Is big bang proven to be solid true?

[Oli]

doesn't this suggest something else is going on ?

It does.
It suggests you haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about.

I mean there aren't suppose to be young , galactic clusters , galaxies and stars the further afield we go , just remnants of what was once young

No, the further you look the further "back in time" you're seeing: therefore the furthest away ones are being seen as they were just after formation.
Remnants don't come into it.

 

[thinking]

It does.
It suggests you haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about.


No, the further you look the further "back in time" you're seeing: therefore the furthest away ones are being seen as they were just after formation.
Remnants don't come into it.

so you disagree then that new galactic clusters , galaxies and stars are not being observed the further afield we look

 

[Oli]

so you disagree then that new galactic clusters , galaxies and stars are not being observed the further afield we look

The further afield we look the newer they appear to be.
Because we're seeing them at an earlier time in their formation sequence.

 

[thinking]

The further afield we look the newer they appear to be.
Because we're seeing them at an earlier time in their formation sequence.

I get that

but apparently it has been observered much further afield that there are new galaxy clusters , galaxies and stars being made , further afield

which suggests something else is going on

 

[Oli]

I get that
but apparently it has been observered much further afield that there are new galaxy clusters , galaxies and stars being made , further afield
which suggests something else is going on

No, you obviously don't get it.
The ones that "are being made" were made millions and billions of years ago.
They aren't new any more, it's simply that the light from their formation is only just arriving.
They could all be dead and cold by now.

If there truly are any new ones in the process of creation then we won't know for a very very long time: we have to wait for the light that's there NOW to reach us.

 

[thinking]

No, you obviously don't get it.
The ones that "are being made" were made millions and billions of years ago.
They aren't new any more, it's simply that the light from their formation is only just arriving.
They could all be dead and cold by now.

If there truly are any new ones in the process of creation then we won't know for a very very long time: we have to wait for the light that's there NOW to reach us.

so nothing NEW is being made in the further reaches of the observable Universe

with respect to galactic clusters , galaxies and stars then ?

 

[Oli]

so nothing NEW is being made in the further reaches of the observable Universe
with respect to galactic clusters , galaxies and stars then ?

We don't know, there's no way of telling.
There could be theories that say it should be happening (I don't know if there are or not), but we can't verify by observation.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
so nothing NEW is being made in the further reaches of the observable Universe
with respect to galactic clusters , galaxies and stars then ?

We don't know, there's no way of telling.
There could be theories that say it should be happening (I don't know if there are or not), but we can't verify by observation.

okay

just wanted to make sure we're on the same page here

 

[thinking]

lets go back to post # 100 to 105

where we discuss that the Universe started out as light and particles

and the coalescing of these particles

are any of you willing to do so ?

 

[Billy T]

lets go back to post # 100 to 105

where we discuss that the Universe started out as light and particles

...

I did not go back but recall telling you that the universe statred out as only energy, then energy and a "soup of quarks" Finally later came "particles" like electrons and protons.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
lets go back to post # 100 to 105

where we discuss that the Universe started out as light and particles

I did not go back but recall telling you that the universe statred out as only energy, then energy and a "soup of quarks" Finally later came "particles" like electrons and protons.

but isn't light that came first ?

 

[thinking]

inotherwords does quarks , protons and electrons produce light with there formation ?

 

[Billy T]

but isn't light that came first ?

In the Bibical version, I think that is correct, but light is a very small part of the EM specturm.

Prior to the quarks being formed from the energy only universe, I think it would be more correct to say (if you need to give a name to the "energy") call it mainly "very harsh gamma rays," not light. (I am not well versed in this field -for all I know, perhaps the "energy" was in some "distortion of space" form also, but do not understand that as the big bang pushing on already existing space. The big bang was making space. It did not exist prior to the BB. You can not put any of this into words that you can understand, any more that the writers of the Bible could understand. - It is in the math, which few can understand.)

 

[thinking]

In the Bibical version, I think that is correct, but light is a very small part of the EM specturm.

Prior to the quarks being formed from the energy only universe, I think it would be more correct to say (if you need to give a name to the "energy") call it mainly "very harsh gamma rays," not light. (I am not well versed in this field -for all I know, perhaps the "energy" was in some "distortion of space" form also, but do not understand that as the big bang pushing on already existing space. The big bang was making space. It did not exist prior to the BB. You can not put any of this into words that you can understand, any more that the writers of the Bible could understand. - It is in the math, which few can understand.)

I see

but I see space as a consequence of energy/particles and energy/particles as a consequence of space

inotherwords

both space and energy/particles exist at the sametime and at the same moment

both are in harmony with each other , a symbiotic realtionship , so to speak

 

[thinking]

whats interesting if light came first out of the big-bang

is that the electromagnetics came first

 

[kaneda]

DH. Post 121. Late again! Sure galaxies collide and it makes a right mess of them too. Our spiral galaxy looks fine. The Andromeda galaxy which is two million light years away will collide with us in several billion years. Where do you think the galaxy that put that star there is now? Surely still in our local group over such a relatively short time? I believe the star concerned is some 20,000 light years from the rim of our galaxy so not exactly picked up in passing.

 

[kaneda]

You'll need to read up on the big bang theory for yourself, I'm afraid. I can't do all the work for you.

When do the answers start?

I have no idea what a "sea of gravity" is. It sounds like a term you just made up.

Yep! Like photons, gravity does not suddenly vanish at X distance from an object. What it does seem to do is become mixed so non-directional below a certain value. We can detect single photons but have no method for detecting single "units" of gravity on the same scale, so it's like detecting where waves come from in a stormy sea. We can only detect the tsunamis in mid-ocean.

Yes, but it still slows it.

But not really a need for dark energy as the universe would automatically expand faster as it got bigger.

No. How could the expansion get faster, with gravity always pulling it back? Even if gravity gets weaker as the distances increase, gravity remains always an attractive force.

Gravity is pulling over ever greater distances, so weaker. It is also hampered by light speed.

There's firm evidence for the big bang theory. Lots of it.

There are set interpretations of certain evidence. There is strong evidence against the BB too which is usually blatantly ignored and pooh-poohed.

 

[kaneda]

What makes you think it isn't?

Research money is often hard to come by and who is going to pay to check on what is mostly accepted as true?

The big bang theory, like any other significant theory in science, has some unknowns to it. It is not deemed infallible.

That's like a creationist saying God made the universe. We're not quite sure how he did it but we believe it is true.

The biggest problem with the big bang theory is that it somehow attracts attacks filled with hatred and lies -- i.e., yours.

Hatred, as in what follows from you?

This, for example, is a lie:


Since you are most like mouthing lies from some wacko site, I'll give you some slack this time. This is a lie in many ways.

Let's take for granted that these age of the Milky Way is indeed just 10 billion years. These ages do not contradict one another. Galaxies capture stars that were not originally part of the galaxy. Galaxies even capture other galaxies.

The Milky Way is not "supposed to be about ten billion years old." It is deemed to be one of the original galaxies formed soon after the Big Bang.

I do not use "wacko sites" but do my own thinking. You on the other hand seem to have some difficulty with the concept of "own thinking". Any child can quote the accepted science from endless sources.

Our galaxy is "deemed" to be one of the earliest galaxies? Did someone wake up one day and decide this? It sounds like it. You have an area with lots of free hydrogen about. A supernova goes off nearby and stars form. Now, lets see. What would their make-up be if they formed in an area of mostly hydrogen? They still haven't learned their lesson from the type 1A supernovae fiasco in fitting all stars into straight-jackets.

The average age of stars in our galaxy is 6.5 billion years old:

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=93


This is considering that the rim has lots of much older stars. Where are the wealth of black holes from dead stars? The oldest galaxies are dwarves which sometimes unite to form large galaxies.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=astronomers-strain-to-glimpse-oldest-galaxies-yet


I can understand a globular cluster forming that way, so a bit of a mess but how would several dwarf galaxies turn into a perfect spiral galaxy?

I have gone into your casual fallacy about our galaxy picking up stars elsewhere.

 

[kaneda]

Stop with the fallacious reasoning, Thomas. In the balloon analogy, the surface of the balloon is (represents) the universe. There is no place for the galaxies to "drop out of". There is no "rigid (non-expanding) lattice system" in the balloon analogy -- and there is no rigid (non-expanding) lattice system in our universe, either.

The balloon analogy is nonsense. It requires a four physical dimension expansion which is fairy tales. The sultana pudding analogy means that with enough information and enough computing power, we could trace back to the origin place of the BB. Except long before that point, we get to where density would be beyond where a black hole would form so showing the BB up for the idiot idea it is.

 

[D H]

Where do you think the galaxy that put that star there is now? Surely still in our local group over such a relatively short time? I believe the star concerned is some 20,000 light years from the rim of our galaxy so not exactly picked up in passing.

I gave several examples of satellite galaxies being gobbled up by their parent galaxy. Now what makes you think the star was captured a relatively short time ago? The star is 13.2 billion years old. If it was captured a long time ago, the galaxy in which the star formed in might well have been completely disrupted.

There is strong evidence against the BB too which is usually blatantly ignored and pooh-poohed.

Name some. The purported evidence against the big bang is for the most part crackpot garbage: pooh-pooh. Dark matter and dark energy are a bit problematic, and many cosmologists are trying to find alternatives that either explain these phenomena or do not require them. Note well: These alternatives are refinements to the big bang, not wholesale replacements.

Research money is often hard to come by and who is going to pay to check on what is mostly accepted as true?

The cry of the crackpot.

Our galaxy is "deemed" to be one of the earliest galaxies? Did someone wake up one day and decide this? It sounds like it. You have an area with lots of free hydrogen about. A supernova goes off nearby and stars form. Now, lets see. What would their make-up be if they formed in an area of mostly hydrogen? They still haven't learned their lesson from the type 1A supernovae fiasco in fitting all stars into straight-jackets.

This is pretty much nonsense. What is this type 1A supernova fiasco to which you are referring? What exactly are you trying to say here?

The average age of stars in our galaxy is 6.5 billion years old

This has nothing to do with the age of the galaxy other than setting a lower bound on that age.

The rest of your post comprises random, unconnected thoughts. Try sticking to one topic for once.