Is big bang proven to be solid true?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Jun 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    so you disagree then that new galactic clusters , galaxies and stars are not being observed the further afield we look
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    The further afield we look the newer they appear to be.
    Because we're seeing them at an earlier time in their formation sequence.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    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
     
  8. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    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.
     
  9. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    so nothing NEW is being made in the further reaches of the observable Universe

    with respect to galactic clusters , galaxies and stars then ?
     
  10. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    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.
     
  11. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504

    okay

    just wanted to make sure we're on the same page here
     
  12. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    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 ?
     
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    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.
     
  14. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    but isn't light that came first ?
     
  15. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    inotherwords does quarks , protons and electrons produce light with there formation ?
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    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.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 15, 2009
  17. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    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
     
  18. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    whats interesting if light came first out of the big-bang

    is that the electromagnetics came first
     
  19. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    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.
     
  20. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
     
  21. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Research money is often hard to come by and who is going to pay to check on what is mostly accepted as true?


    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.

    Hatred, as in what follows from you?

    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.
     
  22. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    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.
     
  23. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    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.


    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.


    The cry of the crackpot.

    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?

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page