Are all dissenting voices cranky ?

Oh let me count the ways!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ps: I would list them but those aware of your "status"[or lack thereof] already know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Count the ways anyway . pad

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep, reinforcing a view that is correct according to the data available, with obviously possible refinements in figures such as distance, numbers etc.

Certainly most unlikely to be wrong, other than figure refinements.
And 100 % certain that any model you chose to fabricate will be wrong.

OK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

The Milky Wayis the galaxy that contains ourSolar System.[18][19][20][nb 1] Its name "milky" is derived from its appearance as a dim glowing band arching across the night sky whose individual stars cannot be distinguished by the naked eye. The term "Milky Way" is a translation of the Latin via lactea, from the Greek γαλαξίας κύκλος(galaxías kýklos, "milky circle").[21][22][23] From Earth, the Milky Way appears as a band because its disk-shaped structure is viewed from within. Galileo Galilei first resolved the band of light into individual stars with his telescope in 1610. Until the early 1920s, most astronomers thought that the Milky Way contained all the stars in theUniverse. Following the 1920 Great Debate between the astronomersHarlow Shapley and Heber Curtis,[24] observations by Edwin Hubbleshowed that the Milky Way is just one of many galaxies—now estimated to number as many as 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe.[25][26]

The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy that has a diameter usually considered to be about 100,000–120,000 light-years[27] but may be 150,000–180,000 light-years.[28] The Milky Way is estimated to contain 100–400 billion stars,[29][30] although this number may be as high as one trillion.[31] There are likely at least 100 billion planets in the Milky Way.[32][33] The Solar System is located within the disk, about 27,000 light-years from the Galactic Center, on the inner edge of one of the spiral-shaped concentrations of gas and dust called the Orion Arm. The stars in the inner ≈10,000 light-years form a bulge and one or more bars that radiate from the bulge. The very center is marked by an intense radio source, named Sagittarius A*, which is likely to be asupermassive black hole.

Stars and gases at a wide range of distances from the Galactic Center orbit at approximately 220 kilometers per second. The constant rotation speed contradicts the laws of Keplerian dynamics and suggests that much of the mass of the Milky Way does not emit or absorb electromagnetic radiation. This mass has been termed "dark matter".[34] The rotational period is about 240 million years at the position of the Sun.[15] The Milky Way as a whole is moving at a velocity of approximately 600 km per second with respect to extragalactic frames of reference. The oldest stars in the Milky Way are nearly as old as the Universe itself and thus likely formed shortly after the Dark Ages of the Big Bang.[9]

The Milky Way has several satellite galaxies and is part of the Local Group of galaxies, which is a component of the Virgo Supercluster, which is itself a component of the Laniakea Supercluster.[35][36]
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Pretty basic stuff but a good place for you to start from.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy,

Its a typical child behavior. When he is asked not to do something, he will do that. You have been asked not to clutter the thread with mindless copy paste, just give the link, but no you will behave like a child and do exactly that.

Your copy paste giving details about Milky Way offers no argument...Pl desist from such childish acts.

 

You mean like how General Relativity is so obviously beyond you?

 

This makes sense to you ; pad ? Why ?

 

Because it follows the time line of the Universe.
The dark ages was the period of recombination when after 380,000 to 400,000 years post BB, temperatures were such that the first elements could not form and electrons were not combined with atomic nucleii, and the Universe was just a hot dense plasma with free sub atomic particles:
After that period when temperatures had dropped sufficiently, electrons couple with atomic nuclei and the first Hydrogen and Helium were formed.
Light/photons were then free to travel and the universe became transparent,

 

Actually what I see as the real child like crank behaviour is [1] posters in desperation, claiming GP-B and aLIGO were fraudulent, [2] starting threads such as this in more desperation to gain some semblance of credibility, [3] Starting threads to admonish mods and admins and also little old me, [4] claiming 2025 as the second coming and the age when cosmology will magically collapse, [5] and continually going out of your way when cornered to claim you are never wrong, [6] Claiming to be twitching people's noses when cornered and out flanked.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ps: My links will continue to be given with an outline when I decide and in whatever thread I decide, for the benefit of showing the forum how wrong that you can be in near all cases of cosmology and SR/GR.

 

https://briankoberlein.com/2015/02/07/second-light/

SECOND LIGHT
In Cosmology by Brian Koberlein7 February 20153 Comments

In the standard ΛCDM model of cosmology, the early universe was in a hot dense state known as the big bang. As the universe expanded, its density and temperature dropped to the point where electrons and nuclei could combine to form neutral hydrogen and helium (with small traces of other elements). At that point the light of the universe was finally free to travel great distances through space without colliding with ionized particles. We see that first light as the cosmic microwave background.

After that period (known as recombination) there was no way for new light to be created. The primeval fireball had become too cool to produce new light, and there were no stars to shine. As a result, the universe entered a period known as the dark ages, that spans the time between recombination and the formation of the first stars. Just how long that dark age lasted has been difficult to pin down.

STARS RE-IONIZE MATERIAL, WHICH INTERACTS WITH THE COSMIC BACKGROUND. CREDIT: ESA

Based on observations such as the Hubble Deep Field, it’s been estimated that the dark ages ended about 400 million years after the big bang. But new observations from the Planck satellite gives us a much more accurate age of 550 million years after the big bang. This is possible by looking at the polarization of light from the cosmic microwave background. In the last moments before recombination, when the electrons finally started to bond with nuclei, the photons created in the big bang would have one last scatter off an electron before making its long journey across the universe. Because of this the light is polarized, which is one of the things Planck has studied in detail. Throughout the dark ages, that polarization was “fixed” since there was no free electrons for the light to scatter off. But once stars began to form, the new light and heat could re-ionized surrounding material. As a result, some of the light from the cosmic background was scattered again, polarizing it in a different way. This new scattering leaves its fingerprints on the CMB, which tells us when it occurs.

What’s interesting about this new result is that by the time the dark ages ended, stars and galaxies were already forming. This means that by the time stars began to shine the structure of galaxies was already set into motion. The dark ages lasted longer than we though, but it also ended more abruptly than we suspected.

 

From the link.......
"The oldest stars in the Milky Way are nearly as old as the Universe itself and thus likely formed shortly afterthe Dark Ages of the Big Bang."

Having showed you why and how that is certainly credible, is the gist of the following article re the timeline of how SMBH's became as big as they are........


http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/How_Giant_Black_Holes_Formed_So_Quickly_999.html

Using data from NASA's Great Observatories, astronomers have found the best evidence yet for cosmic seeds in the early universe that should grow into supermassive black holes. Researchers combined data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, Hubble Space Telescope, and Spitzer Space Telescope to identify these possible black hole seeds. They discuss their findings in a paper that will appear in an upcoming issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

"Our discovery, if confirmed, explains how these monster black holes were born," said Fabio Pacucci of Scuola Normale Superiore (SNS) in Pisa, Italy, who led the study. "We found evidence that supermassive black hole seeds can form directly from the collapse of a giant gas cloud, skipping any intermediate steps."

more..................


Rest assured that when the paper is released in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society I will reproduce it here.....

 

TG thank you for presenting something we can chat upon.
I feel it would have been better in say the free thoughts section.
There would seem more appropriate and certainly I personally would be happy there rather than engage here where it detracts from what I would see as a science discussion.
I would think you may find folk more t

 

continue.....
folk may be more understanding in free thoughts...
Alex

 

None of the posts ; show proof of your theory pad ; on your post #26 .

 

Gee river, you have a habit of getting everything arse up!
[1] Science deals in possible falsifiable theories, not proof.
[2] It is not my theory, it is the accepted mainstream model, based on mountains of data from many state of the art probes and observations that support that picture..

 

But none of these posts prove from #26 and further ; to what # 34 that you are logical .

 

He was certainly shown to be one right royal sensationalist fraudster!

 

Having trouble answering my post # 35 ; pad ? You do .

 

If scientific reports of empirical observation are not allowed to justify one's belief in a fact, how is this a fact-based rational discussion at all?

Those are factual claims without empirical support.

Response to what? Your sterile and unprincipled rejection of GR in favor of willful ignorance?

Reality is a bulldozer and the source of scientific authority is success in describing the behavior of reality.

Finally, it has been raised as a formal issue that the OP doesn't seem to be focused on any topic specific to the Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology forum. Should this be removed to General Science & Technology or are some specific topics going to be addressed?

 

Answered as part of a comprehensive model of cosmology. Also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_140283

Wrongheaded use of proof, semicolons.

Looks like trolling.

 

reopener butt out .

This is for pad not you .