Is big bang proven to be solid true?

[D H]

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 ?

Yes. The first article cited below discusses evidence that some of M31's globular clusters are remnants of past galactic cannibalism events. The latter article looks even further away and finds signs of an entire class of dwarf galaxies that have been torn apart by some larger galaxy.


K. M. Perrett, D. A. Stiff, D. A. Hanes, T. J. Bridges, "Substructure in the Andromeda Galaxy Globular Cluster System", The Astrophysical Journal, 589:790-797, 2003
Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302531

M. J. Drinkwater et al, "A class of compact dwarf galaxies from disruptive processes in galaxy clusters", Nature 423, 519-521 (29 May 2003)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6939/full/nature01666.html

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
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 ?

Yes. The first article cited below discusses evidence that some of M31's globular clusters are remnants of past galactic cannibalism events. The latter article looks even further away and finds signs of an entire class of dwarf galaxies that have been torn apart by some larger galaxy.


K. M. Perrett, D. A. Stiff, D. A. Hanes, T. J. Bridges, "Substructure in the Andromeda Galaxy Globular Cluster System", The Astrophysical Journal, 589:790-797, 2003
Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302531

M. J. Drinkwater et al, "A class of compact dwarf galaxies from disruptive processes in galaxy clusters", Nature 423, 519-521 (29 May 2003)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6939/full/nature01666.html

okay , so why though would we make the Milky Way the center of the Universe if the relationship between a larger galaxy and a dwarf galaxy is common throughout the Universe ?

 

[D H]

One last time, the universe has no center (alternatively, every point can be viewed as the center of the universe).

Stop with the straw man arguments.

 

[thinking]

DH

perhaps I've missed it , but how does the showing the relationship between sagittarius and the Milky Way and the older stars ( which if I remeber right is at least 10 billion yrs old ) which are caputured by the Milky Way give any support to the big-bang theory ?

since we are use to thinking that the further away you observe into the Universe the older it is , 15 billon yrs

 

[thinking]

my post #144 is open to anyone that can tell me how the big-bang theory is supported by the findings of the galactic relationship between the Milky-Way and sagittarious

 

[thinking]

no thoughts yet , hmmm...

its kind of ironic that the research of the Milky-Way - sagittarius galactic relationship is actually proving that the big-bang theory is quite wrong

and that a steady-state and Cosmic-Plasma Universe could make more sense

 

[spidergoat]

Why

 

[D H]

DH

perhaps I've missed it , but how does the showing the relationship between sagittarius and the Milky Way and the older stars ( which if I remeber right is at least 10 billion yrs old ) which are caputured by the Milky Way give any support to the big-bang theory ?

since we are use to thinking that the further away you observe into the Universe the older it is , 15 billon yrs

no thoughts yet , hmmm...

its kind of ironic that the research of the Milky-Way - sagittarius galactic relationship is actually proving that the big-bang theory is quite wrong

and that a steady-state and Cosmic-Plasma Universe could make more sense

You are verging on trolling, thinking.

The reason for the discussion on the relation between the Milky Way and the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy was to counter a false claim made in post #111. You've given up on defending that false claim and are now raising another.

We are not seeing 14 billion years into the past in the Milky Way. We are seeing signs that stars as old as 14 billion years exist within the Milky Way. You're argument (to the extent that you have an argument) is a straw man.

 

[thinking]

You are verging on trolling, thinking.

trolling I think not

The reason for the discussion on the relation between the Milky Way and the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy was to counter a false claim made in post #111. You've given up on defending that false claim and are now raising another.

of course I've given up , you have given me the facts and I took them into account

now these facts lead to thinking upon

hence new questions

We are not seeing 14 billion years into the past in the Milky Way.

thats not what I meant to imply

We are seeing signs that stars as old as 14 billion years exist within the Milky Way.

this is what I mentioned , only I said 10 billion

hence the question of how does this new knowledge support big-bang theory ?

You're argument (to the extent that you have an argument) is a straw man.

yet you don't address the question of how the big-bang is supported by this new knowledge gained

so rather than attacking me and saying I'm a troll which is nonsense

get on with answering the question I proposed ,' how does this new knowledge gained from the study of the relationship between the Milky-Way and sagittarius support the big-bang theory? ', please

thinking

 

[thinking]

seems that the big-bang theory no longer makes sense

 

[D H]

this is what I mentioned , only I said 10 billion

hence the question of how does this new knowledge support big-bang theory ?

One more time, since you didn't read it the first time around. The reason for the discussion on the relation between the Milky Way and the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy was to counter a false claim made in post #111.

Does this information support the big bang theory? Indirectly, yes. The ages of these very old second generation star are consistent with the age of the universe as a whole and are consistent with models of star formation based on the big bang theory. This information of course does not show that the universe is expanding; gravitation overwhelms the Hubble expansion at galactic scales or less.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

no thoughts yet , hmmm...

One general rule which most people manage to learn pretty quick on forums is that simply waiting an hour for a reply and then going "Hmm, noone has replied, come on!" isn't the way to go about discussing things. Yes, sometimes discussions will flow quickly with posts every few minutes but other times they will fall into a lull, as people's timezones hit lunch or nighttime or people just have things to do. The fact noone with an answer to your question posted in the thread for 2 hours doesn't back up your claims, it just makes you appear impatient.

seems that the big-bang theory no longer makes sense

You have not unearthed some amazing revelation about the BBT, you are just constructing strawmen or ignoring evidence.

And even if the BBT were wrong, why would a plasma cosmology theory be superior? Plasma cosmology thinks that mainstream cosmology is wrong in a different way, that electromagnetics, not gravity, are the dominating effects in the universe. The BBT and plasma cosmology are not competing, they can be compatible.

 

[thinking]

One more time, since you didn't read it the first time around. The reason for the discussion on the relation between the Milky Way and the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy was to counter a false claim made in post #111.

and now wev'e gone beyond post #111

to other new questions

there is something wrong with this ?

Does this information support the big bang theory? Indirectly, yes. The ages of these very old second generation star are consistent with the age of the universe as a whole and are consistent with models of star formation based on the big bang theory.

but not being so close to us , our galaxy

these very old stars were suppose to be at a much further distance from us

but here we find them right on our door step , not what the big-bang theory predicted

This information of course does not show that the universe is expanding; gravitation overwhelms the Hubble expansion at galactic scales or less.

but the Universe is suppose to be expanding though

according to mainstream theory

 

[thinking]

One general rule which most people manage to learn pretty quick on forums is that simply waiting an hour for a reply and then going "Hmm, noone has replied, come on!" isn't the way to go about discussing things. Yes, sometimes discussions will flow quickly with posts every few minutes but other times they will fall into a lull, as people's timezones hit lunch or nighttime or people just have things to do. The fact noone with an answer to your question posted in the thread for 2 hours doesn't back up your claims, it just makes you appear impatient.

it may seem as though I'm impatient

but at the same time what was brought forward was to show that BB was a solid theory

but the slowness of a response to the question of how this supports BB was telling ( and it was much more than 2 hours )

since one would think that the question should already been asked by yourselves , at least I would have thought so

You have not unearthed some amazing revelation about the BBT, you are just constructing strawmen or ignoring evidence.

I disagree

I looked at the evidence and saw an implication of the evidence

And even if the BBT were wrong, why would a plasma cosmology theory be superior? Plasma cosmology thinks that mainstream cosmology is wrong in a different way, that electromagnetics, not gravity, are the dominating effects in the universe.

its not about being superior persay but it is about being a more complete theory

a melding of theories

The BBT and plasma cosmology are not competing, they can be compatible.

perhaps they can

we shall see , if we have the will to see the truth

 

[D H]

but not being so close to us , our galaxy

these very old stars were suppose to be at a much further distance from us

but here we find them right on our door step , not what the big-bang theory predicted

The big bang theory predicts we will find old stars very far away -- as well as right next door. You seem to be stuck on the idea that the universe has a center. It doesn't.

but the Universe is suppose to be expanding though

according to mainstream theory

Reread post #105.

 

[thinking]

The big bang theory predicts we will find old stars very far away -- as well as right next door. You seem to be stuck on the idea that the universe has a center. It doesn't.


Reread post #105.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
to you it does

what does that tell you ? ”

It tells me you are trying not to live up to your user name. You are not thinking.

The expansion of space at short intervals (short meaning galactic scale) is small compared to the gravitational attraction due to the local concentration of matter.

perhaps but the mainstream theory doesn't see this way

Another analogy: Since gravity pulls you toward the center of the Earth, why doesn't gravity pull you through the floor? The answer is because the electrons in the atoms at the surface of your feet and the surface of the floor repel one another. Because matter is electrically neutral, this repulsive force drops off much, much quicker than does the Coulomb inverse square law. Jump off the floor by even a few millimeters off the floor and this repulsive force becomes vanishingly small until you land from your jump. Gravity and this repulsive force follow different power laws.

or that there is the spin of Earth to consider

The same goes for gravity and the expansion of space. They follow different power laws. The metric expansion of space can be viewed as having the effect of a repulsive force that is proportional to the distance between objects. Gravity on the other hand is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between objects. At close distances, the gravitational force dominates over the expansion of space. At larger distances, the gravitational force between objects becomes vanishingly small while the expansion of space, viewed as a force, becomes very, very large.

okay

but I don't follow , how does this explain that a galactic object , locally , is as old as the further reaches of space galaxies ?

 

[D H]

The expansion of space at short intervals (short meaning galactic scale) is small compared to the gravitational attraction due to the local concentration of matter.

perhaps but the mainstream theory doesn't see this way

No, you are the one that don't see it this way. That is exactly what the mainstream theory (i.e., big bang) says.

but I don't follow , how does this explain that a galactic object , locally , is as old as the further reaches of space galaxies

I don't understand what your objection is. I think it is somehow connected to your perception that the universe has a center. Perhaps your misconception can be cleared up if you tell why you think seeing old stars right here in the Milky Way somehow contradicts the big bang theory.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking

“ Originally Posted by D H
The expansion of space at short intervals (short meaning galactic scale) is small compared to the gravitational attraction due to the local concentration of matter.perhaps but the mainstream theory doesn't see this way ”

”

No, you are the one that don't see it this way. That is exactly what the mainstream theory (i.e., big bang) says.

you said this not me , in the first quote

 

[D H]

you said this not me , in the first quote

I put a close quote in the wrong place. Fixed.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
but I don't follow , how does this explain that a galactic object , locally , is as old as the further reaches of space galaxies ”

I don't understand what your objection is. I think it is somehow connected to your perception that the universe has a center.

you keep focusing on this center thing , I don't

Perhaps your misconception can be cleared up if you tell why you think seeing old stars right here in the Milky Way somehow contradicts the big bang theory.

because they aren't suppose to be there are they ?

there is nothing in the big-bang theory that suggests that , stars as almost as old as the Universe its self should be found locally , in our galaxy