Time is grinding into a halt?

[Boris2]

Minus infinity on the time scale.

makes no sense to me. i think it may be more accurate to say there is another timeline before the creation of this current universe. of course whether there is or not is still being debated.

[prometheus]

If I could provide references i'd be an organized person, I aint.

Lame excuse.

Anyway I was referencing the large scale stuctures that have been observed that would need the universe to be older than 20bn years,

Not that I'm claiming to be up to date on cosmology, but I haven't seen any such reference.

the observation that the universe isn't isotropic yet the cmb is perfectly smooth in every direction,

This is because the CMB is characteristic of what the universe was like when it was emitted, not now. The CMB originates a couple of hundred thousand years after the BB. The point is that there is a (very) small discrepancy from perfectly homogeneity and isotropy, and that is sufficient to explain why the matter in the universe clumped together in the way that it has.

the galactrocentric nature of the redshift, quasars sat in front of galaxies, galactic angular velocities that defy the basic laws of gravity...

Huh?

Would you like to rephrase this so it makes sense please?

leading to 90% of the matter of a galaxy being external and requiring some invisible new matter that apparently can't be detected yet must exist (bit too much like the aether models).

Dark matter and dark energy is nothing at all like the aether models that have been thoroughly discredited and yet the crackpots still seem to like. Dark matter is nothing more than matter that doesn't interact very much yet has mass, which causes the changes to the galactic rotation curves I presume you were talking about previously. Dark energy is a bit weirder, and I don't understand it enough to take a stab at explaining it but I can tell you that it's nothing like the fluid aether theories.

t=0 is just as absurd as t=infinity

No it's not. t = infinity is like saying t = goldfish. Infinity is not a number so it makes no sense to try and measure time using it. t = 0 is simply defining your coordinates. I can legitimately say that t = 0 happened a week last Wednesday and prior to that we just measured time with negative numbers (followers of rocket launches will be familiar with this). When talking about the origin of the universe it makes sense to define t = 0 to be the start of the universe.

Some people just can't accept that some things can't be explained, they will cling onto the idea that the universe began with a big bang no matter how much growing evidence there is against it.

So you're trying to argue that the most fundamental question of the human condition - how did we come to exist - is unanswerable? I suppose that we have to accept the answer does exist but it may be beyond our ability to understand. That seems more like an attempt to excuse your personal inability to understand science rather than any overall reflection on humanity to me.

[Boris2]

i should probably add that this universe wont last an infinite amount of time so to have a timeline of negative infinity is probably not realistic either.

[kaduseus]

Lame excuse yes, but if I write them down I only loose them, I was reading up on redshift anomalies.
Large scale structures: Sloan great wall, Lyman alpha blobs, and the large voids.

The galactrocentric nature of the redshift is a study that suggests when the motion of the sun around our galaxy is subtracted from the observed redshift the redshift becomes galactrocentric, meaning our galaxy is at the center of the universe, which it shouldn't be.
Quasars sat in front of galaxies, you haven't seen that? A quasar sat in front of a galaxy completely defying the hubble constant.
Galactic angular velocities that defy the basic laws of gravity, yes, galactic rotation curves. Some people just can't spot a tan curve when they see one. Did you know the amplitude of the galaxy rotation curve is related to the galaxy's luminosity of visible mass? (Tully-Fisher relation)

I compared the insistence of there being any dark mater to the insistence of there being an aether. I don't buy aether models either, they aren't scalable enough, but if you want a medium you only have to look at the solar wind (joke btw, it's at 90 degrees to the suggested motion of the aether).

When talking about the origin of the universe it makes sense to define t = 0 to be the start of the universe.

So what happened at t=-1?

Always the same argument that comes from people who support the big bang, that others just don't understand science.
The term origin of the universe does NOT mean how did the universe begin, it means where did it come from, did it begin or was it always there, who created it, why does it exist?
It's not that we shouldn't try to answer it, it's that we shouldn't go making creationist statements and then continually fudge the original statement just to make new observations fit, it's not science.
What is wrong with saying we just don't know?

[KilljoyKlown]

What is wrong with saying we just don't know?

Nothing at all. But where's the fun in that? It seems so much consensus is based on an old model of our universe which just can't account for all the observations we see. We need a new model, but can't seem to form a consensus as to what it should be. Within the next decade many new very large scale telescopes will be coming online that could very well help with the task of coming up with a better model of the universe.

[prometheus]

Lame excuse yes, but if I write them down I only loose them, I was reading up on redshift anomalies.
Large scale structures: Sloan great wall, Lyman alpha blobs, and the large voids.

Yes, there are plenty of "redshift anomalies." The overall aggregated motion of galaxies in the universe is away from each other. That doesn't mean to say all galaxies move away from all other ones. There are plenty of other factors involved in the motion of galaxies and other objects in the universe than simple expansion.

The galactrocentric nature of the redshift is a study that suggests when the motion of the sun around our galaxy is subtracted from the observed redshift the redshift becomes galactrocentric, meaning our galaxy is at the center of the universe, which it shouldn't be.

It means no such thing. Either all galaxies are moving away from us and we are sitting happily in the middle or every galaxy is moving away from every other one making our place a great deal less special.

Quasars sat in front of galaxies, you haven't seen that? A quasar sat in front of a galaxy completely defying the hubble constant.

As I said above, There are many other things like local interactions that mean every galaxy is not moving away from every other one. One exception to Hubble's law does not disprove the BB.

Galactic angular velocities that defy the basic laws of gravity, yes, galactic rotation curves. Some people just can't spot a tan curve when they see one. Did you know the amplitude of the galaxy rotation curve is related to the galaxy's luminosity of visible mass? (Tully-Fisher relation)

I compared the insistence of there being any dark mater to the insistence of there being an aether. I don't buy aether models either, they aren't scalable enough, but if you want a medium you only have to look at the solar wind (joke btw, it's at 90 degrees to the suggested motion of the aether).

It's about time for you to shut up. Dark matter has evidence which the aether doesn't have (in fact, the existence of the aether has been disproved, so calling someone an idiot for believing in it is completely justified - not so in the case of dark matter.)

So what happened at t=-1?

Every time I see that smiley I see an extended middle finger. Allow me to return the compliment.

-1 what?

Always the same argument that comes from people who support the big bang, that others just don't understand science.
The term origin of the universe does NOT mean how did the universe begin, it means where did it come from, did it begin or was it always there, who created it, why does it exist?

The BB model of the universe produces predictions that fit exactly with the observations we can make. I don't quite see how you can argue otherwise. Existence of the CMB? check. Relative abundances of elements in the universe? check. The list goes on.

It's not that we shouldn't try to answer it, it's that we shouldn't go making creationist statements and then continually fudge the original statement just to make new observations fit, it's not science.

What you are describing is the development of a scientific theory.
1) make observation
2) devise theory to fit observation
3) prediction and test
4) if test matches prediction go to step 3)
5) if test doesn't match prediction try to understand why, and try to understand what part of the theory is wrong and correct it.
6) go to step 3)

what's wrong with that?

What is wrong with saying we just don't know?

Nothing. "I don't know." is in some ways the most fundamental statement in science. It's what you do next that may or may not elevate you in the animal kingdom. If you try and replace that ignorance with knowledge by creating a theory that can be tested in experiment then welcome to the human race. If you pass it off as a curiosity then really you're no better than a jellyfish. In fact, you're no better than a bank manager.

Yes, I stole this joke. It fits though.

[kaduseus]

One exception to Hubble's law does not disprove the BB.

I thought BB was based on expansion?
But never the less I do note that the quasars are probably not what we think they are, which would mean of course that the quasar in question will smash into the galaxy at some point?

Thanks for the link, I'd point out that using a mathematical computer model as proof of a model based on observation, using the observations as data for the model isn't exactly proof. Liked the isobar chart, presentation is nine tenths of a theory. That's a dig at them using isobar charts as proof btw.

t=-1 Elephants

You forgot 5a and 5b in your list
5a) if observation contradicts the theory, ignore it and claim the observation is wrong.
5b) anyone making observations that contradict the theory will be prevented from using the equiptment in the future.

@KilljoyKlown - my vote is for Unstable equillibrium.

[KilljoyKlown]

I thought BB was based on expansion?

Yes it is.

But never the less I do note that the quasars are probably not what we think they are, which would mean of course that the quasar in question will smash into the galaxy at some point?

"not what we think they are". Quasars are very active supermassive black holes. At the current state of our universe they don't very often reach that level of activity. Some galaxy mergers might produce enough activity to form a short lived quasar, but even that's kind of doubtful. It's generally believed that quasars were more common in the very early universe where the galaxies were newly forming. Proof being that quasars are some of the most distant objects we see (Back close to the estimated beginning of our universe).

This creates another question which the standard BB model has no good answer for. Which came first, the stars or the supermassive BH's. My personal theory is without BH's there would be no galaxies. I believe the BH's existed before what I will call the BB event. They formed the gravity sources that concentrated the gas. Enough infalling gas would create a quasar, which would be putting out enough energy to create a pressure wave pushing the gas away form the BH. That pressure wave would be enough to start compressing the gas enough for star formation to take place and populate the new galaxy very quickly.

@KilljoyKlown - my vote is for Unstable equilibrium.

In context with the universe, what does that mean?

[Boris2]

Which came first, the stars or the supermassive BH's.

the stars. black holes are formed from supernova which are exploding stars.

[KilljoyKlown]

the stars. black holes are formed from supernova which are exploding stars.

Well we do know how stellar sized BH's are formed. But that doesn't explain how all galaxies have SMBH's at their cores. They've discovered a few SMBH's of over a billion solar masses that were in existence about a billions years after the BB. How do you suppose they got that big in so short a period of time? I can already tell you are not going to have a good answer for that, because the best scientists don't have a good answer for that. Anyway not one that fits into the current BB model of our universe.

[Boris2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

scroll down to formation.

[KilljoyKlown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

scroll down to formation.

What's your point Boris? Did you see anything in Wikipedia that looked like a knowledgeable answer to you? All I saw was speculation trying to fit into the current BB theory. I'm sorry but that speculation is not very convincing.

[Alan McDougall]

Timeflows faster in a huge gravity field than a lesser one, the universe is expanding thus universal gravity must becoming less and less because of mass dissapation.

This should result in time speeding up, rather than slowing down?

[rcscwc]

Time can stop but if and only if the universe goes into stasis. No motion, not elapse of time.

Time anyway is not a real object.

[KilljoyKlown]

Time flows faster in a huge gravity field than a lesser one, the universe is expanding thus universal gravity must becoming less and less because of mass dissipation.

This should result in time speeding up, rather than slowing down?

You've got it backwards, times slows down as gravity increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation

[Saint]

Is big bang theory without flaw?

[Alan McDougall]

Time can stop but if and only if the universe goes into stasis. No motion, not elapse of time.

Time anyway is not a real object.

I knew this I am well versed in Astronomy and just made a mistake!

I wrote

Timeflows faster in a huge (It should have read A SMALL GRAVITY FIELD) gravity field than a lesser (It should have read in a GREATER GRAVITY FIELD) one, the universe is expanding thus universal gravity must becoming less and less because of mass dissapation.

This should result in time speeding up, rather than slowing down?

my mistake

Alan

[Alan McDougall]

Is big bang theory without flaw?

Well it is still a "Theory" maybe someday we will have "scientific facts" about the truth of this theory!

Alan

[kaduseus]

Black holes are a lack of understanding of relativity.
Relativity accounts for the curvature of spacetime external to a given mass, it does not account for the curvature inside the mass at all.
The Schwarzschild solution is a mathematical musing with no basis in reality, it only exists as a two dimensional mathematical anomaly when one takes the mathematics outside of the context of relativity.
The problem can be shown quite simply with Newtonian mechanics, if you take the angular velocity of any planet in our solar system, apply the inverse square law and find the distance at which the angular velocity equals the speed of light you reach an answer of about 9km radius, which isn't that far from the 3km radius calculated using the Schwarzschild solution. Now work out the angular velocity for the surface of the sun and compare your calculation to the velocity observed, don't make any sense does it?
The Newtonian model and general relativity only apply to the observed motions of bodies external to the mass, they make absolutely no sense to unobserved internal motions of the mass, which at this current time are speculations. It's what you get when mathematicians take equations out of context.

Quasars are probably not what we think they are....

[KilljoyKlown]

Black holes are a lack of understanding of relativity.
Relativity accounts for the curvature of spacetime external to a given mass, it does not account for the curvature inside the mass at all.
The Schwarzschild solution is a mathematical musing with no basis in reality, it only exists as a two dimensional mathematical anomaly when one takes the mathematics outside of the context of relativity.
The problem can be shown quite simply with Newtonian mechanics, if you take the angular velocity of any planet in our solar system, apply the inverse square law and find the distance at which the angular velocity equals the speed of light you reach an answer of about 9km radius, which isn't that far from the 3km radius calculated using the Schwarzschild solution. Now work out the angular velocity for the surface of the sun and compare your calculation to the velocity observed, don't make any sense does it?
The Newtonian model and general relativity only apply to the observed motions of bodies external to the mass, they make absolutely no sense to unobserved internal motions of the mass, which at this current time are speculations. It's what you get when mathematicians take equations out of context.

Quasars are probably not what we think they are....

I've heard of neutron stars with angular velocity close to the speed of light at the surface. But still wonder how they might calculate it for any BH. If I recall Schwarzschild solution correctly it assumes a zero angular velocity which as we know doesn't exist in nature for any sizable celestial body.

Also, you keep making that comment about quasars. Just what do you think they are?