Origins Of The Universe.

Hello All

This is very interesting reading


Big Bang Cosmology
http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/blog/2006/07...-cosmology.html

Hello All

When I come across interesting reading, i want to share the link.

http://www.dailygrail.com/node/5955

Hello All

Sorry I should have placed this link in the previous post

http://open-site.org/Science/Physics/Cosmo...oblems_Big_Bang

Cosmology Problems Big Bang

Hello All

And yet another

BIG BANG? Hah!
"If it disagrees with experiment, IT'S WRONG!".... Richard Feynman
"If it disagrees with observation, IT'S WRONG!"....Charles Wagner


http://www.charliewagner.net/big.htm

Hello All

Could this explain the Origin or the ongoing universe?

3C438:
Galaxy Cluster Takes It to the Extreme
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/3c438/

Notice the power of this so called black hole. It's really a compacted core of ultra dense plasma degenerate matter ejecting matter and reforming stars and eventually galaxies.

Could this be an explanation for a cyclic process.

Yes

Gravitational wave synchronization theory

Hello All

Insight said

Please explain.

Simply stated,

All matter/energy decays creating space via the monopole gravitational wave. Time, space, and wave synchronization are actions of this process.

The nature of matter is to decay from particle ( bound space) to wave ( free space).

The initial so called big bang was the initial formation of space via the monopole gravitational wave. Time, as we measure it started not initially but after the formation of electromagnetic fields as they decay ever slowly into the gravitational field. Time and space are also relative because they are wave functions of the decaying gravitational waves from all individual electromagnetic fields.

The universe is increasing in elongation and also flattening due to the nature of wave interference. Elongating by F=MA where f is constant and M is decreasing and flattening due to the nature of wave synchronization (alignment).

Gravity is also a wave interference pattern for example, two objects emitting waves, those waves align, Huygens's principle via the path of least interference by synchronizing the objects that are continuously creating the waves.

The entire universe is run by the principle of a natural potential to kinetic energy distribution via the unwinding of matter to create space and the aligning of space as a wave synchronization.

funny you say that.

It would be nice, once if instead of negative comments without any substance. Someone could really grasp the fundamentals of matter and also understand concepts such as the nature of time and the exact mechanism of relativity.

Here is an small realization. The only way time and space can be relative is if they are propagating wave functions, there is no other way. Uniquely sound can be relative also, any form of wave can be relative if it has a point of origin, energy transfer and comes in the form of a wave. By comparison if sound came in a straight line the frequency would never change and it would never be relative to anything. It is the properties of a wave that allow velocity and or acceleration by comparison between objects to create a relative perception.


I can change the frequency of a sound by traveling away from that sound. I am only changing the frequency of the sound relative to be, not the point of origin. The speed comparison effects the wave frequency comparison. Time and space are also actions of a similar process of nature.

I am sorry you feel that magic and make believe have to explain the universe and I am sorry that your ego gets in your way of understanding. I pity you and your attitude.

Hello Insight

You sound like you know what you are talking about.

I see that you agree with the big Bnag theory and thats ok, most cosmologist do.

The universe is not actually expanding in reference to distance and to galaxies.The Big Bang makes reference to space-time expansion

There are no observations that the universe is expanding.

There are observations of parts contracting and expanding as part of the process of recycling.

If you have any evidence to indicate an expansion or acceleration of the universe and not the parts functioning, please let us have the evidence or observation.

To many papers say that the universe is expanding or accelerating, by adding ad hoc ideas to the evidence to make the model work.

We are in the modern era, so we expect to see the evidence.

Interesting reading
Introduction to Cosmology: Problems of the Big bang Theory
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics...lems_Big_Bang/



http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...ingers-god.htm
Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God


The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp



Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/a...on-bigbang.htm
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.

Big bang in crisis.

Hello Alokmohan

Keep reading

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/index.html

International Workshop on
Redshift Mechanisms in
Astrophysics and Cosmology
(Clonakilty-Cork, Ireland, May 15-18, 2006)

http://redshift.vif.com/NewsWire/BrassTacksRelease1.pdf

Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May
Contain Intrinsic Components

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?for...rg%3A0704.1631

On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies

http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

Research Proposal 'Cosmological Redshifts'

http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/#A11

Non-Doppler Redshift Mechanisms with Possible Cosmological

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR03/AP...0.html#SR9.015


So! What do we have?????

A conflict in Redshift, meaning let the dust fall and see what the scientists come up with.

Halton Christian Arp (aka "Chip") is an American astronomer mainly known for Intrinsic redshift and as a main critic of the Standard cosmology. He was born March 21, 1927 in New York City. His bachelor's degree was awarded by Harvard (1949), and his Ph.D. from Caltech (1953). Afterwards he became a Fellow of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in 1953, performing research at the Mount Wilson Observatory and Palomar Observatory. Arp became a Research Assistant at Indiana University in 1955 and subsequently in 1957 became a staff member at Palomar Observatory, where he worked for 29 years. In 1983 he joined the staff of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany



[edit] Quasars and redshifts
Arp's hypothesis is that quasars or quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) are local objects ejected from the core of active galactic nuclei (AGN). The theory was originally proposed in the 1960s as an alternative to Maarten Schmidt's explanation for QSOs, which stated that they were very distant galaxies that appeared to be highly redshifted because of the expansion of the universe.[1] As a motivation for why he thinks QSOs are local Arp is making the argument that in some photographs he thinks that a QSO seem to be in the foreground of or otherwise connected to galaxies that according to the Hubble's law interpretation of redshift are significantly closer to earth than the QSO. He also claims that quasars are not evenly spread over the sky but tend to be more commonly found in positions of small angular separation from certain galaxies. The implication of the hypothesis of local QSOs was that most of the observed redshift of these QSOs must have a non-cosmological or "intrinsic" origin. Arp has suggested that the QSO emission may instead be ejecta from active galactic nuclei. Nearby galaxies with both strong radio emission and peculiar morphologies, particularly M87 and Centaurus A, appeared to support Arp's hypothesis.[2] In his books, Arp has provided his reasons for believing that the Big Bang theory itself is wrong, citing his research into QSOs. Instead, Arp supports the redshift quantization theory as an explanation of the redshifts of galaxies.[3]


[edit] Critics
Since Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s, however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly; the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely used. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been used to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[4] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[5][6][7]

Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge.[8]


[edit] The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies

Hello Alokmohan

Halton Arp is a fantastic scientist, its only a pity that science did not catch up to his information.
===============================
On another subject

Iron Spectra from Supermassive Black Holes:
Chandra Measures Iron in the Fire
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/felines/

.

Considering the number of galaxies observed and the process that occurs to produce Fe in stars and would think that it would take over 100 billion years to form.

There are other images 13.2 Billion Light Years with similar reports on Fe build up. This in itself questions the age of the universe as 13.7 Gyrs.

Fe to be created in just 2 Gyrs let alone forming just 300 galaxies. Where is the science in this. They make ad hoc statements to fit the Big Bang model.

This post has been edited by Harry Costas on Apr 11 2008, 12:55 PM

Point one.

How Fast is the Universe Expanding?
The expansion or contraction of the universe depends on its content and past history. With enough matter, the expansion will slow or even become a contraction. On the other hand, dark energy drives the universe towards increasing rates of expansion. The current rate of expansion is usually expressed as the Hubble Constant (in units of kilometers per second per Megaparsec, or just per second).

Hubble found that the universe was not static, but rather was expanding!

Historical Overview
In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble, using the newly constructed 100" telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory, detected variable stars in several nebulae. Nebulae are diffuse objects whose nature was a topic of heated debate in the astronomical community: were they interstellar clouds in our own Milky Way galaxy, or whole galaxies outside our galaxy? This was a difficult question to answer because it is notoriously difficult to measure the distance to most astronomical bodies since there is no point of reference for comparison. Hubble's discovery was revolutionary because these variable stars had a characteristic pattern resembling a class of stars called Cepheid variables. Earlier, Henrietta Levitt, part of a group of female astronomers working at Harvard College Observatory, had shown there was a tight correlation between the period of a Cepheid variable star and its luminosity (intrinsic brightness). By knowing the luminosity of a source it is possible to measure the distance to that source by measuring how bright it appears to us: the dimmer it appears the farther away it is. Thus, by measuring the period of these stars (and hence their luminosity) and their apparent brightness, Hubble was able to show that these nebula were not clouds within our own Galaxy, but were external galaxies far beyond the edge of our own Galaxy.

Hubble's second revolutionary discovery was based on comparing his measurements of the Cepheid-based galaxy distance determinations with measurements of the relative velocities of these galaxies. He showed that more distant galaxies were moving away from us more rapidly:

v = Hod

where v is the speed at which a galaxy moves away from us, and d is its distance. The constant of proportionality Ho is now called the Hubble constant. The common unit of velocity used to measure the speed of a galaxy is km/sec, while the most common unit of for measuring the distance to nearby galaxies is called the Megaparsec (Mpc) which is equal to 3.26 million light years or 30,800,000,000,000,000,000 km! Thus the units of the Hubble constant are (km/sec)/Mpc.

This discovery marked the beginning of the modern age of cosmology. Today, Cepheid variables remain one of the best methods for measuring distances to galaxies and are vital to determining the expansion rate (the Hubble constant) and age of the universe.

What are Cepheid Variables?
The structure of all stars, including the Sun and Cepheid variable stars, is determined by the opacity of matter in the star. If the matter is very opaque, then it takes a long time for photons to diffuse out from the hot core of the star, and strong temperature and pressure gradients can develop in the star. If the matter is nearly transparent, then photons move easily through the star and erase any temperature gradient. Cepheid stars oscillate between two states: when the star is in its compact state, the helium in a layer of its atmosphere is singly ionized. Photons scatter off of the bound electron in the singly ionized helium atoms, thus, the layer is very opaque and large temperature and pressure gradients build up across the layer. These large pressures cause the layer (and the whole star) to expand. When the star is in its expanded state, the helium in the layer is doubly ionized, so that the layer is more transparent to radiation and there is much weaker pressure gradient across the layer. Without the pressure gradient to support the star against gravity, the layer (and the whole star) contracts and the star returns to its compressed state.

Cepheid variable stars have masses between five and twenty solar masses. The more massive stars are more luminous and have more extended envelopes. Because their envelopes are more extended and the density in their envelopes is lower, their variability period, which is proportional to the inverse square root of the density in the layer, is longer.


Text Link to the HST press release describing this image.

Difficulties in Using Cepheids
There have been a number of difficulties associated with using Cepheids as distance indicators. Until recently, astronomers used photographic plates to measure the fluxes from stars. The plates were highly non-linear and often produced faulty flux measurements. Since massive stars are short lived, they are always located near their dusty birthplaces. Dust absorbs light, particularly at blue wavelengths where most photographic images were taken, and if not properly corrected for, this dust absorption can lead to erroneous luminosity determinations. Finally, it has been very difficult to detect Cepheids in distant galaxies from the ground: Earth's fluctuating atmosphere makes it impossible to separate these stars from the diffuse light of their host galaxies.

Another historic difficulty with using Cepheids as distance indicators has been the problem of determining the distance to a sample of nearby Cepheids. In recent years, astronomers have developed several very reliable and independent methods of determining the distances to the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), two of the nearby satellite galaxies of our own Milky Way Galaxy. Since the LMC and SMC contain large number of Cepheids, they can be used to calibrate the distance scale.

Recent Progress
Recent technological advances have enabled astronomers to overcome a number of the other past difficulties. New detectors called CCDs (charge coupled devices) made possible accurate flux measurements. These detectors are also sensitive in the infrared wavelengths. Dust is much more transparent at these wavelengths. By measuring fluxes at multiple wavelengths, astronomers were able to correct for the effects of dust and make much more accurate distance determinations.

These advances enabled more accurate study of the nearby galaxies that comprise the "Local Group" of galaxies. Astronomers observed Cepheids in both the metal rich inner region of the Andromeda galaxy and its metal poor outer region. (To an astronomer, a "metal" is any element heavier than helium - the second lightest element in the periodic table. Such elements are produced in stars and are ultimately released into the interstellar medium as the stars evolve.) This work showed that the properties of Cepheids did not depend sensitively on chemical abundances. Despite these advances, astronomers, limited by the Earth's atmosphere, could only measure the distances to the nearest galaxies. In addition to the motion due to the expansion of the universe, galaxies have "relative motions" due to the gravitational pull of their neighbors. Because of these "peculiar motions", astronomers need to measure the distances to distant galaxies so that they can determine the Hubble constant.

Trying to push deeper into the universe, astronomers have developed a number of new techniques for determining relative distances to galaxies: these independent relative distance scales now agree to better than 10%. For example, there is a very tight relation, called the Tully-Fisher relation, between the rotational velocity of a spiral galaxy and its luminosity. Astronomers also found that Type Ia supernova, which are thought to be due to the explosive burning of a white dwarf star, all had nearly the same peak luminosity. However, without accurate measurements of distance to large numbers of prototype galaxies, astronomers could not calibrate these relative distance measurements. Thus, they were unable to make accurate determinations of the Hubble constant.

Over the past few decades, leading astronomers, using different data, reported values for the Hubble constant that varied between 50 (km/sec)/Mpc and 100 (km/sec)/Mpc. Resolving this factor of two discrepancy was one of the most important outstanding problems in observational cosmology.

Hubble Key Project
One of the "key projects" of the Hubble Space Telescope was to complete Edwin Hubble's program of measuring distances to nearby galaxies. While the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) is comparable in diameter to Hubble's telescope on Mount Wilson, it had the advantage of being above the Earth's atmosphere, rather then being located on the outskirts of Los Angeles. NASA's repair of the Hubble Space Telescope restored its vision and enabled the key project program. The photos below show before and after images of M100, one of the nearby galaxies observed by the key project program. With the refurbished HST, it was much easier to detect individual bright stars in M100, a necessary step in studying Cepheid variables. The project also checked to see if the properties of Cepheid variables are sensitive to stellar composition.

HST image of M100 before and after repair

Text Link to the HST press release describing this image.

Overall, the key project attempted to get distances to 20 nearby galaxies. With this large sample, the project calibrated and cross checked a number of the secondary distance indicators. Because M100 is close enough to us that its peculiar motion is a significant fraction of its Hubble expansion velocity, the key project team used relative distance indicators to extrapolate from the Virgo cluster, a nearby cluster of galaxies containing M100, to the more distant Coma cluster and to obtain a measurement of the Hubble constant of 70 (km/sec)/Mpc, with an uncertainty of 10%.

The key project determination of the Hubble constant is consistent with a number of independent efforts to estimate the Hubble constant: a statistical synthesis by G.F.R. Ellis and his collaborators of the published literature yielded a value between 66 and 82 (km/sec)/Mpc. However, there was still not complete consensus on the value of the Hubble constant.

WMAP and the Hubble Constant
By characterizing the detailed structure of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations, WMAP has accurately determined the basic cosmological parameters, including the Hubble constant, to better than 5%. This measurement is completely independent of traditional measurements using Cepheid variables and other techniques. The current results show the Hubble Constant to be 73.5 (km/sec)/Mpc (give or take 3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc). If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological data, the best estimate is 70.8 (km/sec)/Mpc (give or take 1.6 (km/sec)/Mpc). These results assume that the universe is spatially flat, which is consistent with all available data. However, if we do not make this assumption, the uncertainty in the Hubble constant increases to 4 (km/sec)/Mpc, or slightly over 5%.
Point 2
Accelerating universe
Scientists
Einstein · Hawking · Friedman · Lemaître · Hubble · Penzias · Wilson · Gamow · Dicke · Zel'dovich · Mather · Smoot· others

The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerated rate. In 1998 observations of Type Ia supernovae suggested that the expansion of the universe is speeding up.




Corroboration
In the past few years, these observations have been corroborated by several independent sources: the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, age of the universe[citation needed] and large scale structure, as well as improved measurements of the supernovae.

Bibliography:
References
Goldhaber, G. and Perlmutter, S, "A study of 42 type Ia supernovae and a resulting measurement of Omega(M) and Omega(Lambda)", Physics Reports-Review section of Physics Letters 307 (1-4): 325-331 Dec. 1998
Garnavich PM, Kirshner RP, Challis P, et al. "Constraints on cosmological models from Hubble Space Telescope observations of high-z supernovae" Astrophysical Journal 493 (2): L53+ Part 2 Feb. 1 1998
arXiv:astro-ph/0604051v2
B. Leibundgut, J. Sollerman (2001). "A cosmological surprise: the universe accelerates". Europhysics News 32 (4). Retrieved on 2007-02-01.
"Confirmation of the accelerated expansion of the Universe", Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, September 19, 2003. Retrieved on 2006-11-03.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101expand.html

Side note;The Big Bang
The night sky presents the viewer with a picture of a calm and unchanging Universe. So the 1929 discovery by Edwin Hubble that the Universe is in fact expanding at enormous speed was revolutionary. Hubble noted that galaxies outside our own Milky Way were all moving away from us, each at a speed proportional to its distance from us. He quickly realized what this meant that there must have been an instant in time (now known to be about 14 billion years ago) when the entire Universe was contained in a single point in space. The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."
Bibliography:
science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/science/expanding.html - 11k

Side note from NASA;

Within the past ten years we have learned that our Universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate implying that some day - in the very distant future - anyone looking at the night sky would see only our Galaxy and its stars. The billions of other galaxies will have receded beyond detection by these future observers. We do not understand what the force is that is pushing the Universe apart and refer to it simply as “dark energy”. This dark energy is a new and mysterious component of our Universe that previous generations have not examined. It is clear that this heretofore unknown piece of the Universe, comprising ~75% of the matter-energy content of everything, will determine the ultimate fate of all.

NASA is investigating this question with the following missions:
Under Study Development Operating Past
JDEM GLAST Chandra BBXRT
LISA JWST Hubble Space Telescope
NuSTAR Planck INTEGRAL
SIM SOFIA RXTE
ST7 Swift
WMAP
XMM-Newton
Bioliography:
science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/science/expanding.html - 11k
hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=49&cat=cosmology - 11k

Now that this brief background information is out of the way, Harry and I assume that you understand that there are arguments on both sides. But when you take into account relativity and the effect of increasing or decreasing half life of sub atomic particles, gravitation, the concepts of absolute time and space verses relative time and space, Spooky action at a distance, galaxies moving as if they are on a plate, black holes postulated to shrink over time, inflation, expansion, the behavior of matter at nearly absolute zero and you say what is the possible mechanism that can explain all of these oddities the deduced conclusion using only three dimensions as a requirment, the only fundamental concept that fits all of the known, observed, and postulated actions of matter and energy is that all matter and energy, as we define, decay naturally at the level of electromagnetic fields into a monopole gravitational wave/field creating the way we measure time, space and the third process of this matter evaporating creating space is the an orderly process of wave synchronization. it is the process of matter/energy ever so slow decay as an orderly interactive process that runs the entire universe because space itself is active. The medium of space was created at the big bang but it is alive and active as matter and energy are countinously adding to the medium as points with in the medium. The medium is orderly elongating and flattening as the universe is using up potential energy ( matter and energy ) and becoming space ( the gravitational wave).

Also two brief comments, two of your three web sites could not be accessed and this concepts that i have postulated Gravitational wave synchronization makes understandable the weakness of gravity (monopole field) verses the other multipole fields and it also shows the mechanism behind the corrects aspects of relativity such as the speed of radiation constant in all simular reference frames independent of the speed of the source.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>All I am doing is looking at all the evidence and the problems with the evidence as you point out and I show the nature of the solution that clears it all up.</span> </span>

Funny, I made the words too big and I can't get it to go down, sorry about the viagra words at the end. If It continues for more than four fours then...report me.

This post has been edited by insight on Apr 11 2008, 03:10 PM