Is big bang proven to be solid true?

[D H]

oh...please

what other ad-hoc's will BB do in which to survive as a theory

kaneda's implied that a ten billion year age for the Milky Way is inconsistent with finding stars in the Milky Way that are considerably older than ten billion years. That argument ignores that galaxies didn't interact gravitationally. They steal stars and gas from each other. There is nothing ad hoc about these colliding galaxies:

so we are know considered the center of the Universe then

Every point in the universe can be viewed as the center of the universe. Even better, there is no such thing as the center of the universe. Look at the balloon analogy. Where on the surface of the balloon is the center of the balloon universe?

 

[Billy T]

the micrwave radiation can only eliminate just a few local galaxies as the source of CMBs , CMBs are a local thing , ...

complete nonsense. In any direction you look, it is coming towards Earth with such ammazing uinformatity that only recently with extremely high resoultion measusurement hasw it been possible to detect the tiny difference in intensity that looking in different directions measures. I forget how small the variation is but am sure it the strongest is only 1.00001 times more intense than the weakest.

 

[tsmid]

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.

There is no fallacious reasoning involved: ask any cosmologist, and they'll tell you that not only physical objects but also systems held together by gravity (e.g. the solar system) do not participate in the expansion of the universe (not to a significant degree at least). In the balloon analogy this would mean that a little rigid rod originally perfectly embedded in the balloon surface can not adapt its shape such as to stay perfectly embedded as the balloon expands (the radius of curvature of the latter changes, but that of the rod can't change). This means that the rod effectively would drop out of the universe.

Thomas

 

[Ophiolite]

You still don't understand what an analogy is. Here is a heirarchy for you to consider. It gets simpler as it goes down.

Reality.

A theory of reality expressed in mathematical terms.

An analogy that focuses on one or two key aspects of this theory in a highly simplified way to help non-experts gain some understanding of concept.

Stubborn stupidity that conflates the grossly simplified analogy with reality mainly because the proponents of this view would defecate in their underwear if presented with the mathematical expression of the theory.

It is quite clear where you have chosen to place yourself on this structure.

 

[tsmid]

You still don't understand what an analogy is. Here is a heirarchy for you to consider. It gets simpler as it goes down.

Reality.

A theory of reality expressed in mathematical terms.

An analogy that focuses on one or two key aspects of this theory in a highly simplified way to help non-experts gain some understanding of concept.

Stubborn stupidity that conflates the grossly simplified analogy with reality mainly because the proponents of this view would defecate in their underwear if presented with the mathematical expression of the theory.

If you haven't realized yet that the analogy exactly fails to illustrate the key aspects of the theory, then I can only ask you to think about my arguments again. Or just try to refute them if you can.

Thomas

 

[D H]

The balloon analogy illustrates in two spatial dimensions how a finite universe can lack a center and it illustrates in two spatial dimensions plus time the concept of expansion. These are key aspects of the theory.

Your arguments are downright ridiculous, Thomas.

 

[Ophiolite]

I think DH that the central problem really is that he does not understand the difference between an analogy and a mapping of reality. He does not understand that analogies are limited in their application. I've tried various hypotheses, but the only one that can consistently explain this lack on his part is that he is thick.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
the micrwave radiation can only eliminate just a few local galaxies as the source of CMBs , CMBs are a local thing , ... ”

complete nonsense. In any direction you look, it is coming towards Earth with such ammazing uinformatity that only recently with extremely high resoultion measusurement hasw it been possible to detect the tiny difference in intensity that looking in different directions measures. I forget how small the variation is but am sure it the strongest is only 1.00001 times more intense than the weakest.

actually there is nothing nonsensical about what said above

I know because I E-mailed NASA about 2 yrs ago about just this , about the galaxies they can eliminate as a sourse of CMBs and they E-mailed me back saying just what I said above

 

[thinking]

kaneda's implied that a ten billion year age for the Milky Way is inconsistent with finding stars in the Milky Way that are considerably older than ten billion years. That argument ignores that galaxies didn't interact gravitationally. They steal stars and gas from each other. There is nothing ad hoc about these colliding galaxies:

Every point in the universe can be viewed as the center of the universe. Even better, there is no such thing as the center of the universe. Look at the balloon analogy. Where on the surface of the balloon is the center of the balloon universe?

still don't buy it DH

it doesn't prove that our galaxy had the same consequence of collision with another

there is nothing distorted about our galaxy form

 

[D H]

still don't buy it DH

it doesn't prove that our galaxy had the same consequence of collision with another

there is nothing distorted about our galaxy form

Do you understand the concept of a two-pronged argument? In the first prong I showed that kaneda's conclusion does not follow from the premises, even if the premises are correct. In the second prong I showed that one of kaneda's premises is incorrect.

Regarding "there is nothing distorted about our galaxy form": There is. The Milky Way bears evidence of having gobbled up other galaxies. The Sagitarius Dwarf Galaxy, for example.

Steven R. Majewski, M. F. Skrutskie, Martin D. Weinberg, and James C. Ostheimer, "A 2MASS All-Sky View of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy: I. Morphology of the Sagittarius Core and Tidal Arms", ApJ preprint doi:10.1086/379504 http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~mfs4n/sgr/preprint.pdf

The Sagittarius (Sgr) dwarf galaxy is a striking example of the process of satellite disruption and assimilation long presumed responsible for populating the Galactic halo (e.g., Searle & Zinn 1978).​

http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2003/18/milky_way.html

“After slow, continuous gnawing by the Milky Way, Sagittarius has been whittled down to the point that it cannot hold itself together much longer,” said 2MASS Science Team member and study co-author Martin Weinberg of the University of Massachusetts. “We are seeing Sagittarius at the very end of its life as an intact system.”

Does this mean we are at a unique moment in the life of our galaxy? Yes and no.
“Whenever possible, astronomers appeal to the principle that we are not at a special time or place in the universe,” Majewski said. “Because over the 14 billion-year history of the Milky Way it is unlikely that we would just happen to catch a brief event like the death of Sagittarius, we infer that such events must be common in the life of big spiral galaxies like our own. The Milky Way probably dined on a number of dwarf galaxy snacks in the past.”​

http://info.anu.edu.au/ovc/Media/Media_Releases/2008/April/20080407_keller

A stream of debris across the sky is the result of intergalactic cannibalism, researchers from The Australian National University conclude, and it is the not the first time our galaxy has had one of its neighbours for breakfast.

Astronomers from the Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics at ANU have identified a huge swathe of debris that has been wrenched from a neighbouring galaxy to our Milky Way. Their findings are published in the April issue of the Astrophysical Journal.​

 

[Ophiolite]

Come on DH! That's unfair. You are countering thinking's incredulity and baseless speculation with validated hypotheses by bona fide investigators who publish their results in peer reviewed journals. Couldn't you just have made a couple of unfalsifiable contentions, thrown in a few ad hominems and insulted his cat? That would have beenn the normal way to do it. You're just not catching the spirit of the place.

 

[D H]

Yeah, quoting published works by people working in the field is unfair. My use of logic as opposed to emotion is unfair.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
oh...please

what other ad-hoc's will BB do in which to survive as a theory ”

kaneda's implied that a ten billion year age for the Milky Way is inconsistent with finding stars in the Milky Way that are considerably older than ten billion years. That argument ignores that galaxies didn't interact gravitationally. They steal stars and gas from each other. There is nothing ad hoc about these colliding galaxies:

so then these galaxies and earlier you mentioned sagittarious as being swallowed up by the Milky Way and therefore are suggesting that the stars being swallowed is the reason then that we find stars older than our own galaxy

however since these galaxies are local , close to our own galaxy , why would sagittarious stars be any older than the stars in our own galaxy ?

 

[D H]

so then these galaxies and earlier you mentioned sagittarious as being swallowed up by the Milky Way and therefore are suggesting that the stars being swallowed is the reason then that we find stars older than our own galaxy

however since these galaxies are local , close to our own galaxy , why would sagittarious stars be any older than the stars in our own galaxy ?

You are continuing to ignore the second prong of my argument: The Milky Way is one of the original galaxies in the universe.

So, back to the first prong. The oldest stars in our galaxy that we have observed are in the galactic halo. HE 1523-0901 (see post #111), for example, is a halo star. Up until around 10 years ago, astronomers thought the halo stars formed with the galaxy. Per this model stars in the galactic halo will be small and have low metallicity (to an cosmologist, anything above lithium is a metal). There isn't much stuff from which to form stars far from the galactic core: Stars that form in the halo will tend to be small. Metallicity decreases with increased distance from the galactic core. Small stars live a lot longer than do larger stars. Metals help stars burn fuel. Small stars with low metallicity will live a long, long time.

In the last decade, astronomers have seen more and more evidence accumulate that indicates that many of the halo stars are of extragalactic origin. Marsakov and Borkova have gone so far as to claim that the majority "of metal-poor stellar objects in the Galaxy have an extragalactic origin." Some of the dwarf galaxies from which the Milky Way stole the halo stars are (were) of lower density and metallicity than the Milky Way. The stars in these dwarf galaxies will inherently be very old. The stars of corresponding age in the Milky Way died a violent death a long time ago.


References -- lay articles:

Kate Wong, "Milky Way's Oldest Stars May Be Galactic Intruders", Scientific American, July 2002.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=milky-ways-oldest-stars-m

Robert Roy Britt, "Puzzling Ring of Stars Discovered Circling the Milky Way", SPACE.com, January 2003.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/milkyway_ring_030106.html


Technical preprints and reprints:

T.V. Borkova, V.A. Marsakov, "Stars of extragalactic origin in the solar neighborhood", arXiv:astro-ph/0403148v1, 2004.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403148

T.V. Borkova (Rostov University), V.A. Marsakov (Rostov University)
G. S. Da Costa, "The Star Cluster Systems of the Magellanic Clouds", arXiv:astro-ph/0106122v1, 2001.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106122v1

V.A. Marsakov, T.V. Borkova, "Stellar Objects of Extragalactic Origin in the Galactic Halo", arXiv:astro-ph/0710.4364v1, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4364
Originally published in Odessa Astronomical Publications, vol. 20 (2007) in Russian. The arXiv reprint is an admittedly rough translation from Russian by the authors.

Julio F. Navarro, Amina Helmi, Kenneth C. Freeman, "The Extragalactic Origin of the Arcturus Group", arXiv:astro-ph/0311107v2, 2003.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311107

Andres Meza, Julio F. Navarro, Mario G. Abadi, Matthias Steinmetz, "Accretion relicts in the solar neighbourhood: debris from omegaCen's parent galaxy", arXiv:astro-ph/0408567, 2005.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0408567

 

[CapsOwn]

Well, there really aren't any other theories that make any more sense. But think about it. Any time we can't explain something, the answer is "a rock hit it" or "it exploded for no good reason."

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Explain how a singularity can inflate while sticking to acceptable science and without using fairy tale terms.

Except that noone thinks the BB involved a literal singularity as GR says, as GR is only an effective theory, it breaks down over short distances and high energies. The BB theory says the universe was very small and very hot in a finite amount of time in the past and using that premise we find that if we start off with a small, but non-zero, size universe we can wind time forwards using current models and we find it explains the universe we see in observations. But that 'start off' isn't at the proverbial t=0 but some small amount of time after 'the big bang' itself. Earlier than about $$10^{-9}$$ seconds and we can't say too much. Plenty of people, including Hawking, have considered the universe expanding from something which isn't a singularity, allowing for GR to remain a little more appropriate as a description. Hawking has considered such things as a previous universe collapsing in towards a small region but not going singular and then reexpanding. That's consistent with a big bang model but hasn't got a singularity in it. Infact, when you dig deep enough (ie actually go beyond Wikipedia and pop science books) you find very few, if any, physicists consider the notion of a singularity (in black holes or the BB) to be simply an artifact of our lack of a quantum theory of gravity.

So all you're doing, Kaneda, is making a bunch of ill thought out strawmen. As usual.

Euler is a friend of AlphaNumeric who also tried the "I'm smarter than you are" gambit, while being unable to answer even simple questions. His field was maths (hence the alias) and he seemed lost outside of it.

Euler moped te flaw with you. You have a very revisionist memory. How many times did you claim you schooled Rpenner and myself on how black hole surface gravity behaves when you were wrong and have since (though it took a long time) done a U turn and now don't make the same mistake?

I believe the redshift is down to a sea of gravity rather than nothing somehow expanding.

'Nothing'? Weasel words are hardly a good line of logic.

If the universe is expanding, it is doing so despite the attractive force (gravity) of everything in the universe. As things get further apart, so the attractive force is weaker so doesn't slow down expansion as much. If this was true, then expansion would get ever faster till it reached a maximum speed where it is not slowed down by gravity.

No, it would do something akin to objects above escape velocity.

Our galaxy is supposed to be about ten billion years old but one of the oldest stars in the universe is in our local neighbourhood, at 13.2 billion years old:er faster till it reached a maximum speed where it is not slowed down by gravity.

There are components older than the structures they form? That's hardly evidence against the BB.

Personal attack removed. Keep the discussion civil, please.

 

[thinking]

DH

can all thats being discovered about our galaxy be transferred to other galaxies ?

if not why not ?

 

[thinking]

DH

can all thats being discovered about our galaxy be transferred to other galaxies ?

if not why not ?

I would think so

 

[D H]

DH

can all thats being discovered about our galaxy be transferred to other galaxies ?

if not why not ?

I have never beaten my wife.

Stop asking sophomoric trick questions and I'll give you a straight answer.

I would think not since we don't have the technology to think otherwise

Oh, so that's what you're up to: Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. Even sillier is holding a silly conversation with yourself.

 

[thinking]

I have never beaten my wife.

Stop asking sophomoric trick questions and I'll give you a straight answer.

its not trick question , its about , if we can think and give evidence to the way the Milky Way is with sagittarius , then why not any other similar galactic situations

are there simular situations as there are between the Milky Way and sagittarius in the Universe ?