Is big bang proven to be solid true?

[Billy T]

... 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

It is clear you do not have a clue of understanding what DH and other have repeatedly explained to you, so I will be blut:

Yes the old stars are from the early stages of the universe and formed at and near the center of the universe. That center happens to be also in our local galaxy and in the most distant from Earth galaxy known; even exactly where the earth is now, yet you protest you are not concerned about the center.

What is your basis for thinking they should not be in and near our galaxy if not that you do not think our galaxy is at the center of the universe?

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
... 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

It is clear you do not have a clue of understanding what DH and other have repeatedly explained to you, so I will be blut:

Yes the old stars are from the early stages of the universe and formed at and near the center of the universe.

I see

That center happens to be also in our local galaxy and in the most distant from Earth galaxy known; even exactly where the earth is now, yet you protest you are not concerned about the center.

decode this statement will you

What is your basis for thinking they should not be in and near our galaxy if not that you do not think our galaxy is at the center of the universe?

why would not any thinking being think that they are at the center of the Universe as well ?

to add UT wanted to get off this " center of the Universe thinking " any way

 

[D H]

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

First off, there is nothing to preclude it. Secondly, yes, there is.

We see old stars in the Milky Way because the Milky Way was apparently among the many ("billions and billions") galaxies that formed shortly after the universe had cooled to the point that galaxies could form. We see old stars in galaxies far, far away because those galaxies were also among the billions and billions of galaxies that formed soon after the universe had cooled to the point that galaxies could form.

There is no contradiction here. What makes you think there is?

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
... 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

First off, there is nothing to preclude it. Secondly, yes, there is.

We see old stars in the Milky Way because the Milky Way was apparently among the many ("billions and billions") galaxies that formed shortly after the universe had cooled to the point that galaxies could form. We see old stars in galaxies far, far away because those galaxies were also among the billions and billions of galaxies that formed soon after the universe had cooled to the point that galaxies could form.

There is no contradiction here. What makes you think there is?

because it wasn't predicted in the BB theory that old stars would be in our galaxy

and when they are discovered it is a revelation rather than an expected discovery

and then the implications are this ;

there was never a " big-bang " in the first place since the further out we observe into the Universe the more the same it is , as it is locally

 

[D H]

because it wasn't predicted in the BB theory that old stars would be in our galaxy

So what?

The big bang theory did not predict that I would be stuck in meetings for 7+ hours yesterday. Nor did it predict that, miracles of miracles, the final company that came by this morning to give a bid on foundation repairs to my house said I didn't really need to do any foundation repairs at all (previous bids: $7,000, $15,000, and $16,000). That it failed to predict either does not in any way falsify the big bang.

You do not understand how science works.

What would falsify the big bang would be for it to make a prediction of something we should see if the theory is correct, but then we see something completely different. In other words, the only way seeing old, old stars in our own galaxy would falsify the big bang theory is if the big bang theory says that we should not see such stars in our galaxy.

The big bang theory says nothing of the sort.

 

[thinking]

So what?

The big bang theory did not predict that I would be stuck in meetings for 7+ hours yesterday. Nor did it predict that, miracles of miracles, the final company that came by this morning to give a bid on foundation repairs to my house said I didn't really need to do any foundation repairs at all (previous bids: $7,000, $15,000, and $16,000). That it failed to predict either does not in any way falsify the big bang.

I see your point , but a poor point

irrelevant

You do not understand how science works.

yes actually I do

What would falsify the big bang would be for it to make a prediction of something we should see if the theory is correct, but then we see something completely different. In other words, the only way seeing old, old stars in our own galaxy would falsify the big bang theory is if the big bang theory says that we should not see such stars in our galaxy.

and BB does say just that

does BB not say that the further one observes into the Universe the older the galaxies and stars should be ?

yes it does

The big bang theory says nothing of the sort.

of course not because the theory expected every galactic body to be older the further out one observes

now all of a sudden we find that throughout the Universe all observations have no significance as far as distance goes

and that contradicts BB , which fundamentally says that the further you observe out into the Universe the older the galaxies and therefore stars are

that puts BB into question in my mind

if the Universe is generally homogeneous in its age , then there is no point of expansion , meaning that , if the Universe was brought to a single point , no matter the size , then there is no point within that single point which is older or younger than any other point

which is not possible

the closer you get to the center of the point , the younger the matter is , as compared to the outer point

 

[D H]

and BB does say just that

does BB not say that the further one observes into the Universe the older the galaxies and stars should be ?

yes it does

No, it does not. It says just the opposite.

The finite speed of light, not the big bang theory, says that the further one observes into the universe the further back in time we are seeing. The big bang theory says that we should only be seeing very young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters of galaxies if we look far enough afield.

Supposed we looked 10 billion years away and saw an old star such as a low mass red giant, an old galaxy such as a spiral galaxy replete with third generation stars in the spiral arms, or a mature galactic cluster. That would be a big problem for the big bang theory. So far, that is not what we see. We see young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters.

 

[Billy T]

because it wasn't predicted in the BB theory that old stars would be in our galaxy...

I doubt that is even true, but even if it were, it is irrelivant. Theories do evolve.

For most of man's intellectual history, most who though at all about it thought the "naked eye" planets were stuck on moving chrystal spheres, that were centered on Earth. (Chrystal so you could see thru them to the more distant fixed sphere of stars.) This was the "Celestial Sphere" theory and the term in quotes has not yet completely disapeared from languages.

The way you "think" we should reject planets in orbits as that was not part of the prior version explainations / theory.

Again, for people who can think (you are obviously excluded): Theories do change; However, I again note that from the very begining of the BB theory, it was recognized that any and all points in the universe have equal claim to being the center - that is why there is no center. That is why old stars are found in every part of the universe. I.e. No matter where you are in the universe it looks the same in all direction. There is no galaxy or even an isolated star which is just at the "edge of the universe."

There is no center & there is no edge. - A concept to difficult for you?

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
and BB does say just that

does BB not say that the further one observes into the Universe the older the galaxies and stars should be ?

yes it does

No, it does not. It says just the opposite.

The finite speed of light, not the big bang theory, says that the further one observes into the universe the further back in time we are seeing. The big bang theory says that we should only be seeing very young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters of galaxies if we look far enough afield.

yet it is the finite speed of light that is suppose to give support to the big-bang

so your saying now the this is not true ?

so is it that my questions have forced you to rethink the big-bang theory?



really

tell me where in the big-bang theory it says that the further afield we observe , young cluster of galaxies , young galaxies , and very young stars ?




Supposed we looked 10 billion years away and saw an old star such as a low mass red giant, an old galaxy such as a spiral galaxy replete with third generation stars in the spiral arms, or a mature galactic cluster. That would be a big problem for the big bang theory. So far, that is not what we see. We see young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters.[/QUOTE]

 

[Billy T]

yet it is the finite speed of light that is suppose to give support to the big-bang...

You just make this stuff up as we alone, right?

 

[thinking]

Supposed we looked 10 billion years away and saw an old star such as a low mass red giant, an old galaxy such as a spiral galaxy replete with third generation stars in the spiral arms, or a mature galactic cluster. That would be a big problem for the big bang theory. So far, that is not what we see. We see young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters.

it is though the young stars , young galaxies and young clusters that is far more of a problem for BB than anything else

when we look at the deepest extent of observation capacities

how does BB account for these revelations then ?

 

[Oli]

it is though the young stars , young galaxies and young clusters that is far more of a problem for BB than anything else

No they aren't.
Re-read DH's post:

Supposed we looked 10 billion years away and saw an old star such as a low mass red giant, an old galaxy such as a spiral galaxy replete with third generation stars in the spiral arms, or a mature galactic cluster. That would be a big problem for the big bang theory. So far, that is not what we see. We see young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters.

BB says we should have young stars, and that's what we see.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
it is though the young stars , young galaxies and young clusters that is far more of a problem for BB than anything else

No they aren't.
Re-read DH's post:

not convinced

show where in the BB theory that this is true

that at the furthest distance of observation , we should expect to see young galactic clusters , galaxies and stars

BB says we should have young stars, and that's what we see.

above

 

[James R]

that at the furthest distance of observation , we should expect to see young galactic clusters , galaxies and stars

That's what we do see. What are you talking about?

 

[thinking]

That's what we do see. What are you talking about?

show where in the BB theory that this is true

that at the furthest distance of observation , we should expect to see young galactic clusters , galaxies and stars

I ask again , again and again

no answer

 

[James R]

Since the speed of light is constant, it takes longer for light from things that are far away to reach us than from things that are close. It follows that light from far away is also from older objects. In other words, when we look at light at the furthest distance of observation we see the oldest observable things. Those things will be things that had existed for a shorter time after the big bang - i.e. young galaxies and stars.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Ophiolite]

Thinking,
to put James's remarks in other words. When we see a distant galaxy we see it as was billions of years ago, not as it is today. Today it will be an old galaxy, but that light will take more billions of years to reach us. So everything that is distant is necessarily seen as it was when it was young.

(It does seem as if you have never grasped this simple, but fundamental concept. If this is true, you really should ask yourself by what right you contest current theory.)

 

[D H]

yet it is the finite speed of light that is suppose to give support to the big-bang

Where did you get this idea? The finite speed of light is a fact and is independent of the big bang theory. Any theory of cosmology has to be consistent with this fact. If this were not the case, the well-observed finite speed of light would immediately falsify the theory.

Just because a theory of cosmology is consistent with the fact that light travels at a finite speed does not mean that the finite speed of light lends credence to that theory. That is a logical fallacy.

Where the finite speed of light does come into play is that the finite speed of light means that astronomers are looking further and further into the past as they look at increasingly distant objects. Different theories say different things about what the universe looked like in the past as opposed to what it looks like now. The steady state theory says correlations between structure and distance (age) shouldn't exist. The big bang theory says they should -- and that is exactly what is observed.

 

[Billy T]

Where did you get this idea? The finite speed of light is a fact and is independent of the big bang theory. ...

As I said in post 170, he just makes things up as we go along.

“Thinking” either can’t think or does not want to learn if just ignorant.

I think the “Don’t wrestle with a pig” rule applies – all get dirty and it enjoys it.

 

[thinking]

Since the speed of light is constant, it takes longer for light from things that are far away to reach us than from things that are close. It follows that light from far away is also from older objects. In other words, when we look at light at the furthest distance of observation we see the oldest observable things. Those things will be things that had existed for a shorter time after the big bang - i.e. young galaxies and stars.

Does that make sense to you?

yes and no

since

that at the furthest distance of observation , we should expect to see young galactic clusters , galaxies and stars and we do today

doesn't this suggest something else is going on ?

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