not. But its immediate neighborhood should have
*some* marks of such a "bang" having happened relatively shrtly,
i.e. 500 Mill years...
> Were you looking for some _other_ Big Bang?
>
> If so, why?
>
> One more than suffices, I would think.
>
> xanthian, amused that _every_ theory finds its
> _inevitable_ gathering of naysayers.
And, an established theory will find its inevitable
gathering of people that will stick to it no matter what.
jacob
xant...@well.com
on the scientific issues rather than on scoring points -- mjh]
jacob navia wrote:
> xant...@well.com wrote:
>> jacob navia wrote:
>>> How can an old galaxy form and die in only 2
>>> Bill years?
>> One can envision lots of mechanisms; all it takes
>> is something to sweep the galaxy clear of dust
>> and gas from which to create more stars.
>> A glancing collision with a larger galaxy could
>> do that.
>> The "big enough" jet from another galaxy's
>> massive black hole could perhaps do that, hosing
>> away the dust but leaving the existing stars.
>> Flying through a dust-thick extensive
>> unconsolidated cloud at relativistic relative
>> velocities could probably do that too; the stars
>> would bully on through, but the galactic dust
>> between them would be stopped in its tracks.
> Relativistic relative velocities???
Notice that I supplied _three_ mechanisms, and
rather than respond to the grist of any of them,
you wasted your effort jumping on a badly chosen
word. This isn't productive to understanding the
phenomena, at all.
> One of the fastest moving galaxies (NGC 1427A ) is
> falling into the Fornax cluster at ... 600 Km/sec.
> (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/09)
You'd have a lot less misunderstandings if you'd
resist jumping crowingly and unthinkingly on a
misused _word_, and work out the _math_ for
yourself. If a 600 kmps galaxy hits a 0 kps dust
cloud, a good guess would be that the galaxy's
internal dust falls behind at 300 kmps. How long
does it take to sweep such a galaxy clean of dust?
Well, a galaxy is roughly 10^18 km across, if I
haven't lost a decimal, and 300 kmps is roughly
10^10 km/year, so 10^8 years would suffice, only a
tenth of a billion: lots of time to have cleaned out
a galaxy 2 billion years old.
> To accelerate *A GALAXY* to relativistic speeds
> would require so much energy that I can safely bet
> that there will never be an observation of such an
> object. Besides, the high speed of the galaxy
> should be *noticable* in its spectra, either in an
> increased or decreased red/blue shift.
Yada, yada, yada... You're arguing with the hand.
> This looks like a desperate explanation. Yes; it
> is *possible* but... is it likely?
If you had bothered to work out the math for
yourself using the data _you_ supplied, you'd know
the answer is in the affirmative. This habit of
failing to do your own homework isn't helping you
understand the issues, at all.
>> Once you stop forming stars, the blue ones die
>> their quick deaths, and soon only the
>> longer-lived red ones remain, and the galaxy
>> looks "old" only because it no longer has any
>> surviving blue stars to make it look "young".
>> That is just as should be expected if you take
>> out the loose dust by _any_ mechanism.
> Just 2 Billion years?
> A sun-like star lives 10 Billion years. Even if
> there weren't any new star formations, sun-like
> stars should go on for quite a while. Supposing
> this "encounter at relativistic speeds" takes
> place 1 Bill years after the bang, we should see a
> lot of blue stars 1 Billion years later, not
> enough to make the galaxy red.
Give me strength. Go look up the lifetime for blue
stars, please. You are off by factors containing
multiple digits.
>> There's nothing "contradictory to the big bang
>> theory" about finding a _few_ anomalous objects.
> Sorry but this is *one* from many examples
> discovered. Old galaxies with iron in it, galaxy
> clusters at 9 Billion years
> (http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-04-05.html)
> and *many* others.
Yep, but lots of _single_, different, anomalies
aren't an issue; among "billions of billions" of
galaxies, even the most (within reason) unlikely
events have had time to happen "somewhere, once" by
purely statistical arguments based simply on the
huge number of objects the universe contains. It is
when they are happening "everywhere, often" that you
start to worry about your theory.
>> The universe is plenty big enough for a few
>> highly unlikely happenings nontheless to have
>> occurred.
> Probably. The point is, the more "unlikely" events
> we find, the more unlikely the theory becomes,
> that is my point.
No, the more _identical_ unlikely events we find,
the more danger those events present to the theory.
The more detailed our data investigating capability
becomes, the more _kinds of_ *unique* unlikely
events we can pull out of the data, and that means
there are lots more _unique_ anomalies reported with
every sensing device improvement; but that, again,
is merely an expected result.
Worry when some one contradicting _kind of_ anomaly
starts to dominate the findings, not when new kinds
of anomalies arrive with each sensor improvement.
That's exactly why we pay the big bucks for the
better sensors: so we can winkle the strange and
interesting stuff out of the mostly bland data.
> I am not saying that this is 100% impossible to
> explain with BB theory, just that BB theory
> becomes more and more unlikely as more facts are
> known.
Think about what you just wrote.
> But at some point people just preferred the new
> model because it was simpler...
So far as I know, the Big Bang Theory, with
Inflation, remains by far the most parsimoneous
explanation of the universe as we see it today, and
all the statistical flukes in the world aren't
contradicting that impression; numerous statistical
flukes are an _expected finding_ in such a large
data set.
> Now, the big problem here is that there isn't any
> Galileo around :-)
I think we need more pressingly to bring back
William of Occam.
>> The more data we find, the more fractal-like the
>> universe seems, and fractals provide lots of room
>> for extremal cases.
>> Finding the anomalous objects to be the _prevalent_
>> types would certainly be worrisome to the BBT; any
>> theory which finds mostly exceptions to its
>> predictions hasn't long to live.
> That's exactly my point.
But you fail to do the math, and so miss making your
point; gut arguments don't work well for arguing
where the numbers involved defy correct intuitions.
>>> Assuming a rotation rate identical to the milky
>>> way, it has the time to make only 8 turns a[n]d it
>>> is already dead and old...
> > Which is completely irrelevant to the issue.
> No. Galaxies are flat,
That is not true in general; spiral galaxies are
flat, elliptical galaxies are, surprise, elliptical.
At the distances where a whole galaxy takes up a
couple of pixels on your sensing device, deciding
whether a galaxy is a certain shape is
"interesting", and has to be based on its spectrum,
not its outline in your sensing device.
But in the cases under discussion, the spectral
anomalies are _already_ an issue, and make trusting
spectral analysis to determine really subtle stuff
like "is the spectral spread appropriate for an
elliptical galaxy, or for a spiral one", a dodgy
choice. That's the level of math I'll _happily_
defer to the experts.
> and to get flat they have to rotate for some time
> to flatten themselves isn't it?
Which is still irrelevant to the issue of why they
are blue light deprived. Most certainly, they don't
have to "flatten" to be galaxies-at-all.
>>> The scopes have arrived at the immediate
>>> neighborhood of the supposed big bang and there
>>> is not the slightest hint of a bang to see.
>> You mean besides the cosmic microwave background
>> radiation that already confirms the BBT to
>> several decimals of precision?
> There was a discussion in sci.astro about
> "overaveraging" and the whole "wrinkles in the
> face of god" story. I remain a sceptic about that.
> But yes, there is no alternative explanation to
> the cosmic background.
Then why on earth did you make your previous
statement?
> The problem is that it could very well be that we
> just do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*,
> and we see it as we can: as a "BB " relic.
Yep, that's this big problem with science, you get
this raw data, and then you come up with some
"cooked" interpretation of that data. That's where
we get the documents called "PhD theses".
While that interpretation retains good predictive
capability, it remains "the accepted theory". As
soon as it loses that ability, it lands "in the
dustbin of history". Right now, Big Bang theory is
in no danger at all of landing in the dustbin,
however much it annoys some folks religious or
math-deprived intuitive notions.
>> That _is_ the Big Bang, granted you aren't going
>> to see it in an optical telescope, which would be
>> looking among the wrong wavelengths for the Big
>> Bang in any case.
> I am not so stupid to believe we could "see" the
> big bang.
And yet you go right on to insist on exactly that:
> Of course not. But its immediate neighborhood
> should have *some* marks of such a "bang" having
> happened relatively shrtly, i.e. 500 Mill years...
You write like you expect to see the Big Bang from
some exterior vantage point. We're inside it, and
the cosmic background microwave radiation is there
to be seen in every direction we look. It precisely
satisfies your need for "some marks".
It helps to remember, too, that the Universe spent a
good while after the Big Bang, being totally opaque.
300,000 years sticks in my mind, and I refuse to
go look it up to confirm that. Astronomy is an
"also interesting" for me, not something that
dominates my intellectual life, so my
willingness to invest time into it is pretty
limited.
Between the point where it changed phase to be
transparent, and the point where gravity had enough
time to work to produce some stars, there's probably
a big bunch of "nothing at all to look at" out
there, so don't expect to be finding the
astronomical equivalent of "fossils of soft bodied
organisms" where there are none.
It's like the hole in the data before 10^-34 seconds
or whatever the figure is; some stuff is plain
impossible ever to "see"; _lack_ of data isn't much
persuasive in favor of _any_ theory.
> And, an established theory will find its
> inevitable gathering of people that will stick to
> it no matter what.
Right. The ones who win are the ones who do their
own homework. Pretending blue stars will last ten
billion years just because yellow ones do, rather
than bothering to look up the right answer, punches
some pretty large holes in your arguments from the
vantage of more clueful observers. That reduces both
any chance _you'll_ understand reality, and any
chance you'll prevail in pressing your version of
"how things went" on those who think _they_ do.
FWIW
xanthian.
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
<ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Ptolomeus rotating spheres model could ALWAYS accomodate new
> observations by making a NEW sphere. But at some point people
> just preferred the new model because it was simpler...
No. As Fourier pointed out, ANY periodic motion can be thought of as
consisting of a sum of sinusoidal motions of various periods, so in that
sense, yes (I bet Ptolemy didn't know he was doing Fourier synthesis).
However, this applies just to TRANSVERSE motions. Ptolemy's model
predicts completely different RADIAL motions than that of Copernicus or
Kepler so, as soon as you can measure the distance to a planet, you can
falsify Ptolemy's model.
As for the rest of the discussion, I think you need to define "big bang
theory" before going any further. A common mistake is to define "big
bang theory" to mean more than it actually does. Even if these
additional details really are falsified by some observations, it just
means that these additional details are falsified, not the "core" of the
big bang theory.
jacob navia
> [Mod. note: please could all posters try to remain polite and focussed
> on the scientific issues rather than on scoring points -- mjh]
>
I agree with that.
>>Relativistic relative velocities???
>
>
> Notice that I supplied _three_ mechanisms, and
> rather than respond to the grist of any of them,
> you wasted your effort jumping on a badly chosen
> word. This isn't productive to understanding the
> phenomena, at all.
>
OK, OK.
Since I have *also* a badly choosen word (I spoke about "blue"
stars instead of just "bright" stars, I will acccept your point.
:-)
>
>>One of the fastest moving galaxies (NGC 1427A ) is
>>falling into the Fornax cluster at ... 600 Km/sec.
>>(http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/09)
>
>
> You'd have a lot less misunderstandings if you'd
> resist jumping crowingly and unthinkingly on a
> misused _word_, and work out the _math_ for
> yourself. If a 600 kmps galaxy hits a 0 kps dust
> cloud, a good guess would be that the galaxy's
> internal dust falls behind at 300 kmps. How long
> does it take to sweep such a galaxy clean of dust?
>
> Well, a galaxy is roughly 10^18 km across, if I
> haven't lost a decimal, and 300 kmps is roughly
> 10^10 km/year, so 10^8 years would suffice, only a
> tenth of a billion: lots of time to have cleaned out
> a galaxy 2 billion years old.
>
OK, so your scenario is
t=0 Start of collision with non moving dust/gas cloud,
galaxy speed 600 Km/sec
t= 10^8 Million years. Galaxy loses all the dust
and material to form new stars, that stays behind
separating from the galaxy at 300Km /sec.
Supposing that the collision (t=0) is 1 000 mill
years after the BB, we have 900 million years left.
True, huge stars and many blue stars live only a few
million years, OK, so after 900 Mill years most of
them disappear. The galaxy loses its blue component
in its spectra. Main sequence stars are not affected at all,
and bright stars (those that live at least 1 Bill years)
are not affected at all.
My point is that only 900 Mill years after the crash,
most bright stars (stars slightly larger than the sun,
but still in the main sequence) should be around, and the
total looks of the galaxy should not be so red as observed.
{snip}
>
> While that interpretation retains good predictive
> capability, it remains "the accepted theory". As
> soon as it loses that ability, it lands "in the
> dustbin of history". Right now, Big Bang theory is
> in no danger at all of landing in the dustbin,
> however much it annoys some folks religious or
> math-deprived intuitive notions.
>
OK. OK I would invite you to this meeting, posted in this
same discussion group:
>>
This is an announcement for the 1st Crisis in Cosmology Conference
(CCC-I) which will be held in Portugal in the period 23-25 June 2005.
All information can be obtained from http://www.cosmology.info
Best regards,
Jose B. Almeida
>>
Please note that I am in *no way* related to that
but I think that's at last a step in a good direction.
>
>>>That _is_ the Big Bang, granted you aren't going
>>>to see it in an optical telescope, which would be
>>>looking among the wrong wavelengths for the Big
>>>Bang in any case.
>
>
>>I am not so stupid to believe we could "see" the
>>big bang.
>
>
> And yet you go right on to insist on exactly that:
>
>
>>Of course not. But its immediate neighborhood
>>should have *some* marks of such a "bang" having
>>happened relatively shrtly, i.e. 500 Mill years...
>
>
> You write like you expect to see the Big Bang from
> some exterior vantage point.
NO!
I just expect to see a different environment 500 million
years after such a bang, than what we actually see. I would
expect no galaxy clusters, nor galaxies with a lot of iron,
xant...@well.com
> OK, so your scenario is
> t=0 Start of collision with non moving dust/gas
> cloud, galaxy speed 600 Km/sec
> t= 10^8 Million years. Galaxy loses all the dust
> and material to form new stars, that stays behind
> separating from the galaxy at 300Km /sec.
> Supposing that the collision (t=0) is 1 000 mill
> years after the BB, we have 900 million years
> left.
Well, no, whether consciously or not, you're still
manipulating the data to make things come out the
way you want.
If you are asking: "does the existence of 'red
galaxies' at BB + 2Gyears discredit BBT", you
have to be asking "can they happen _at all_ by any
mechanism consistent with BBT". Pushing the starting
point of the dust cleanout to BB + 1Gyears for no
particular reason is biasing the "yes/no" answer for
no particular reason. You don't get to do that.
You want to take the earliest possible time for a
galaxy to exist, assume, on statistical arguments,
that it has an extremal speed, run it through one or
the other "scraper" to denude it of dust and gas,
and ask "how early can that possibly happen"; before
deciding whether there should still be lots of
midsequence stars around to add their color to the
average light seen.
For one thing, a "partial scraper" operating at the
_same time_ as the stars were forming might have
biased them almost all to be small ones.
Essentially, in another scenario, all you need is
some unknown mechanism to make the vortices in the
consolidating stardust closer spaced and smaller;
I'm guessing there are many possible sources of
turbulance in the early universe; proximity to a
quasar might be one such.
> True, huge stars and many blue stars live only a
> few million years, OK, so after 900 Mill years
> most of them disappear. The galaxy loses its blue
> component in its spectra. Main sequence stars are
> not affected at all, and bright stars (those that
> live at least 1 Bill years) are not affected at
> all.
> My point is that only 900 Mill years after the
> crash, most bright stars (stars slightly larger
> than the sun, but still in the main sequence)
> should be around, and the total looks of the
> galaxy should not be so red as observed.
Well, except, again, that you've ripped an
additional 1Gyear off that 0.9 Gyear without any
explicit justification, and that's time to dim down
a bunch more stars.
Anyway, we can dispute that part until the moderator
grows bored with the discussion, but the larger
issue is that the universe is _complicated_, and
trying to use events occurring 2Gyears after the
big bang to discredit the big bang is a pretty dicey
approach. There's just too much time for catenations
of post-BB events we don't understand yet to have
mucked with the data, to claim that data from that
late in time is still clean enough for a backward
look that contradicts the plentiful much earlier
pro-BBT data we _do_ have. The cosmic background
radiation itself, even, IIUC, is a limited view only
back to that 300,000 (or whatever) years after the
event, when the universe first became transparent.
There's still time even by then for lots to have
happened that we don't understand as well as we
understand that the BB happened at all, to have
mucked about with the data _we_ get to see.
Pretty much, I think, you're forced, in looking at
the consolidated matter of the later universe, to
concede the BB, and get on with the task of trying
to understand all the googleplexes of unlikely
things that have occurred forever after that point,
and to trying to winkle out what _they_ were, and
why _they_ have had the effects they've had on what
we see.
Trying to argue against the big bang right now is
like trying to argue against evolution; the other
team has all the data on its side.
xanthian.
Max Keon
-----
>>>The scopes have arrived at the immediate
>>>neighborhood of the supposed big bang and there
>>>is not the slightest hint of a bang to see.
>>
>>
>> You mean besides the cosmic microwave background
>> radiation that already confirms the BBT to several
>> decimals of precision?
> There was a discussion in sci.astro about "overaveraging"
> and the whole "wrinkles in the face of god"
> story. I remain a sceptic about that. But yes, there
> is no alternative explanation to the cosmic background.
>
> The problem is that it could very well be that we just
> do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*, and we see it
> as we can: as a "BB " relic.
Since the validity of the BB theory is very much in question, I
assume that arguments posed by alternative theories are now
open for discussion?
The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
explanation for the CMBR. But without some prior understanding of
the theory the link may not make much sense. To make things even
more difficult, the concept itself is almost incomprehendable
because there are virtually no parallels that can be drawn from our
understanding of how we fit into the structure of the universe that
can be compared with it.
Describing such a universe is no less difficult than it is to
comprehend, so don't expect too much if/when you visit. And spare
a thought for me.
-----
Max Keon
[Mod. note: Just in case people aren't aware of the policy,
`alternative theories' have always been up for discussion on s.a.r.,
but they should be discussed in a scientific (and polite!) way. A
descent to personalities (by either side) or arguments that blatantly
ignore the experimental evidence are likely to run foul of the
moderation policy -- mjh]
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> jacob navia wrote:
>
>>xant...@well.com wrote:
>>
>>>jacob navia wrote:
>
> -----
> -----
>
>
>>>>The scopes have arrived at the immediate
>>>>neighborhood of the supposed big bang and there
>>>>is not the slightest hint of a bang to see.
>>>
>>>
>>>You mean besides the cosmic microwave background
>>>radiation that already confirms the BBT to several
>>>decimals of precision?
>
>
>>There was a discussion in sci.astro about "overaveraging"
>>and the whole "wrinkles in the face of god"
>>story. I remain a sceptic about that. But yes, there
>>is no alternative explanation to the cosmic background.
>>
>>The problem is that it could very well be that we just
>>do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*, and we see it
>>as we can: as a "BB " relic.
>
>
> Since the validity of the BB theory is very much in question,
Not by the actual scientists working in cosmology.
> I assume that arguments posed by alternative theories are now
> open for discussion?
Everyone is free everytime to propose alternative theories. See the
moderator's comment below.
> The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
> is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
> originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
> explanation for the CMBR.
Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody,
without any spectral lines? Why its temperature changes with time in
accordance with the predictions of the BBT? The fact that if the CMBR
is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive
from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely
consistent with determinations using other methods? Why computer
simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time
produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint:
I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the
acoustic peak? The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated
Sachs-Wolfe effect
> But without some prior understanding of
> the theory the link may not make much sense.
If your theory can explain all the things listed above
(quantitatively), I'll look at it.
[snip]
> [Mod. note: Just in case people aren't aware of the policy,
> `alternative theories' have always been up for discussion on s.a.r.,
> but they should be discussed in a scientific (and polite!) way. A
> descent to personalities (by either side) or arguments that blatantly
> ignore the experimental evidence are likely to run foul of the
> moderation policy -- mjh]
That is a really good point: one should first be aware of the
experimental evidence before one starts proposing alternative theories.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Max Keon wrote:
[snip]
>>The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
>>is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
>>originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
>>explanation for the CMBR.
>
>
> Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody,
> without any spectral lines? Why its temperature changes with time in
> accordance with the predictions of the BBT? The fact that if the CMBR
> is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive
> from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely
> consistent with determinations using other methods? Why computer
> simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time
> produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint:
> I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the
> acoustic peak? The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated
> Sachs-Wolfe effect
Oh, and let's add the observed polarization of the CMBR.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Max Keon
>
> Max Keon wrote:
>> jacob navia wrote:
-----
>>>There was a discussion in sci.astro about "overaveraging"
>>>and the whole "wrinkles in the face of god"
>>>story. I remain a sceptic about that. But yes, there
>>>is no alternative explanation to the cosmic background.
>>>
>>>The problem is that it could very well be that we just
>>>do not know what the Cosmic Background *is*, and we see it
>>>as we can: as a "BB " relic.
>>
>>
>> Since the validity of the BB theory is very much in question,
> Not by the actual scientists working in cosmology.
>> I assume that arguments posed by alternative theories are now
>> open for discussion?
> Everyone is free everytime to propose alternative theories. See the
> moderator's comment below.
>> The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
>> is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
>> originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
>> explanation for the CMBR.
> Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody,
> without any spectral lines?
Yes.
> Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the
> predictions of the BBT?
The BBT predicts a blackbody curve, but not the specific temperature
of course. My theory predicts a similar curve, and that has been
tweaked to the shape of the CMBR with a multiplier which indicates
the current state of evolution of the universe.
The CMBR paints the picture to which we all fit our theories.
> The fact that if the CMBR
> is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive
> from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely
> consistent with determinations using other methods?
Dark matter can certainly be explained, if it's required.
> Why computer
> simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time
> produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint:
> I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the
> acoustic peak?
Every time I study the WMAP maps, all I can see is a well formed
universe that could have been there forever.
> The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated
> Sachs-Wolfe effect
I wasn't aware of the Sachs-Wolf effect. Thanks.
But what's to explain? The zero origin universe works just fine.
What evidence supports that effect anyway? The assumption seem to
be that photons behave like matter when in gravitational potential
wells, that they can gain or lose energy, but by contracting or
extending their wavelengths. If a photon is moving through a
deepening potential well, it will exit the well with an extended
wavelength (I think). But that is clearly impossible. It would be
hard to explain where the trailing edge of a very long wavetrain
in the visible light spectrum might be stored while it's waiting
for the extended train length in front of it to exit the potential
well. Even if time slows in the deepening well and the light path
length increases, that path length will again shorten when the
wavetrain moves away from the well. Whatever is assumed to happen,
what is going to permanently alter? What experimental evidence
directly supports such a thing?
If the deepening potential well was moving away from an observer,
that effect may be noted. But that's not relevant to the CMBR, is
it?
>> But without some prior understanding of
>> the theory the link may not make much sense.
> If your theory can explain all the things listed above
> (quantitatively), I'll look at it.
> [snip]
>> [Mod. note: Just in case people aren't aware of the policy,
>> `alternative theories' have always been up for discussion on s.a.r.,
>> but they should be discussed in a scientific (and polite!) way. A
>> descent to personalities (by either side) or arguments that blatantly
>> ignore the experimental evidence are likely to run foul of the
>> moderation policy -- mjh]
> That is a really good point: one should first be aware of the
> experimental evidence before one starts proposing alternative theories.
One should also be aware that the evidence can be interpreted in
more ways than one. From the time of my initial encounter with the
zero origin universe (around 30 years ago) I've tested the theory
to the best of my ability against emerging evidence. The universe
seems to be falling into place very nicely. Even the electron and
positron, through experimental evidence, have emerged with amazing
precision to fill the role of the postulated components which I
initially labeled "absolute opposite stress characters".
----------
The polarization found in the CMBR that you refer to in your
follow-up post is a question I need to address. Could it be caused
by light bouncing around a rotation polarized universe (if it can
be termed thus)?
-----
Max Keon
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>Max Keon wrote:
[snip]
>>>The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
>>>is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
>>>originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
>>>explanation for the CMBR.
>
>
>>Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody,
>>without any spectral lines?
>
>
> Yes.
Your link above goes to a page which mainly contains curves and not
many explanations, as far as I can see. Could you please explain here
shortly what the source of the CMBR is in your model, and why it has a
blackbody spectrum?
>>Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the
>>predictions of the BBT?
>
>
> The BBT predicts a blackbody curve, but not the specific temperature
> of course.
Err, that was not my point. Read again what I actually wrote, please.
I did not talk about temperature - I talked about *changes* in
temperature.
See e.g. here:
<http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz>
[snip more irrelevant arguments]
>>The fact that if the CMBR
>>is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive
>>from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely
>>consistent with determinations using other methods?
>
>
> Dark matter can certainly be explained, if it's required.
That has nothing to do with my argument above. Try again, please.
>>Why computer
>>simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time
>>produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint:
>>I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the
>>acoustic peak?
>
>
> Every time I study the WMAP maps, all I can see is a well formed
> universe that could have been there forever.
That has nothing to do with either of my two arguments above. Try
again, please.
>>The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated
>>Sachs-Wolfe effect
>
>
> I wasn't aware of the Sachs-Wolf effect. Thanks.
But you were aware of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? If yes, could
you please outline how your model explains the observations?
> But what's to explain? The zero origin universe works just fine.
Well, then please show how your model explains these two effects.
Quantitatively.
> What evidence supports that effect anyway?
Which one? Sunyaev-Zel'dovich or integrated Sachs-Wolfe?
For the first one, see e.g. here:
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~aas/tenmeter/sz.htm>
For the second, see e.g. here:
astro-ph/0307335
> The assumption seem to
> be that photons behave like matter when in gravitational potential
> wells, that they can gain or lose energy, but by contracting or
> extending their wavelengths.
Err, that is not an assumption. That has actually been experimentally
confirmed. Both in the lab and in astronomical observations.
> If a photon is moving through a
> deepening potential well, it will exit the well with an extended
> wavelength (I think). But that is clearly impossible.
Well, then why has this been observed?
> It would be
> hard to explain where the trailing edge of a very long wavetrain
> in the visible light spectrum might be stored while it's waiting
> for the extended train length in front of it to exit the potential
> well.
What makes you think that this trailing edge has to be stored
somewhere and has to wait?
> Even if time slows in the deepening well and the light path
> length increases, that path length will again shorten when the
> wavetrain moves away from the well.
Pardon? When the light moves away from the well, the path length
*inside the well* shortens? Sorry, I can't follow you here.
If you talk about the path length *outside* the well, then what
has that to do with the redshift occuring *inside* the well?
> Whatever is assumed to happen,
> what is going to permanently alter? What experimental evidence
> directly supports such a thing?
Try this, for starters:
<http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Pound.html>
> If the deepening potential well was moving away from an observer,
> that effect may be noted. But that's not relevant to the CMBR, is
> it?
No.
>>>But without some prior understanding of
>>>the theory the link may not make much sense.
>
>
>>If your theory can explain all the things listed above
>>(quantitatively), I'll look at it.
So far, you have addressed nothing but the very first point. And even
there, you did not bother to gave an explanation - you merely
asserted that your model explains that.
[snip]
>>That is a really good point: one should first be aware of the
>>experimental evidence before one starts proposing alternative theories.
>
>
> One should also be aware that the evidence can be interpreted in
> more ways than one.
As I already said: feel free to address the evidence. Quantitatively.
> From the time of my initial encounter with the
> zero origin universe (around 30 years ago) I've tested the theory
> to the best of my ability against emerging evidence.
You admitted yourself above that you weren't aware of some pieces
of evidence, and apparently misunderstood other pieces.
[snip more irrelevancies]
> The polarization found in the CMBR that you refer to in your
> follow-up post is a question I need to address.
<http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/02/020918.carlstrom.shtml>
<http://astro.uchicago.edu/dasi/polexpert/>
> Could it be caused
> by light bouncing around a rotation polarized universe (if it can
> be termed thus)?
Don't merely speculate. Address the results. Quantitatively.
Bye,
Bjoern
r...@firstpr.com.au
Bang, see Robert Karl Stonjek's Dark Time hypothesis:
"Article: Most distant galaxy cluster yet is revealed"
(sci.physics, 2 March).
I propose a non-BBT explanation for the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich
effect. But first . . .
Bjoern, what do you think of the failure to find evidence for
the transverse proximity effect with a foreground quasar?
http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/#TPE
The conventional view is that the quasars must be turning on
and off, or have very short lifetimes. I think a better
explanation is that the quasars are not located where the BBT
says they are - due to most of the redshift of their light,
including probably most or all of the Lyman alpha forest,
occurring in space near to them. My best guess is that this
occurs due to some kind of plasma redshift or sparse particle
redshift mechanism.
If the BBT is true, then the quasars are exactly where the
conventional researchers say they are, and therefore the
quasars must have very limited lifetimes in order to have not
ionized the neutral H in their vicinity, which these
researchers believe they observe in the Lyman alpha forest of
the background quasar. (The conventional researchers
generally reject the other two explanations: very narrow
quasar beaming and some kind of shielding effect, which is
much the same as beaming.) The researchers do not seem to
consider that these observations constitute a good challenge
to the theory that the redshift of quasars is due to
Doppler / expansion of the Universe. (I wrote to them about
this a year ago and got no response.)
Do you think quasars have such short lifetimes or such low
duty cycles as to not generally ionize neutral H in their
vicinity?
As far as I know, quasars were not generally considered to
have short lifetimes until this lack of TPE business arose.
If quasars are the same as, or cousins to, "radio galaxies"
then its hard to imagine them having such short lifetimes
since (according to BBT theories) these radio galaxies have
such huge lobes that they must have been running continually
for very long periods of time.
Here is a hypothesis I made up a year ago, regarding the CMB
and the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. (See above URL.)
The CMB is produced by the graveyard of black dwarfs and
their collision fragments, produced from dead stars over
countless billennia (many galaxies are very old indeed -
this is a non-BBT theory). These spin out of the plane of
the spiral galaxy since they survive close encounters, which
would rip active stars apart due to tidal forces. This halo
of dead cold solid matter constitutes the dark matter which
explains galactic rotation curves. Over time (we have lots
of time . . . ) they attain the average radiative
temperature of the Universe, which is about the same
temperature as the CMB. (So far, this theory, or most of
was not first proposed by me - sorry I can't find the URL of
the site of the chap who proposed this a few years ago.)
To this model, I add redshift of the CMB as it passes
through the void IGM - for instance due to a plasma or
sparse particle redshift mechanism. By the way, I am
considering redshift mechanisms which do not necessarily
involve loss of energy - just the change in the short
impulse length em wave so that more quanta of lower energies
are delivered. (I reject the "photon" - one quantum of
energy lost to one quantum of energy received, without
interaction with the emr caused by other quanta - view of
electromagnetic radiation - but that's another story.)
In my hypothesis, CMB from galaxies beyond a nearer galaxy
(or galaxy cluster) will generally be redshifted compared to
the contribution of CMB coming from nearer galaxy's black
dwarf halo. Therefore we observe somewhat hotter CMB from
the vicinity of the nearby galaxy or cluster - which is my
understanding of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect.
I haven't studies the Sachs-Wolfe effect. The supposed
precision of the BBT theory of CMB doesn't impress me or
many other critics. It can be easy to think of other
explanations - and then, with sufficient effort, to
fine-tune them to observations too.
Max Keon
>
>Max Keon wrote:
>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>>Max Keon wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
>>>>is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
>>>>originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
>>>>explanation for the CMBR.
>>>
>>>
>>>Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody,
>>>without any spectral lines?
>>
>>Yes.
> Your link above goes to a page which mainly contains curves and not
> many explanations, as far as I can see. Could you please explain here
> shortly what the source of the CMBR is in your model,
As I previously indicated, to "explain here shortly" is almost
impossible. But the rest of my reply may help.
> and why it has a blackbody spectrum?
It's based on temperature change of the universe throughout its
evolution from the zero origin. It has the spectrum of the CMBR,
just like your theory does.
>>>Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the
>>>predictions of the BBT?
>>
>>The BBT predicts a blackbody curve, but not the specific temperature
>>of course.
> Err, that was not my point. Read again what I actually wrote, please.
> I did not talk about temperature - I talked about *changes* in
> temperature.
The temperature at the origin was zero. The universe is evolving.
Its temperature is increasing at a logarithmic rate, hence the
^1.12 adjustment to each (equally spaced relative to a fixed time
zone) curve generated from the Planck equation,
#=((8*pi*h*f^3)/(c^2*(EXP((h*f)/(k*t))-1))) ^1.12
The ^1.12 exponent is near enough to constant for the blackbody plot
of the universe that we can meaningfully comprehend. It would have
been infinitesimally greater than 1 for the plot at the origin. So
there's still a long way left for us to go.
> See e.g. here:
> <http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz>
> [snip more irrelevant arguments]
>>>The fact that if the CMBR
>>>is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive
>>>from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely
>>>consistent with determinations using other methods?
>>
>>Dark matter can certainly be explained, if it's required.
> That has nothing to do with my argument above. Try again, please.
That argument has nothing to do with a zero origin universe either.
>>>Why computer
>>>simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time
>>>produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint:
>>>I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the
>>>acoustic peak?
>>
>>Every time I study the WMAP maps, all I can see is a well formed
>>universe that could have been there forever.
> That has nothing to do with either of my two arguments above. Try
> again, please.
But it has a lot to do with my argument. The all sky picture of the
universe from the zero origin is crystal clear. According to that
picture, matter is slowly clumping together, increasing the depth
of dimension, of space. The picture provides a remarkable insight
into how the matter content of the universe is evolving. The picture
at the very origin would have contained one infinitesimally minute
anisotropy within a completely black background. A universe with
zero anisotropy would not exist.
>>>The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated
>>>Sachs-Wolfe effect
>>
>>I wasn't aware of the Sachs-Wolf effect. Thanks.
> But you were aware of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect?
No, not until you mentioned it.
A quick search at the time found only this sentence;
"Fluctuations arising from the Sunnyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect,
the up-scattering of the background spectrum by both the hot gas
surrounding galaxy clusters and the peculiar velocity of the
cluster, should be observable on spatial scales of around 3
arcminutes." (I've lost the link. I'll post it next time) According
to that sentence the effect has yet to be noted, or is already
factored in as a component within the anisotropy. It really doesn't
have any more relevance to my argument than the Sachs-Wolfe effect
though.
> If yes, could
> you please outline how your model explains the observations?
>>But what's to explain? The zero origin universe works just fine.
> Well, then please show how your model explains these two effects.
> Quantitatively.
>>What evidence supports that effect anyway?
> Which one? Sunyaev-Zel'dovich or integrated Sachs-Wolfe?
>
> For the first one, see e.g. here:
> <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~aas/tenmeter/sz.htm>
>
> For the second, see e.g. here:
> astro-ph/0307335
>>The assumption seem to
>>be that photons behave like matter when in gravitational potential
>>wells, that they can gain or lose energy, but by contracting or
>>extending their wavelengths.
> Err, that is not an assumption. That has actually been experimentally
> confirmed. Both in the lab and in astronomical observations.
>>If a photon is moving through a
>>deepening potential well, it will exit the well with an extended
>>wavelength (I think). But that is clearly impossible.
> Well, then why has this been observed?
The fact that a photon wavelength changes according to local
gravitational potential may have been confirmed, but not the
*assumption* that they gain or lose energy in the process.
Consider this; Two adjacent straight lengths of equally spaced
billiard balls, labeled (1) and (2), are set in motion along the
line of their pointing direction. Train (1) travels a straight line
through free space while train (2) is set to run the gauntlet of a
deepening gravitational potential well. Along the journey to the
deepest part of the well on (2)'s travels, space-time will be
stretching and will of course extend its train length. But because
the well is still deepening, (2)'s departure from the well will be
further restrained than if the well was constant. However, when (1)
and (2) are returned to the same space-time environment they will
still measure the same length. The additional restraining forces
applied by the deepening well are applied equally to each billiard
ball along train (2). Nothing will change.
Now replace the billiard balls with photons. Either the speed of
light in not isotropic over the train length, or the photons overlap
to accommodate their added wavelengths????
Not wishing to break from the subject, but the concept of photons
as particles has no place in the zero origin universe.
>>It would be
>>hard to explain where the trailing edge of a very long wavetrain
>>in the visible light spectrum might be stored while it's waiting
>>for the extended train length in front of it to exit the potential
>>well.
> What makes you think that this trailing edge has to be stored
> somewhere and has to wait?
-----
-----
>> The polarization found in the CMBR that you refer to in your
>> follow-up post is a question I need to address.
>
> <http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/02/020918.carlstrom.shtml>
> <http://astro.uchicago.edu/dasi/polexpert/>
>>Could it be caused
>>by light bouncing around a rotation polarized universe (if it can
>>be termed thus)?
> Don't merely speculate. Address the results. Quantitatively.
I'll need time of course.
-----
Max Keon
r...@firstpr.com.au
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html
and had the same experience I have with many contrarian
physics sites - too many things seemed to make no plausible
sense and I couldn't find a reason for looking at any of it
in sufficient detail to assemble a critique.
If, as I understand, your theory is different from that of
conventional Big Bang cosmology, and if you suggest yours is
a better theory, then I think you should be able to point
out which observations the BBT fails to properly explain,
and how yours offers a better explanation.
Can you list such observations? You don't need to explain
your theory - just present evidence that the BBT predicts
things different from what is observed. Or are you simply
arguing that your explanations are more elegant than the
BBT's - with exactly the same predictions?
Progress in science can involve simply disproving someone
else's theory. Its not necessary to have a better one -
though it is nice if you do.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>Max Keon wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>>
>>>>Max Keon wrote:
>
>
>>[snip]
>
>
>>>>>The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html
>>>>>is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that
>>>>>originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative
>>>>>explanation for the CMBR.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody,
>>>>without any spectral lines?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>
>
>>Your link above goes to a page which mainly contains curves and not
>>many explanations, as far as I can see. Could you please explain here
>>shortly what the source of the CMBR is in your model,
>
>
> As I previously indicated, to "explain here shortly" is almost
> impossible. But the rest of my reply may help.
We'll see.
>> and why it has a blackbody spectrum?
>
>
> It's based on temperature change of the universe throughout its
> evolution from the zero origin. It has the spectrum of the CMBR,
> just like your theory does.
How could "temperature change of the universe throughout its evolution
from the zero origin" explain the existence and the blackbody spectrum
of the CMBR?
>>>>Why its temperature changes with time in accordance with the
>>>>predictions of the BBT?
>>>
>>>The BBT predicts a blackbody curve, but not the specific temperature
>>>of course.
>
>
>>Err, that was not my point. Read again what I actually wrote, please.
>>I did not talk about temperature - I talked about *changes* in
>>temperature.
>
>
> The temperature at the origin was zero.
That's contrary to observations, which show that the temperature was
*greater* in the past. See the link shortly below.
> The universe is evolving.
Finally something we agree on.
> Its temperature is increasing at a logarithmic rate, hence the
> ^1.12 adjustment
How do you get from a logarithmic temperature increase to a factor ^1.12?
> to each (equally spaced relative to a fixed time
> zone) curve generated from the Planck equation,
> #=((8*pi*h*f^3)/(c^2*(EXP((h*f)/(k*t))-1))) ^1.12
In order to apply the Planck equation, you need something material
which is in thermal equilibrium. What is this in your model? In the
standard BB scenario, it was the plasma which filled the early universe.
BTW, the Planck curve to the power of 1.12 does not give a blackbody
curve again. You even have problems with the units there!
> The ^1.12 exponent is near enough to constant for the blackbody plot
> of the universe that we can meaningfully comprehend.
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
> It would have
> been infinitesimally greater than 1 for the plot at the origin.
Why?
> So there's still a long way left for us to go.
>
>
>>See e.g. here:
>><http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm#Tvsz>
I notice you did not bother to address this.
>>[snip more irrelevant arguments]
>
>
>>>>The fact that if the CMBR
>>>>is assumed to have a cosmological origin, the parameters we derive
>>>>from it (Hubble parameter, density of dark energy etc.) are nicely
>>>>consistent with determinations using other methods?
>>>
>>>Dark matter can certainly be explained, if it's required.
>>
>>That has nothing to do with my argument above. Try again, please.
>
>
> That argument has nothing to do with a zero origin universe either.
It is an argument about observational evidence for the BBT. So if you
claim that you can explain all the evidence which the BBT can explain,
you need to address this. Why don't you bother?
>>>>Why computer
>>>>simulations which study how the density fluctuations grow with time
>>>>produce the observed large-scale structure? The power spectrum (hint:
>>>>I don't talk about the blackbody spectrum) of the CMBR, especially the
>>>>acoustic peak?
>>>
>>>Every time I study the WMAP maps, all I can see is a well formed
>>>universe that could have been there forever.
>
>
>>That has nothing to do with either of my two arguments above. Try
>>again, please.
>
>
> But it has a lot to do with my argument.
So what? You claimed that you can explain all the evidence which the
BBT can explain. So why don't you address this?
> The all sky picture of the
> universe from the zero origin is crystal clear. According to that
> picture, matter is slowly clumping together,
That's the same as the BBT says.
> increasing the depth of dimension, of space.
That's incomprehensible.
> The picture provides a remarkable insight
> into how the matter content of the universe is evolving. The picture
> at the very origin would have contained one infinitesimally minute
> anisotropy
That's very close to what the BBT says.
> within a completely black background.
That is contrary to the observations.
> A universe with zero anisotropy would not exist.
Why not?
>>>>The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect? The integrated
>>>>Sachs-Wolfe effect
>>>
>>>I wasn't aware of the Sachs-Wolf effect. Thanks.
>
>
>>But you were aware of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect?
>
>
> No, not until you mentioned it.
So, we have now at least three pieces of evidence for the BB
explanation of the CMBR which you were not aware of. And please
keep in mind that I am by no means an expert in cosmology
- just a physicist with a private interest in cosmology. You should
think about what this might imply about the amount of evidence
you are not aware of...
> A quick search at the time found only this sentence;
> "Fluctuations arising from the Sunnyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect,
> the up-scattering of the background spectrum by both the hot gas
> surrounding galaxy clusters and the peculiar velocity of the
> cluster, should be observable on spatial scales of around 3
> arcminutes." (I've lost the link. I'll post it next time) According
> to that sentence the effect has yet to be noted, or is already
> factored in as a component within the anisotropy.
The quote you give above is outdated. Look at the link I provide
below. The effect *has* been observed.
> It really doesn't
> have any more relevance to my argument than the Sachs-Wolfe effect
> though.
Err, both are effects which are explained by the BB model for the
CMBR. So why do you think you can simply ignore these two effects?
>>If yes, could
>>you please outline how your model explains the observations?
I notice that you don't bother to do that.
>>>But what's to explain? The zero origin universe works just fine.
>
>
>>Well, then please show how your model explains these two effects.
>>Quantitatively.
I notice that you don't bother to do that.
>>>What evidence supports that effect anyway?
>
>
>>Which one? Sunyaev-Zel'dovich or integrated Sachs-Wolfe?
>>
>>For the first one, see e.g. here:
>><http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~aas/tenmeter/sz.htm>
I notice that you choose to ignore that.
>>For the second, see e.g. here:
>>astro-ph/0307335
I notice that you choose to ignore that.
>>>The assumption seem to
>>>be that photons behave like matter when in gravitational potential
>>>wells, that they can gain or lose energy, but by contracting or
>>>extending their wavelengths.
>>
>>Err, that is not an assumption. That has actually been experimentally
>>confirmed. Both in the lab and in astronomical observations.
>
>
>>>If a photon is moving through a
>>>deepening potential well, it will exit the well with an extended
>>>wavelength (I think). But that is clearly impossible.
>
>
>>Well, then why has this been observed?
>
>
> The fact that a photon wavelength changes according to local
> gravitational potential may have been confirmed, but not the
> *assumption* that they gain or lose energy in the process.
So you disagree with E=hf? Or with f=c/lambda?
If you don't disagree with both, then you get E=hc/lambda, i.e.
every change in wavelength is equivalent to a change in energy.
> Consider this; Two adjacent straight lengths of equally spaced
> billiard balls, labeled (1) and (2), are set in motion along the
> line of their pointing direction.
That has little to do with photons and light.
> Train (1) travels a straight line
> through free space while train (2) is set to run the gauntlet of a
> deepening gravitational potential well. Along the journey to the
> deepest part of the well on (2)'s travels, space-time will be
> stretching and will of course extend its train length. But because
> the well is still deepening, (2)'s departure from the well will be
> further restrained than if the well was constant. However, when (1)
> and (2) are returned to the same space-time environment they will
> still measure the same length.
Why should they?
> The additional restraining forces
> applied by the deepening well are applied equally to each billiard
> ball along train (2). Nothing will change.
I can't follow your logic. What "restraining forces"?
> Now replace the billiard balls with photons.
That would be a false analogy.
> Either the speed of
> light in not isotropic over the train length, or the photons overlap
> to accommodate their added wavelengths????
"their" added wavelengths? Due to grammar, the "their" seems to refer
to the photons. But photons do not have wavelengths. Only
electromagnetic waves have wavelengths. So, what are you talking about?
> Not wishing to break from the subject, but the concept of photons
> as particles has no place in the zero origin universe.
Well, then how do you explain the photo effect and the Compton effect?
(quantitatively!)
[snip more of that]
>>>The polarization found in the CMBR that you refer to in your
>>>follow-up post is a question I need to address.
>>
>><http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/02/020918.carlstrom.shtml>
>><http://astro.uchicago.edu/dasi/polexpert/>
>
>
>>>Could it be caused
>>>by light bouncing around a rotation polarized universe (if it can
>>>be termed thus)?
>
>
>>Don't merely speculate. Address the results. Quantitatively.
>
>
> I'll need time of course.
While you are at it, you can also look at all the stuff you ignored
above.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> For why mature galaxies are observed so soon after the Big
> Bang, see Robert Karl Stonjek's Dark Time hypothesis:
> "Article: Most distant galaxy cluster yet is revealed"
> (sci.physics, 2 March).
>
> I propose a non-BBT explanation for the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich
> effect. But first . . .
>
> Bjoern, what do you think of the failure to find evidence for
> the transverse proximity effect with a foreground quasar?
>
> http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/#TPE
I am not an astronomer, just a physicist with cosmology as his
"hobby", so I am not really qualified to comment on this.
But I would like to point out that
1) apparently only very few quasars were examined this far, and
we should wait for more data before jumping to conclusions, and
2) The second explanation offered by the researchers (the foreground
quasar's energy is beamed) looks quite sensible to me.
The author does not bother to explain why that second xplanation does
not work (as far as I can see); he merely claims that all three
explanations "are all highly unlikely, or at least at odds with
reasonable interpretations of other observations."
> The conventional view is that the quasars must be turning on
> and off, or have very short lifetimes.
Don't know about that.
> I think a better
> explanation is that the quasars are not located where the BBT
> says they are - due to most of the redshift of their light,
> including probably most or all of the Lyman alpha forest,
> occurring in space near to them. My best guess is that this
> occurs due to some kind of plasma redshift or sparse particle
> redshift mechanism.
When you can more than just guess, i.e. when you can provide
a quantitative explanation how this works, and how this explains
all the observed evidence, please send me a note.
> If the BBT is true, then the quasars are exactly where the
> conventional researchers say they are,
I wouldn't say that the two statements depend so strongly on
each other.
> and therefore the
> quasars must have very limited lifetimes in order to have not
> ionized the neutral H in their vicinity, which these
> researchers believe they observe in the Lyman alpha forest of
> the background quasar. (The conventional researchers
> generally reject the other two explanations: very narrow
> quasar beaming and some kind of shielding effect, which is
> much the same as beaming.) The researchers do not seem to
> consider that these observations constitute a good challenge
> to the theory that the redshift of quasars is due to
> Doppler / expansion of the Universe. (I wrote to them about
> this a year ago and got no response.)
As the author of that page, you seem to have a misconception
about cosmological redshift: cosmologists do *not* say think
that it is due to the Doppler effect.
<http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/expan.html>
Why the researchers do not consider that to be a challenge to
the BBT? Probably due to the simple fact that the BBT is very
well established and supported by observations - and before
one begins to question such a well-established theory, one
first looks for errors in other parts of one's assumptions.
> Do you think quasars have such short lifetimes or such low
> duty cycles as to not generally ionize neutral H in their
> vicinity?
I don't have enough knowledge of quasars to judge that.
[snip]
> Here is a hypothesis I made up a year ago, regarding the CMB
> and the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. (See above URL.)
>
> The CMB is produced by the graveyard of black dwarfs and
> their collision fragments, produced from dead stars over
> countless billennia (many galaxies are very old indeed -
Why don't we see stars older than about 13 billion years then?
> this is a non-BBT theory). These spin out of the plane of
> the spiral galaxy since they survive close encounters, which
> would rip active stars apart due to tidal forces. This halo
> of dead cold solid matter constitutes the dark matter which
> explains galactic rotation curves.
If you can explain with this model the observed rotation
curves *quantitatively*, feel free to show your work.
> Over time (we have lots
> of time . . . ) they attain the average radiative
> temperature of the Universe, which is about the same
> temperature as the CMB.
What is the "average radiative temperature of the universe"?
> (So far, this theory, or most of
> was not first proposed by me - sorry I can't find the URL of
> the site of the chap who proposed this a few years ago.)
>
> To this model, I add redshift of the CMB as it passes
> through the void IGM - for instance due to a plasma or
> sparse particle redshift mechanism.
See my note above wrt guessing.
> By the way, I am
> considering redshift mechanisms which do not necessarily
> involve loss of energy - just the change in the short
> impulse length em wave so that more quanta of lower energies
> are delivered. (I reject the "photon" - one quantum of
> energy lost to one quantum of energy received, without
> interaction with the emr caused by other quanta - view of
> electromagnetic radiation - but that's another story.)
Feel free to explain the photo effect and the Compton effect.
Quantitatively.
> In my hypothesis, CMB from galaxies beyond a nearer galaxy
> (or galaxy cluster) will generally be redshifted compared to
> the contribution of CMB coming from nearer galaxy's black
> dwarf halo.
Why?
> Therefore we observe somewhat hotter CMB from
> the vicinity of the nearby galaxy or cluster - which is my
> understanding of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect.
Feel free to come up with a quantitative explanation, instead
of just handwaving.
> I haven't studies the Sachs-Wolfe effect. The supposed
> precision of the BBT theory of CMB doesn't impress me or
> many other critics.
Interestingly, most of the critics are not aware of most of
the evidence...
> It can be easy to think of other explanations
Yes. Making up stories without bothering to do actual
quantitative checks is very easy indeed.
> - and then, with sufficient effort, to
> fine-tune them to observations too.
"fine-tune them to observations, too"? Please point out
what fine-tuning to observations was done in the BBT.
Bye,
Bjoern