Origins of the UNIVERSE

[harry]

Hello All


Hello Kovil

you said

If an object is moving away from us faster than light speed, we would get no information back from it to us, in any form of light or EM spectrum that travels at light speed. The information contained in the light would not reach us. It would cease to exist to us, for all intents and purposes.

If an object is moving away from us at the speed of light, the information would still reach earth in due time. You need to calculate the time the info was sent from that point. But! the information received on the space ship will have a constant time, ie the same time from earth and the same info.

The speed of light is determined by the medium around it.
Solid,,,,,,liquid,,,,,,,,,,,gas,,,,,,,,,,,space
Electromagnetic forces,,,,,,,,,gravity radiation,,,,,,,,,,,,gravity and so on.

The electromagnetic forces near compact cores such as neutrons,,,,,quarks,,,,preon and the so called black hole (ultra dense plasma matter) wil hold back light waves respectfully and also curve it.

In my opinion man will device a process to go faster than the speed of light. God help us if he does so. For he will create a weapon far greater than before. Imagine an object travelling at C. This weapon can blow up a planet.

[kovil]

That's kind of like a spaceship going 99.99% light speed and running smack dab into a neutron star !
The old irresistible force meets the immovable object.
In a shower of gluons and quarks.

ps, your quote of mine sounds so wacky, on my part that is.
time for a rethink.

[BMAONE23]

BMA123,

If an object is moving away from us faster than light speed, we would get no information back from it to us, in any form of light or EM spectrum that travels at light speed. The information contained in the light would not reach us. It would cease to exist to us, for all intents and purposes.

I would think that we might be able to see the prior reflected photons as they regress from the object of origin but that they would also be red shifted and probably darker than normal. We would be in fact seeing the past photonic reflections and be seeing the object as it looked when those photons were reflected.

But I do understand the fact that no current information could be received during travel at that speed but prior information might be possible. (like if we traveled ten light years distant in the course of one year, we could listen in on the broadcasts from 1996 but current messages, sent at the time we left, would take nine more years to reach us.)

If you could visibly view a radio signal and its relative direction of travel, if it were focused, for example, like a lased microwave transmission that could travel in only one direction, and if that transmission were traveling at the speed of light but its source were traveling in the opposite direction at the same relative speed, would you see the signal stretch out and distort but continue on towards its intended destination, or would it be pulled along behind the source and wind up being stagnant?

[harry]

Hello All

When I was a kid I dreamed of making a time machine and travelling at 100 C.

Its funny that we can dream these ideas and sometimes dreams do come true.


Yes ,,,,,,,,I know,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,don't tell me.

[cosmo_uk]

Astronomers believe the objects are either the first stars -- humongous stars more than 1,000 times the mass of our sun -- or voracious black holes that are consuming gas and spilling out tons of energy. If the objects are stars, then the observed clusters might be the first mini-galaxies containing a mass of less than about one million suns. The Milky Way galaxy holds the equivalent of approximately 100 billion suns and was probably created when mini-galaxies like these merged.

Or my spin on it:

Give us more tax payers money to spend on a new telescope we can't quite see these things:) Pays my wages though so i'm not complaining!

[harry]

Hello All

I read the link

NASA Telescope Picks Up Glow of Universe's First Objects
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_ ... s_999.html

New observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope strongly suggest that infrared light detected in a prior study originated from clumps of the very first objects of the universe. The recent data indicate this patchy light is splattered across the entire sky and comes from clusters of bright, monstrous objects more than 13 billion light-years away.

You know what gives me the pips?

Statements like "Strongly suggest",,,,,,,,,,,originated,,,,,first objects.

and than it proceeds to say

"clusters of bright, monstrous objects"

"13 billion light years away.


I could go on.

Has this writer got eye flaps or what?

Give me a break.

If you need me to say what is wrong, than I will.

[astro_uk]

Several points with your last post Michael.

First of all, why is it mysterious that BHs should emit light? We see it all around us in the present day Universe, though of course it isnt the BH that is emitting the light but the accretion disc of material around it.

Now of course nobody has really explained how mere hydrogen atoms and giant wads of subatomic particles that are flinging out into space at speeds that somehow allow these bits of mass to travel faster than light speed are somehow quite mysteriously able to condense themselves in tidy black holes in very short timelines. Evidently inflaton fields are really very picky and choosy about about how and where they expand space. Fortunately astronomers can just "tinker" with these mysterious inflaton fields, since everyone already knows that they are nothing like "normal" scalar or vector fields that we find in nature anyway.

We've discussed this before, but I see you still haven't grasped the salient point. After inflation the Universe is expanding at its normal rate of H0 (or close to it, gravity will tend to change it over time).
It is not that material is travelling apart at greater than c. The material AS A WHOLE is moving apart with velocities determined by H0, but individual clouds of gas are not expanding. This is exactly the same as today, individual galaxies are not expanding, the space between them is, anything that is gravitationally bound DOES NOT EXPAND. So the gas clouds are quite capable of collapsing, as long as the force of gravity overcomes the repulsive pressure of the gas particles, this of course depends on the temperature and density of the gas.

I think its pretty clear that at the moment, the limits of our technology simply prevent us for seeing the detail that is necessary to know if these distant bright objects are actually "mature" galaxies, mini galaxies, or something else altogether. Since nobody really wants to rock the boat based on data from the very extreme edge of our technological limits. We therefore simply "assume" that these objects are somehow connected to, and somehow fit within, contemporary BB theory.

I can't help but wonder what's going to happen when we have 100 or 1000 times the resolution of Spitzer and Hubble to work with and we get a closer look at these types of distant objects. I suspect that these objects will blow BB theory right out of the water. At the very least I'm sure they will require that we dramatically shift the timelines of when the BB presumably took place.

Here again you reveal your lack of understanding of the broader field. Astronomy is not simpy about pretty pictures from the HST or Spitzer, I know to you armchair astronomers thats what it seems like but it simply isnt the case. We have access to wide wavelength ranges from the gamma rays out to radio all of which tell us about galaxies, and all of which point to galaxies at high z being very different to those seen today. These different wavelengths reveal that ALL objects at high z are young, with nothing remotely like nearby "mature" ellipticals which have ages around 10Gyr. Faint smudges or not, we can tell an awful lot about them just from their colours. The problem the group has in deciding if the objects are BHs or young galaxies is simple, the light given off by BH acretion disks is very similar in colour to that given off by young stellar populations. You need data from other wavelengths to decide between the two. In any case whatever they are they are not things that are seen in the nearby Universe.

As a practical point resolutions of 100 to 1000 times the HST are impossible for this type of work. To see things at high redshift you need to look in the infra red which has a longer wavelength than the optical, making it even more difficult to resolve things. To get a resolution of 100 times the HST at say 2microns would require a space telescope of size approximately 1000m, that is in space where the atmosphere has no effects as well on the ground it is even more difficult due to the need to remove atmospheric effects. Even in the optical would require a space telescope of size 250m, but there wouldnt be a great deal of point because at high z everything will have been redshifted out of the optical, so there would be nothing to see.

theta = resolution (in radians)
lamda = wavelength (m)
D = diameter of telescope (m)

theta = 1.22 lambda / D
> D = 1.22 lambda / theta = 1.22 x 2 x10^(-6) / (0.05 / 100 arcseconds)
= 1.22 x 2 x10^(-6) / (0.05/100 x 4.84 x 10^(-6))
= 1006m

[harry]

Hello All

Our local Group of galaxies

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/galaxies.html

Notice the dia of each galaxy.

From 12 Gyrs away this local group would look like a star.

[ipaqgeek]

Thanks astro_uk, I appreciate your posts. There aren't enough posts like them on this forum.

You mention that an IR telescope would have to be nearly 250m to resolve fine details in IR from the big bang. This could be done via interferometry (like the ISI does) couldn't it? It seems that should be a higher priority than the James Webb Space telescope, which only seems to be a more powerful version of Spitzer. Then again, the cost of a very large space-based IR camera array is probably too prohibitive, yes?

On another note, from your vantage point do you think there much of an academic bias toward the Big Bang theory? I just remember the same thing (academic bias) happening with disasterous (and mostly unknown) results in the pediatric academia with regard to SIDS factors. Studies in the early 1980's revealed that academia was completely wrong about how a baby should sleep, but this data was refuted and ignored until the late 1990's when it couldn't be ignored any longer that SIDS risk cut in half when babies slept on their backs instead of stomachs. Academic bias toward stomach sleeping was so strong as to ignore data suggesting that 1000's of babies needlessly died from SIDS each year for over a dozen years, just to save the pediatric establishment from embarrasment.

Fortunately a bias toward Big Bang isn't life threatening if it is wrong, but if academic bias in the world of pediatrics can be so strong as to allow thousands of needless deaths year after year then its also reasonable to expect that all astronomical findings by academia would also be interpreted to support prevailing theories of the formation of the universe.

[astro_uk]

Hi ipaqgeek good questions.

I didnt make it very clear but the 250m was for an optical telescope, essentially a telescope that covered the same range as the HST, so a big HST. In the Infrared you need a telescope of 1000m, just because it has a wavelength 4 times longer.

But you are correct, you could use an interferometer to produce the same resolution. But with this you obviously don't collect as much light. However, say you could build 4 5m telescopes and sit them accurately 250m apart you could collect enough light to do some really exciting work on the high redshift Universe. The problem is the cost, one 6.5m space telescope (the JWST) is going to cost upwards of $5 Billion, to build 4 with the ability to fly in formation with an accuracy of better than (1/4 of the wavelength being used) of around 500nm would be very difficult, and pricey.

There is a definite bias towards the BBT in astronomy, just as there is in any science when one theory is totally dominant. However saying that there are many very successful astronomers that question aspects of the BBT, but essentially no one questions the overarcing theory, that the Universe has a finite age, people tend to quibble over the age or the relative amounts of different components like Dark Matter or normal matter. The reason for this is simply the weight of evidence, it is very difficult to come up with another theory that fits the observations.

The question of whether or not this inherent bias is holding back research is difficult to assess in the present, it usually takes an epoch changing discovery to allow you to see the strictures you were in previously. I would say it would be very unlikely that any major changes in the overall theory will be made, but who knows for sure? all we can say at present is that there isnt really anything else remotely close to supplanting the BBT.

[BMAONE23]

I've often thought that we should boost a series of telescopes into space in geostationary orbits and connect them through interferometry. there could be a vsible light series, an infrared series, an x-ray series and a radio series.

[harry]

Hello All

Astro said

There is a definite bias towards the BBT in astronomy, just as there is in any science when one theory is totally dominant. However saying that there are many very successful astronomers that question aspects of the BBT, but essentially no one questions the overarcing theory, that the Universe has a finite age, people tend to quibble over the age or the relative amounts of different components like Dark Matter or normal matter. The reason for this is simply the weight of evidence, it is very difficult to come up with another theory that fits the observations.

The above words will come back and bite you,,,,,,,,,,,untill than sit on the BBT, built on little foundations.

and you think that the universe has a finite age. That is stone age thinking.

BBT people will make anything fit into the model and if it does not fit than add a ad hoc idea.

[astro_uk]

Fine Harry. Seeing as your not interested in the BBT and hence in most of cosmology how about you let those that are carry on a discussion without the repeated unsubstantiated claims and constant reposts of highly dubious websites? Unless you feel like trying to come up with something like a cogent argument for your beliefs, if we're really lucky you could try to make it readable. Preferably in a new thread.


Hi ipaqgeek. Rereading what I had written a better way of describing the situation as I see it in cosmology occurred. I think most astronomers view the essential fact of the BBT to be the idea of a finite age Universe, or at least all the bits that we can see (so presumably the whole). Everything we see around us supports this view, from the ages of any object we can age date, to the expansion of space, the light element abundances and the CMB radiation. As I see it it is analagous to evolution, nobody that has actually looked at the subject with anything approaching objective thought doubts that evolution is the correct overall theory to explain lifes diversity, but people may quibble about smaller points within the overall theory.

[harry]

Hello Michael


Re:
New Type of Black-Hole Explosion Has Astrophysicists Wondering About Its Origin

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21507

What if the outburst was just a Jet from the BH

[harry]

Hello All

Astro said

Fine Harry. Seeing as your not interested in the BBT and hence in most of cosmology how about you let those that are carry on a discussion without the repeated unsubstantiated claims and constant reposts of highly dubious websites? Unless you feel like trying to come up with something like a cogent argument for your beliefs, if we're really lucky you could try to make it readable. Preferably in a new thread

This type of writing belongs in the dark ages. If this is your best comment, using words to get over a point, i have to smile.

There is more than enough info out there to disprove the BBT.

What I believe is not important. What is important is the info given to the ouside world.
When all this comes out in the near future your ideas will be hidden behind a lost name.


If you wish to open another thread go right ahead.

[harry]

Hello All

BLack Holes


Observing the progressive formation of compact cores to the so called black holes or MECO or ultra dense plasma matter.

It is quite interesting to calculate the forces and the extreme temp within.

This force within the UDPM would eject matter from the UDPM if it allowed a neutral area where the matter was not affected by the overall UDPM magnetic fields.

I wander if the answer lies in plasma convectional currents creating such a void to produce a jet stream expelling matter.

[hishadow]

How many forks would the flying spagetti monster need to handle this thread?

Just wanted to dump a video I remembered seeing on the national telly some years ago. Beware, there are english speaking norwegians included!

The Universe: Cosmology Quest
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9911703060 (part 1)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2505202765 (part 2)

btw .. please don't shot the messenger.

hehe.. and last a delightful video I think might be somewhat related to this thread
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7476141009

[harry]

Hello hishadow

I'm looking at

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9911703060 (part 1)

These people are on the ball.

It shows how stupid some cosmologists with position with lack of info directed the science and observations and results.

This is what I call rape of science.

hishadow thank you

I will come back when I finish looking at the rest of your links

[hishadow]

It shows how stupid some cosmologists with position with lack of info directed the science and observations and results.

Hehe. I guessed it would appeal to you, though I'm in no way convinced by this documentary, it's still interesting to get other perspectives. Hopefully it can fuel another 40 pages of attacks and counter-attacks. I don't see much discussion about alternatives, rather than BB defense/attack.

[harry]

Hello hishadow

Its not a matter of attacking the BBT

Its a matter of getting to some logical understanding of the universe without ad hoc ideas.

It will happen, not if, just when.

again thank you.

[harry]

Hello All

Merry Xmas and a Happy New year for one and all.

[harry]

Hello All

Re:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061217.html
A Force from Empty Space: The Casimir Effect

This tiny ball provides evidence that the universe will expand forever. Measuring slightly over one tenth of a millimeter, the ball moves toward a smooth plate in response to energy fluctuations in the vacuum of empty space

Today, evidence is accumulating that most of the energy density in the universe is in an unknown form dubbed dark energy. The form and genesis of dark energy is almost completely unknown, but postulated as related to vacuum fluctuations similar to the Casimir Effect but generated somehow by space itself. This vast and mysterious dark energy appears to gravitationally repel all matter and hence will likely cause the universe to expand forever

What does this mean?

Is it really evidence or is it just another so called evidence.

Dark energy and dark matter is still an unkown.