PDA

View Full Version : Another reason the big bang is wrong



John Kierein
2004-Jul-08, 01:06 PM
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524

Mature galaxies must have evolved before the big bang.

http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

bigsplit
2004-Jul-08, 01:22 PM
Not if the BB was a cool beta decay as opposed to a hot, molten explosion. If at the Bang we had charged matter, vorticities and galaxy development would start almost instantly.

Here is a thread I started on this subject.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=14501

John Kierein
2004-Jul-08, 01:38 PM
I don't see how a mature, 10 billion year old galaxy can exist 3 million years after the BB.

gritmonger
2004-Jul-08, 01:38 PM
I'm not sure where you jump from early formation problems to "Galaxies must have evolved before Big Bang," because I don't find that conclusion in the article, implicitly or explicitly stated, and I find it hard to follow your logic.

Radical is one thing, but hanging one's theory on a point of datum that disagrees with current theory is not good science.

Jerry
2004-Jul-08, 02:21 PM
I'm not sure where you jump from early formation problems to "Galaxies must have evolved before Big Bang," because I don't find that conclusion in the article, implicitly or explicitly stated, and I find it hard to follow your logic.

Radical is one thing, but hanging one's theory on a point of datum that disagrees with current theory is not good science.

Early formation is a major major problem, since we are pushed deeply into the time constraint corner imposed by the most liberal expression of GR.


Some new ingredient is required to make more stars form earlier in the big galaxies. But what that ingredient is, we don't yet know."


How about epicyclular galactic ripples in the primary explosion.

Let's see: We have proper motion in quasars, no transverse proximity effect, no gravity waves, no time dilation in the periodicity of quasars, visual and radiographic images of high redshift galaxies superimposed on local galaxies, no hypernova at high redshift, no good explanation for why blue galaxies 'migrated out of the center' of clusters, Copernicun rings of AGN & galaxies, too much structure, not enough anistropy in the background, wormy clouds...

The list is so long now, I have forgotten more failures of the BB theory than I remember. The last time the astrophysical community recognized a serious error, was when it was realized there was a Malmquist bias in the Cepheid sampling, but even that error would have gone unnoticed if the geologists had not been so certain about the age of the earth. Smell the roses, dudes.

TrAI
2004-Jul-08, 03:31 PM
Hmmm. I guess it might show that it is possible for galaxies to form in a so young universe, that the estimated age of the universe is wrong, or that the estimated age of the galaxies are wrong.

dgruss23
2004-Jul-08, 03:50 PM
The link wasn't working for me John.

soupdragon2
2004-Jul-08, 03:55 PM
Another reason! Do we need anymore? :wink:

TravisM
2004-Jul-08, 04:25 PM
The BB model will NEVER fail. It's always being reformulated.

Soup, your model is WRONG. For now. You'll refine it till it matches observation.

JJ, your model is also WRONG. For now. You'll refine it till it matches observation.

BB... is WRONG. For now. Scientists around the world with funding will refine it to match observation.

Example:

Guy 1: What's that over there?
Guy 2: Dunno. Looks like a cat.
Gal 1: Looks like a kite to me.
Guy 1: I know what it is. It's a horse.
Guy 2: No, no, no. It's too far away to be a horse.
Gal 1: Let's walk over there and find out.

(Gal's are ALWAYS smarter...)

soupdragon2
2004-Jul-08, 04:45 PM
The BB model will NEVER fail. It's always being reformulated.
How do we reformulate something that is wrong?

I suppose we could have the Non-Expansive Steady-State Big-Bang.

As silly as this might sound, the BB will probably not be rejected overnight, and will slowly morph into something else, as if very little has changed. This way will save BB proponents - the mainstream in other words - a lot of embarrassment*.

* Yes, I am aware that this presupposes the BB to be incorrect...

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened Winston Churchill

TravisM
2004-Jul-08, 04:49 PM
I'm pretty sure they don't give a fig about "embarassment." I'm quite certain they are trying to find out how shnidt works. I'm also positive that if anything CONCLUSIVE came out in any data, these same BBers would GLADLY dump their theory in favor of something that better represents the workings of the universe. Guaranteed.

(you did get my point though, right soup? we're all trying to find out how this place works. if your theory one day irons out all the 'kinks' I'll shake your hand and ask for a desk job, I swear... The BB is the ONLY theory that matches the massive amount of data we've gathered over the last 200 years. It's been said before, the baby with the bathwater...)

soupdragon2
2004-Jul-08, 04:52 PM
Let's hope your right.

Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-08, 04:52 PM
Soup, why the fixation with a static universe? If Jerry Jenson's take on Arp's observations is correct, that would seem to indicate expansion of the universe and a non-Doppler redshift.

And, as I have said before, your pet EU model conflicts with observations and with the laws of physics. It is not a viable alternative to the BB, should the BB prove wrong.

TravisM, I get what you're saying, but it sounds slightly religious... ;) There is a point, after all, at which a theory is modified to such an extent that it can no longer be considered a variant of the same theory.

soupdragon2
2004-Jul-08, 04:54 PM
Soup, why the fixation with a static universe?
I think this is the first time I have mentioned the term? Second at the most?


There is a point, after all, at which a theory is modified to such an extent that it can no longer be considered a variant of the same theory.
Good point.

Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-08, 04:58 PM
Soup, why do you always ignore people when they point out that the EU model isn't viable? ](*,)

TravisM
2004-Jul-08, 05:02 PM
GJ, I agree with you totally. We still are on same page I beleive.
The scientific community will follow the kid with the coolest toys, that work.

How'd you know I was slightly religious? ;)

soupdragon2
2004-Jul-08, 05:06 PM
Soup, why do you always ignore people when they point out that the EU model isn't viable? ](*,)
Is the EU model relevant to this thread? You mentioned it.

Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-08, 07:12 PM
I can see that you happen to be pushing for it... :P

Jerry
2004-Jul-08, 07:59 PM
Soup, why the fixation with a static universe? If Jerry Jenson's take on Arp's observations is correct, that would seem to indicate expansion of the universe and a non-Doppler redshift.

No. I joined the John Kierein crowd after finding flagrant assumptive errors in the standard analysis of supernova Ia. When I removed them, a steady-state or nearly steady-state model pops out. To remove the Copernican rings from what is left, it is necessary to assume there is both a near constant non-Doppler redshift proportional to distance (with a power-law gradient) AND an intrinsic redshift that is proportional to luminosity imposed on top of it.

The whole concept is observationally, not theoretically driven, but it is testable and must be entertained as a viable alternative to the BB, which is no longer supportable in the face of careful analysis of what we have observed.

Mature galaxies eight billion years ago? The BB proponents would have thrown in the towel fifty years ago if faced with these observations! There is absolutely no way to couple the CMB with a primal event, no justification for stating matter is aging, and no reason for local Copernican rings against a background of all this structure. It is impossible.

TrAI
2004-Jul-08, 08:16 PM
Hmmm... I was wondering how one explain the existence of live stars(or anything at all) at all in an eternal universe, wouldnt they all have all burned out or been eaten by black holes and so on? There must still be entropy after all(you can't have life without it, really), and if time is not finite, it would be an infinite amount of time before now, wouldn’t it?.. Or is it one of those circular time things, so it is all an eternal loop of time?

Jerry
2004-Jul-08, 08:25 PM
Hmmm... I was wondering how one explain the existence of live stars(or anything at all) at all in an eternal universe, wouldnt they all have all burned out or been eaten by black holes and so on? There must still be entropy after all(you can't have life without it, really), and if time is not finite, it would be an infinite amount of time before now, wouldn’t it?.. Or is it one of those circular time things, so it is all an eternal loop of time?
The last time I checked, the BB was a no-show on entropy, no explanation other than all this primal whatever was pushed out of the airplane.

Whether you argue a single violation, like the BB, or multiple point violations, the universe does appear to exist and it is not completely homogenius. The law cannot lack at least one acception. There is no compelling argument one is better than infinity + 1.

russ_watters
2004-Jul-08, 08:54 PM
This bears repeating:
Mature galaxies must have evolved before the big bang.
I'm not sure where you jump from early formation problems to "Galaxies must have evolved before Big Bang," because I don't find that conclusion in the article, implicitly or explicitly stated, and I find it hard to follow your logic. To put a finer point on it, it doesn't say that in the article. Why do BB opponents feel the need to be deceptive in their arguments and doesn't that tell you anything about the veracity of your arguments? Ie, if you need to be deceptive about your argument, there is probably something wrong with it.

russ_watters
2004-Jul-08, 08:59 PM
Soup, why do you always ignore people when they point out that the EU model isn't viable? ](*,)
Is the EU model relevant to this thread? You mentioned it.If your basis for saying one theory is wrong is your preference for another theory, then yeah, thats relevant.

TrAI
2004-Jul-08, 09:23 PM
The last time I checked, the BB was a no-show on entropy, no explanation other than all this primal whatever was pushed out of the airplane.

Whether you argue a single violation, like the BB, or multiple point violations, the universe does appear to exist and it is not completely homogenius. The law cannot lack at least one acception. There is no compelling argument one is better than infinity + 1.

Hmmm... I didn't really ask about the BB, or what causes entropy, I was just intrested to know what was the eternal universe based cosmologies take on how there can be stars in such a universe...

But as for what causes entropy in a finite time expanding universe... Well, I guess it could be related to the expansion itself, that you can get uneven
distribution of energy, and flow of energy between areas, and as far as I know, that the boundary of the universe is at all points does not mean that that whats inside this area must be homogenous with the rest of the place, though i guess the shape of the boundary might affect the distribution...But I guess we just have to wait and see what knowledge the future might bring..

By the way, you said something about a nearly-steady state model in one of your posts, would that be something like an old universe that once changed in size but now is in balance, and no longer changes in size?

Jerry
2004-Jul-08, 10:10 PM
[quote=Jerry Jensen]

By the way, you said something about a nearly-steady state model in one of your posts, would that be something like an old universe that once changed in size but now is in balance, and no longer changes in size?
Using only the Supernova Ia data, it would be reasonable to conclude the universe is expanding, but not at the advertised rate: After corrections for time dilation the light curves are too small. However, removing time dilation completely yields light curves that are too long, relative to the local average. So what gives? Based upon a lot of loosely supporting evidence, I think the local supernova Ia sample is slightly over represented by low-end events (There have been very few local observations, so statistically this is reasonable). If the attenuation of space is underestimate, then so is the selection bias.

Since there isn't any theoretical room for a universe expanding at a much slower rate, I think a more logical conclusion is that we are in a completely relaxed steady-state with local replenishers of light elements.

Let me lay out an extremely hypothetical scenario: (Soupdragon is gonna love this) Blue elliptical galaxies are radiation bottles: The gravitational forces drag matter in, but when they reach a critical size, a kinda Eddington limit, rather than forming black holes, the captured mass escapes as primal radiation from the ends of the bottles. much of this is recaptured, but much also escapes.

If two bottles collide, they form first a barred spiral. If the collision snuffs out the bottles, the galaxy reddens and may eventually die. Usually, though, the bottle reforms and you have a spiral galaxy with an active nucleus. What a fun theory to test!

Then we all wonder what happens next.

gritmonger
2004-Jul-08, 10:17 PM
But, jwj, how old is the universe then? If not a BB, then what was the ab initio of the current universe? Is light simply too tired to go on after 13.7 billion years, or does it have an expiration date - light decays into lighter light?

Tim Thompson
2004-Jul-09, 12:43 AM
Kierein: I don't see how a mature, 10 billion year old galaxy can exist 3 million years after the BB.

So, how do you know the galaxy is "10 billion years old"? Specific, factual evidence, if you please.

Jerry
2004-Jul-09, 03:45 AM
Kierein: I don't see how a mature, 10 billion year old galaxy can exist 3 million years after the BB.

So, how do you know the galaxy is "10 billion years old"? Specific, factual evidence, if you please.

We expected to find basically zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago, because theoretical models predict that massive galaxies form last. Instead, we found highly developed galaxies that just shouldn't have been there, but are.
From the John Hopkins press release cited by John ( http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524 The age is calculated from the redshift distance, that ironically, John would tend to discount.

But, jwj, how old is the universe then? If not a BB, then what was the ab initio of the current universe? Is light simply too tired to go on after 13.7 billion years, or does it have an expiration date - light decays into lighter light?
The universe appears to be ageless. Until we understand the true nature of the redshift, we will not know the answer to this question. The CREIL answer would be much of it is out there in the infrared continuum. Kierein argues it is redshifted to extremely long wavelengths - Kilometers and longer, it could be sucked up into black holes, or all of the above.

I can't even spell Obler (sic), let alone solve his paradox.

gritmonger
2004-Jul-09, 04:40 AM
...but, JRJ, if redshift is not a function of distance, age, or speed, why wouldn't a lot of this far light simply be blueshifted? Shouldn't we see lights going out to infinity in a near homogenous pattern all throughout the spectrum? One big muddy lightshow across the entire spectrum? The only place in the spectrum we've observed this is in the 3K microwave background...

Jerry
2004-Jul-09, 05:54 AM
...but, JRJ, if redshift is not a function of distance, age, or speed, why wouldn't a lot of this far light simply be blueshifted? Shouldn't we see lights going out to infinity in a near homogenous pattern all throughout the spectrum? One big muddy lightshow across the entire spectrum? The only place in the spectrum we've observed this is in the 3K microwave background...
This would be true in most tired light or infinite universe scenarios. CREIL predicts a convergence from both directions: blue shifting of low energy spectrum and redshift of high energy spectrum, piling up the energy in the infrared continuum near galaxies, but possibly redshifting completely into kilometer lengths in the deep universe, as argued by John Kierein.

What happens to energy redshifting into extremely long wavelengths?

gritmonger
2004-Jul-09, 05:58 AM
That doesn't answer the question- there is a 3K microwave background; there is not a black body distribution across all spectra in a similarly homogenous manner. Claiming the effect is there, but washes out before it can ever be detected is just as good as not claiming it in the first place: no results to test, no predictions to make, no data to analyze.

John Kierein
2004-Jul-09, 01:22 PM
I think Jerry meant to say Ptolemy rings not Copernican.

The article says they find mature galaxies way out there. The age of the earth is thought to be around 5 billion years and many objects in our own galaxy are thought to be over 10 billion years old. Ours is an ordinary galaxy. If they find such galaxies as ours already mature so close in time to the BB; the conclusion must be that they were formed before the BB. Oxymoron.

There are lots of other examples where objects have similar oxymorons. I think I have links to many of them on my website.

Not mentioned in the article, is that these deep surveys don't show galaxy density increasing with distance as should be expected if they were closer together in the past. I have a link to analysis of this data on my website also.

The first Hubble deep survey seemed to show that distant galaxies were different than nearby ones; with a lack of spiral galxies. This conclusion was reversed when the improved IR instruments were added to Hubble showing that many of these ellipticals were indeed spirals. The IR showed that the older stars couldn't be seen in the visible because the light had been red shifted into the IR. When these IR spectrum stars were imaged, the galaxies turned out to be ordinary spirals like the nearby ones. Only the intrisically bright blue (younger) stars were showing up in the visible and they were clumped in elliptical shapes rather than spiral.

The evidence for evolving galaxies with the age of the universe is very weak although many still cling to the idea that it must be happening.

A static universe with a "perfect cosmological principle" seems to a better fit to the observations. The "cosmological principle" says that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe and on a large scale that the universe looks the same no matter where you observe it from. The "perfect cosmological principle" says that not only is this true for every place, but also for every time. The BB violates the perfect principle especially near the time of the singularity. A steady-state and a static universe obeys it.

TravisM
2004-Jul-09, 01:51 PM
Doesn't that require that the purported age of the universe is correct?

gritmonger
2004-Jul-09, 01:57 PM
I'm not talking about the supposed failing of other theories- I'm talking about a time-boundless steady-state universe based on pseudo Doppler shifts which aren't there supposedly. I'm trying to extrapolate to a model wherein we can test this hypothesis, and what I'm being told is essentially that it's untestable, so it's correct. Guh? It's a null theorem: it could be true or not, but it doesn't have any testable elements. Its only requirement is that other theories not be 100% correct.

I'm sorry- give us predictions based on this model, or stop explaining why we can never hope to detect if this is the case.

Jerry
2004-Jul-09, 04:39 PM
I'm not talking about the supposed failing of other theories- I'm talking about a time-boundless steady-state universe based on pseudo Doppler shifts which aren't there supposedly. I'm trying to extrapolate to a model wherein we can test this hypothesis, and what I'm being told is essentially that it's untestable, so it's correct. Guh? It's a null theorem: it could be true or not, but it doesn't have any testable elements. Its only requirement is that other theories not be 100% correct.

I'm sorry- give us predictions based on this model, or stop explaining why we can never hope to detect if this is the case.
Copernicus had a hell of a time converting the epicycles of Ptolomey into circular orbits, and these where not correct: It was only after decades of fiddling around that the nearly correct elliptical orbits were modeled.

Radiation transfer functions predict what might be described as inversions of radiation spectrums: The infrared continuum becomes a hetrodyned peak between the energy levels of the CMB and the temperature in our own neighborhood, the microwave background is the mean temperature of space, but the shape of the spectrum we see is also a 'reflection' of the mean temperature of the visible universe being added too it. Where does all the energy go? We will probably know the answer to that as soon as we figure out where it comes from.

A lot of assumptions would be necessary to create a model that exactly duplicates the CMB and IR continuum, and quite a number of different parameter sets could satisfy the equation - we can only guess at the true luminosity function of our own galaxy.

If that sounds like waffling it is, but only because we need to spend years studying these functions in order to develop viable models - conceptually the pieces are there, it will take time to fit the curves, and even then, we will only have broad constraints - there are just too many possible models that fit broad continuums like the CMB and the IRC, they do not make good analytical tools. Using the CMB to predict everything from the age of the universe to the baryron distribution is bad astronomy.

A specific prediction of a model involving both intrinsic and cosmic non-Doppler shifts is found in the local galaxies with Active Galactic nuclei. The prediction is that these galaxies are intrinsically redshifted, so that in order to appear to be 'local' they must also have a relatively high velocity towards us, canceling this relative proper motion. If this is true, the redder, cooler edges of these galaxies M-81 and M-83 must have measurably higher relative velocities towards us than the intrinsically blue shifted galatic cores.

This is in fact the case: "Giant" red star tails are a nearly universal feature in local galaxies, but since the intrinsic redshift of the cores cause us to overestimate the distance to these galaxies, the size of the stars is also over estimated. M-83 has edges that appear to have high peculiar motion towards us that is independent of the plane of the galaxy. Can you explain this any other way?

Other tests of plausibility are found in http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=14433

Jerry
2004-Jul-09, 04:51 PM
Doesn't that require that the purported age of the universe is correct?
No. The age is constrained only in an expansionary scenerio: The universe has only so far it could have expanded and exhibit the current CMB - the WMAP and supernova teams have tightened this noose to 13.7 +/- ~0.2 billion years. None of this has application in the infinite universe John describes, although the age of the local system could be in this ballpark.

Jerry
2004-Jul-09, 04:53 PM
I think Jerry meant to say Ptolemy rings not Copernican.
Gad. Thanks John, some of this stuff picked up in the middle of the night is a little fuzzy, this is worse than mispelling Obler.

The concept is that if something appears to occur in rings close in time to the current epic, the interpretation is wrong. The BB can get around this as long as the rings appear to be related to aging, but it is difficult to explain why so many patterns appear to have emerged very recently relative to the observed depth-of-structure of the universe.

gritmonger
2004-Jul-09, 06:18 PM
jwj - You have not provided testable evidence or prediction. You have provided alternative explanations of observed phenomena, with stipulations that speculative, unsubstantiated effects make them indistinguishable from your assertion of a steady-state universe.

Theory in a nut shell: we're in a steady-state universe with a bunch of curtains and smoke and mirrors that make it look like we're in an expanding accelerating universe with a beginning. And only more measurements will provide proof. What measurements? Based on what? Your argument provides no sources of confirmation or foci for testing other than physically visiting these other galaxies. All of them. And targeting them with a laser rangefinder over time.

cyrek1
2004-Jul-09, 06:40 PM
John
This is only the beginning of the BB early problems.

When they start probing deeper and deeper into space, I predict they will find more of these galaxies with larger and larger redshifts.
These specks in the HDF's will eventually be resolved and redshifted beyond the one found to have a redshift of 10.

You ought to support the intrinsic force responsible for the lightwave expansion. This is the most logical explanation for the cosmological redshift because it explains Arps anomoly and can explain the dark energy problem.

Jerry
2004-Jul-09, 07:10 PM
jwj - You have not provided testable evidence or prediction. You have provided alternative explanations of observed phenomena, with stipulations that speculative, unsubstantiated effects make them indistinguishable from your assertion of a steady-state universe.

Theory in a nut shell: we're in a steady-state universe with a bunch of curtains and smoke and mirrors that make it look like we're in an expanding accelerating universe with a beginning. And only more measurements will provide proof. What measurements? Based on what? Your argument provides no sources of confirmation or foci for testing other than physically visiting these other galaxies. All of them. And targeting them with a laser rangefinder over time.

Visiting other galaxies would be the best solution. While nothing can prove a SS existence, failure of any of these test would nullify the hypothesis.




Other confirming evidences could be honed from the Sloan Digital Survey. These include:

a) A statistical analysis of the proper motion of quasars relative to the proper motion of galactic stars should determine an approximate percentage of QSO, which occur within our own galaxy.

b) A statistical reduction of the proximal location of blue galaxies relative to local clusters dominated by red galaxies and dark matter should reveal whether time and space displacement and therefore intrinsic redshifting of blue galaxies offers a better solution than dark matter to local cluster mass deficiencies.

c) In a correlating study, the population of nearby slightly redshifted blue galaxies should actually be very local, and therefore be extremely large relative to their redshifted distance, and contain in the edges giant red stars that also have high proper motion relative to the galaxy as a whole.

d) A statistical classification of quasar point sources that are not identifiable as native to obvious galactic cores should find an inordinate percentage of them are in the greater galactic plane and therefore candidate accretion stars.

I could add to this list a 1) Fourier analysis of the magnitude variance fluctuation of quasars vrs. redshift, 2) a radiographic study to determine if there is proper motion in quasars, 3) proximity test to determine if intervening quasars impact the Lyman forest in a manner consistent with the predicted ionic halo, 4) a correlation study of the luminosity of galaxies vrs the Tully-Fisher relationship distance. But all of these tests have already been conducted and in every case the evidence indicates either a nullification of the BB prediction, or evidence of intrinsic redshifting and non-Doppler redshifting, or all of the above.

The evidence is there. The supportive tests I have outlined are feasible.

John has already pointed out the strongest evidence of galactic evolution was eliminated when we improved the IR optics of the HST. How many more selection effects are we missing?

The only thing missing is an objective weighing of these evidences by the astrophysical community.

Ok, it would also be nice to pencil an energy recycling mechanism into GR...anyone up to it? Cold Fusion?

gritmonger
2004-Jul-09, 07:34 PM
While nothing can prove a SS existence, failure of any of these test would nullify the hypothesis.


Nothing can prove it? Only tests done to verify what you already explained away can nullify it? Then why bother? You get nothing out of assuming this: no new physics, no new boundaries, no new science, just peace of mind that what has always been will always be.

I've jokingly maintained the idea that scientific theory is always very disturbing and potentially deadly when taken to its extremes - so your idea even fails in that in predicting a banal, flavorless universe that we can know nothing about without being there.

Jerry
2004-Jul-09, 09:04 PM
Nothing can prove it? Only tests done to verify what you already explained away can nullify it? Then why bother? You get nothing out of assuming this: no new physics, no new boundaries, no new science, just peace of mind that what has always been will always be.

I've jokingly maintained the idea that scientific theory is always very disturbing and potentially deadly when taken to its extremes - so your idea even fails in that in predicting a banal, flavorless universe that we can know nothing about without being there.

It is a scientific axiom that nothing can ever be proven true. Yes, there are many trivial exceptions, but the universe is not trivial: We will never know whether or not we are looking up the trunk of the elephant or the whole animal. We have to assume - When we see the same type, range and concentration of galaxies with every increase in the magnifying power of our instrumentation that the current trend will continue ad finum.

Sorry to disappoint you. I was not happy when I reached this conclusion, I was already disturbed by the countless failures of the BB and would love to have uncovered a worm hole or two: But this is the best explanation for what we observe. It does not jive at all with our best theory and it is time to admit defeat and search for a new one.

Tim Thompson
2004-Jul-10, 12:55 AM
Kierein: I don't see how a mature, 10 billion year old galaxy can exist 3 million years after the BB.

So, how do you know the galaxy is "10 billion years old"? Specific, factual evidence, if you please.

We expected to find basically zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago, because theoretical models predict that massive galaxies form last. Instead, we found highly developed galaxies that just shouldn't have been there, but are.
From the John Hopkins press release cited by John ( http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524 The age is calculated from the redshift distance, that ironically, John would tend to discount.

That's not what I meant. Kierein clearly says that the galaxy is "10 billion years old", which implies to me that he means a galaxy which has already "lived" for 10 billion years, in a universe that is only 3 to 6 billion years old (according to the PR). I want to know how Kierein figures that the old galaxies are that old, because it is contrary to what Cimatti et al. say. They are quite specific about the age of the galaxies being 1-2 billion years (Old galaxies in the young universe, A. Cimatti, et al., Nature 430:184-187, July 8, 2004). This is the companion paper to Glazebrook, et al. (A high abundance of massive galaxies 3-6 billion years after the Big Bang, Karl Glazebrook, et al., Nature 430:181-184, July 8, 2004).

Glazebrook's group only counts the galaxies, but says nothing about their ages. They find an unexpectedly large number of massive galaxies at that redshift range, which contradicts the current hierarchical galaxy formation scenario, which involves longer galaxy formation times. However, Cimatti, et al., looking at the same galaxies, determine spectroscopic ages of 1-2 billion years. That means they say the galaxies are younger than the 3-6 billion year old universe. So, if you just look at the papers, it is immediately evident that there is no conflict here with Big Bang cosmology.

There is a conflict with galaxy formation models, but that's different. And it is notable that back in the 70's or so, galaxy formation models predicted that massive galaxies would be common as far back as redshift ~10. But those models were based on the collapse of spheroidal mass concentrations, a top-down model, if you will, compared to the currently favored bottom-up hierarchical model. The hierarchical model is by no means universally accepted in the galaxy formation community. So, the observations really imply that there is a conflict between observation and a specific, controversial model of galaxy formation, not between observation and the more general Big Bang cosmology.

The conflict between these observations and Big Bang cosmology exists only in the imagination of Kierein & others, but has no other validity.

soupdragon2
2004-Jul-10, 01:39 AM
Let me lay out an extremely hypothetical scenario: (Soupdragon is gonna love this) Blue elliptical galaxies are radiation bottles: The gravitational forces drag matter in, but when they reach a critical size, a kinda Eddington limit, rather than forming black holes, the captured mass escapes as primal radiation from the ends of the bottles. much of this is recaptured, but much also escapes.
I love it, but then again, I won't be alone. :D

I look forward to seeing the next incarnation of Wildcat, or perhaps his work is done.

wedgebert
2004-Jul-10, 02:07 AM
His work? All he ever did was endlessly quote from two different websites that were very poor attempts at scientific theory.

He ignored every counter point made at him and used the "If I keep saying it, then it will be true" method of debate.

It wasn't so much as a scientific discussion as it was us arguing with a brick wall with incorrect equations on it. We know it's wrong, we say why it's wrong, but the wall doesn't change.

Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-10, 02:56 AM
Wildcat probably isn't a proponent of your theory. You see, he periodically latches on to any ATM idea that he comes across (or, in the case of his Mk Ultra incarnation, invents his own), and then starts trying to back it up with religious fervor. I daresay that what Wedgebert has said sums up Wildcat's nature quite precisely.

Also, he won't be coming back... :wink:

And Soup, please remember that a theory which completely contradicts observations and the laws of physics is obviously not viable.

I'll end this post with a famous proverb...

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it." :wink:

soupdragon2
2004-Jul-10, 11:41 AM
I note that you have both failed to comment on Jerry Jensen's quote above.

Funny that. :wink:

wedgebert
2004-Jul-10, 01:57 PM
You're right, however I didn't comment because there are other more knoledgable people on this board who will.

I understand enough to know things like a steady-state universe is impossible because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. However, redshifting of type Ia supernovae is something I haven't studied enough to comment on.

That's the difference, I don't know enough about the particular subject to comment on, so I don't. I don't just make wild guesses and uninformed assumptions like wildcat did.

Tunga
2004-Jul-10, 02:25 PM
Can the steady state and the big bang theory coexist? Seems plausible to me. I would call it the Popcorn Theory of the Universe.

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/Universe.pdf

Jerry
2004-Jul-10, 03:43 PM
There is a conflict with galaxy formation models, but that's different. And it is notable that back in the 70's or so, galaxy formation models predicted that massive galaxies would be common as far back as redshift ~10. But those models were based on the collapse of spheroidal mass concentrations, a top-down model, if you will, compared to the currently favored bottom-up hierarchical model. The hierarchical model is by no means universally accepted in the galaxy formation community. .
Thanks for the clarifications, Tim. The seventies are a little tough to recall (I have freinds who are missing the whole decade). Wasn't the top-down model abandoned because it proved impossible to inject the rotational energies? Whenever I tried, I just ended up with clumps.

In any case, 11 billion year-old-galexies is too close the the 13.7 number WMAP cosmologists have penciled in for the total age. Even more important is lack of observational evidence of this advanced structure in current interpretations of the CMB. Why is it so impossible to imagine non-Doppler mechanisms are skewing the data?



I understand enough to know things like a steady-state universe is impossible because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. However, redshifting of type Ia supernovae is something I haven't studied enough to comment on.
.

The universe violates the laws of thermaldynamics. It doesn't matter whether you start with a big bang, worm holes, plasma bottles, microwaveable popcorn or chickens.

The only non-theologically driven reason for preferring one scenerio over any other is the mathematical rigor of the Einstein-deSitter solution WITHOUT dark energy...or witih dark energy and in a steady state, but I don't think that is right, either.

The current BB DE DM solution rips big holes in the laws of thermaldynamics, attacking them from both ends. This is a bad solution. It doesn't even work.

Jerry
2004-Jul-10, 04:37 PM
The first Hubble deep survey seemed to show that distant galaxies were different than nearby ones; with a lack of spiral galxies. This conclusion was reversed when the improved IR instruments were added to Hubble showing that many of these ellipticals were indeed spirals. The IR showed that the older stars couldn't be seen in the visible because the light had been red shifted into the IR. When these IR spectrum stars were imaged, the galaxies turned out to be ordinary spirals like the nearby ones. Only the intrisically bright blue (younger) stars were showing up in the visible and they were clumped in elliptical shapes rather than spiral.

The question should be ask, and answered, why didn't astronomers anticipate the spiral structure of these galaxies was attenuated below detection limits in the infrared?

The answer is that they underestimated the attenuation of space, the same way they do when they point at distant supernovae and assume the universe is accelerating, the same way they do now when they look at blue galaxies in the ultra-deep Hubble field and say, 'look at this evidence of evolution', (although I must admit, they are being a little more candid and cautious this time around.)

Attenuation that is greater than the relativistic distance modulus is very important, besides not following the GR prediction, it also means distance supernova are brighter than we think, and should have longer light-curves. These observations erase all of the evidence of time-dilation and point us in the opposite direction.