Starship Asterisk*

by **harry** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:18 am

also read thi link

The Evidence against the exapnding universe.

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

Happy New Year

by **harry** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:44 am

Hello

Empeda2

Iron in your diet
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... cn.html#c2

and the age of the universe in question
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Co ... risis.html

by **harry** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:50 am

Some believe because they do not have the INFO and so they believe in an idea wrong or right.

Big Bang, what can I say.
Never happened.

by **Dave M** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:21 am

I have just come back to the Forum and seen all the replies, sorry not to have responded before. Many thanks for the comments. I have just tried to show graphically what I have read on APOD and elsewhare and what I have seen on TV. My brain likes graphical presentations in preference long articles.
I am not in a position to question or suggest alternative theories to those presented by people more learned than me. (I am an engineer, not a scientist) If BBC TV Horizon programe says that the big bang was created by colliding membranes, then I beleive it!

I will keep you advised of any updates to my web page.

Dave.

by **harry** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:50 am

Hi bilderback,,,keep smiling

Tell me what you know of star formation and metamorphisis.
The formation of a galaxy and its ability to recycle.

There is no one person who knows more than any other. I'm just learning with an open mind and many years of observations.

The question is not who is right or wrong but! How do we discuss these issues?

Keep Cool

by **S. Bilderback** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:54 pm

I do understand the workings of stars and galaxies, better than most, that's why I can (politely) say your theory has too many holes in it and you need to factor in more of the observational data.

by **harry** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:31 am

Hello Bilderback
Once my ideas were similar to yours.

Once you understand the workings of the stars and the galaxies and the flow of matter and energy. The recycling process is the way to go. In reality the simple way is usually the way.
No person can be right for we are talking about a black box.

by **S. Bilderback** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:19 am

I admit that there are many problems with the big bag theory and I'm not defending it, it’s more that I don't agree with your alternative theory, it creates more problems than it solves.
The concept of everything spontaneously starting from nothing in a single bang isn't scientific by definition. Nor does the big bang theory hold water when it comes to dating galaxies, there are galaxies dated by their position to be 12.5 billion years old but the heat and radiation observations state that it no less then 5 billion years older than that giving it a minimum age of 16 billion years.
The law of entropy rules your theory of an everlasting recycling universe invalid, the universe would also look much different, galaxy clusters would have a higher density at their centers, the location of new galaxies would be spread more evenly and so on ...
I would lean more toward the "Spray" theory where entropy leaves our universe and new matter enters (or is recycled) to our universe via other dimensions along super strings - - - - - or something else that is not at all provable.

by **harry** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:52 am

When you start looking at the Big Bang Model you start looking at a model that does not work. You will need to find that out for yourself.
Deep field 13 billion years images indicate galaxies billions of years old. Now add that to you travelling time what you have is ove 20 billion years.
The problem is this:
Our dating shows the maximum time recorded is about 13 billion years and stated that the universe is only 13 billion years.
This tells me that the maximum recycle process is about 13 billion years.
So every time matter is recycled a new date is recorded.
This reminds me many years ago scientists could not explain why the oceanic plates on earth were only about one billion years old compared to the continental plates being over 4 billion years.
The explanation came from a scientists proving that oceanic plates recycled much faster and therfore the dating started again from oceanic ridges and volcanic activity.

I would not be thinking along this line unless there was merit.
Do not sit on the fence waiting for evidence look for it.

by **S. Bilderback** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:16 pm

I'm trying to understand your statement :"There are many other protons that are not in stars and are decaying, that is the signature that is missing".

Only about 1% of the mass in the universe is illuminated the other 99% cannot be seen in visible light. In some of the coldest, darkest spans of the universe where no new stars are being produces, if the Big Bang never occurred, the background heat and radiation should show levels matching the decay of protons that are more than 14 billion years old. Instead the background radiation found is mostly uniform everywhere.

by **Empeda2** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 9:35 am

I mean newer stars - older stars that were born in an earlier type when there wasn't/less iron wouldn't presumably have this shell.

by **harry** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 4:34 am

Hello Bilderback
I'm trying to understand your statement :"There are many other protons that are not in stars and are decaying, that is the signature that is missing".

Hello Empeda
What do you mean by later generation.

The indicator for a star to shread its layers is by the Fe content.
Proton is a Hydrogen ion all stars have this.

by **S. Bilderback** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:39 am

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... ge=1&pp=30

Another thread at Bad Science dot com, it's a fun read

by **Empeda2** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:41 pm

S. Bilderback wrote:There is dialog ongoing about most stars having an Fe shell over the core, there are traces of Fe that raises questions - the evidence hasn't grabbed me but it also hasn't been ruled out.

Presumably that's only for later generation stars - got any links? Sounds interesting

by **S. Bilderback** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:21 pm

There are many other protons that are not in stars and are decaying, that is the signature that is missing.

by **harry** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:44 am

Firstly our sun has an Iron layer of some form see
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960521.html

Secondly the proton life changes once it is sucked into a high gravitational high density high temperature plasma. It literally is broken down to the basic particals. Once the proton is realeased from the plasma its life span begins again. A new cycle starts.

by **S. Bilderback** » Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:59 am

There is dialog ongoing about most stars having an Fe shell over the core, there are traces of Fe that raises questions - the evidence hasn't grabbed me but it also hasn't been ruled out.

by **Empeda2** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:42 pm

harry wrote: Our sun may last over 5 billion years but! its IRON shell will be due to be expelled by the great ineternal forces of the sun's core.

Plus, Iron is the most stable element - the suns does not have anywhere near the internal pressure to fuse iron - yes, there might be trace amounts as it's a second or third generation star, but it cannot produce an iron shell.

by **S. Bilderback** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:08 pm

Harry,

Your history of the universe has a few holes in it, here a few points for starters.

The half live of all protons is 10^38 years, the energy released by a decaying proton has a signature that would have to be much more uniform though out the universe if matter and energy were simply recycled.

And then there is the mathematical representation of time. Time has to move in segments, to take one second and divide it in half over and over there needs to be a point where the smallest unit of time is reached or there would need to be an infinite number of segments and we are back to having to divide by zero. Also by definition, if a time segment was infinitely small one second would equal one hour which would equal 100 billion years. The same it true about the age of the universe, if there was not a start time and is not an end time, one second would still be equaled to 100 billion years.

by **craterchains** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:19 am

Considering these things, it would seem that as the capabilities of mankind are such that we can go from the first flight to the moon in less than a hundred years, we will be off this beautiful planet and out there long before the first thousand years are up.

Norval

by **harry** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:08 am

Hello Dave
History of the Universe
The Big Bang never occured.
The Universe has always being recycling and changing at random.
The dating of objects up to about 14 billion years is the maximum recycle process that we can observe. This in the past was thought to be the birth of the universe. Every time an object is recycled the dating process starts again and so on.
Our sun may last over 5 billion years but! its IRON shell will be due to be expelled by the great ineternal forces of the sun's core. Creating a chaos in the solar system killing all on planet earth. This will be much sooner than 5 billion years.
Yes man needs to get off this rock in the near future.
The universe is not expanding.
Most of the Mass of the universe is compressed into extreme high density plasma and mostly found in blackholes and large objetcs.
Your earth history is a bit off.
At least you have tried to go on and seek information. Keep on the journey.

by **Empeda** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:41 pm

Yep - looking cool though I would echo Makc's comments.

Also I'd say that some of the links - the 'Once and Future Sun' in particular - are quite old (1997) - you'd be better off finding more recent papers to links to.

Still liking the site though

by **makc** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:54 am

about 60% of image is not covered yet, but it's not even about quantity. for example, I clicked on Sun's fate text, and it brought up an APOD of colliding galaxies - that's confusing. I came back to your page and saw why, but I could be not coming back - so I think those things (Sun's death and galactic kaboom) should be separated. perhaps, individual clickable areas for parts of sentences or even word groups? I know these maps are rather difficult to do by hand, but there are some tools to automate the process. Try this list (from the same site) or look it up yourself (I use Adobe ImageReady, but that's me).

by **Dave M** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:44 pm

I have updated my site with some clickable references as requested.
Click on various parts of the diagram to see more.
Comments welcome.
Dave.

by **Dave M** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:21 am

Thanks for your comments. I will try to add more information as suggested. It may take a while. Yes I wanted something like a quick summary and this seemed to do that. It really needs to be bigger to provide more information but I tried to keep it within 800 x 600. Dave.

Starship Asterisk*

History of the Universe

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: History of the Universe

BELIEVE

History of the Universe

Re: History Of The Universe.

History Of The Universe.

History of the Universe