The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can the Universe really form over 70 sextillion stars in 13.7 billion years?  (Read 15760 times)

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
G'day Soul

You are saying that people who write against the BBT are TROLLS.

Very interesting. What do you do with science papers?

If space was expanding than you would expect space between atoms expanding. But! we are told that matter does not expand. If it did so we would notice it.

Direct Observations of galaxies do not indicate an expansion.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0147 [nofollow]
The spatial distribution of galaxies within the CMB cold spot in the Corona Borealis supercluster

Authors: C.P. Padilla-Torres, C.M. Gutierrez, R. Rebolo, R. Genova-Santos, J.A. Rubino-Martin
(Submitted on 1 Apr 2009)

Quote
Abstract: We study the spatial distribution and colours of galaxies within the region covered by the cold spot in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) recently detected by the Very Small Array (VSA; Genova-Santos et al. 2005, 2008) towards the Corona Borealis supercluster (CrB-SC). The spot is in the northern part of a region with a radius ~1 degree (~5 Mpc at the redshift of CrB-SC) enclosing the clusters Abell 2056, 2065, 2059 and 2073, and where the density of galaxies, excluding the contribution from those clusters, is ~2 times higher than the mean value in typical intercluster regions of the CrB-SC. Two of such clusters (Abell 2056 and 2065) are members of the CrB-SC, while the other two are in the background. This high density intercluster region is quite inhomogeneous, being the most remarkable feature a large concentration of galaxies in a narrow filament running from Abell 2065 with a length of ~35 arcmin (~3 Mpc at the redshift of CrB-SC) in the SW-NE direction. This intercluster population of galaxies probably results from the interaction of clusters Abell 2065 and 2056. The area subtended by the VSA cold spot shows an excess of faint (21<r<22) and red (1.1<r-i<1.3) galaxies as compared with typical values within the CrB-SC intercluster regions. This overdensity of galaxies shows a radial dependence and extends out to ~15 arcmin. This could be signature of a previously unnoticed cluster in the background.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
G'day Soul

You are saying that people who write against the BBT are TROLLS.
Soul Surfer is saying very clearly that you are a troll. Not because you write against BBT, but because of the way you write against it. SS gave a very clear exposition on how we determine distances in the universe and asked if you have any problems with that. You responded by posting links that had no relevance to the question.

I am still waiting, after asking twice, why you think the observed stars and stellar systems could not form in 13.7 billion years.

Your persistent refusal to answer such direct questions is typical behaviour for a troll. If you do not wish to be thoght of as one then answer the questions.
« Last Edit: 19/07/2009 09:35:00 by Ophiolite »
 

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
G'day Ophiolite

The huge amounts of Galaxies and the complexity cannot form in just 13.7 Gyrs regardless of how many ad hoc theories you present.

It seems Ophiolite that you lack any understanding of star formation and galaxy evolution.

You are wasting my time and your time with silly troll remarks.

I think you are happy with your thoughts. It seems you have not read one link that I posted.
 
This may help your thoughts along.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0002 [nofollow]
The propagation of uncertainties in stellar population synthesis modeling II: The challenge of comparing galaxy evolution models to observations

Authors: Charlie Conroy, Martin White, James E. Gunn
(Submitted on 31 Mar 2009)

Quote
Abstract: Models for the formation and evolution of galaxies readily predict physical properties such as the star formation rates, metal enrichment histories, and, increasingly, gas and dust content of synthetic galaxies. Such predictions are frequently compared to the spectral energy distributions of observed galaxies via the stellar population synthesis (SPS) technique. Substantial uncertainties in SPS exist, and yet their relevance to the task of comparing galaxy evolution models to observations has received little attention. In the present work we begin to address this issue by investigating the importance of uncertainties in stellar evolution, the initial stellar mass function (IMF), and dust and interstellar medium (ISM) properties on the translation from models to observations. We demonstrate that these uncertainties translate into substantial uncertainties in the ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared colors of synthetic galaxies. Aspects that carry significant uncertainties include the logarithmic slope of the IMF above 1 Msun, dust attenuation law, molecular cloud disruption timescale, clumpiness of the ISM, fraction of unobscured starlight, and treatment of advanced stages of stellar evolution including blue stragglers, the horizontal branch, and the thermally-pulsating asymptotic giant branch. The interpretation of the resulting uncertainties in the derived colors is highly non-trivial because many of the uncertainties are likely systematic, and possibly correlated with the physical properties of galaxies. We therefore urge caution when comparing models to observations.
 

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
G'day

One more post

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0006 [nofollow]
Early assembly of the most massive galaxies

Authors: Chris A. Collins (LJMU), John P. Stott, Matt Hilton, Scott T. Kay, S. Adam Stanford, Michael Davidson, Mark Hosmer, Ben Hoyle, Andrew Liddle, Ed Lloyd-Davies, Robert G. Mann, Nicola Mehrtens, Christopher J. Miller, Robert C. Nichol, A. Kathy Romer, Martin Sahlen, Pedro T. P. Viana, Michael J. West
(Submitted on 31 Mar 2009)

Quote
Abstract: The current consensus is that galaxies begin as small density fluctuations in the early Universe and grow by in situ star formation and hierarchical merging. Stars begin to form relatively quickly in sub-galactic sized building blocks called haloes which are subsequently assembled into galaxies. However, exactly when this assembly takes place is a matter of some debate. Here we report that the stellar masses of brightest cluster galaxies, which are the most luminous objects emitting stellar light, some 9 billion years ago are not significantly different from their stellar masses today. Brightest cluster galaxies are almost fully assembled 4-5 Gyrs after the Big Bang, having grown to more than 90% of their final stellar mass by this time. Our data conflict with the most recent galaxy formation models based on the largest simulations of dark matter halo development. These models predict protracted formation of brightest cluster galaxies over a Hubble time, with only 22% of the stellar mass assembled at the epoch probed by our sample. Our findings suggest a new picture in which brightest cluster galaxies experience an early period of rapid growth rather than prolonged hierarchical assembly.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Harry, I appreciate that you like to play devils advocate, and feel the status quo should be challenged.  That's fine.

However, people have asked you for evidence, so please, rather than posting links to papers that may or may not support your arguement, can you tell us in your own words why you feel there is a problem with the current theory, and which hypothesis you believe to be more appropriate?

I for one do not have time to read the papers you link to.

Also, with my moderators hat on - please try to be a bit more civil.  Your attitude already has people suspecting you are a troll.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Harry,
I guess if I read the paper you cited it would tell me the answer to the "problem".
As they say, "Our findings suggest a new picture in which brightest cluster galaxies experience an early period of rapid growth rather than prolonged hierarchical assembly."
It is possible for the galaxies to have formed in the time available- it just happened in a slightly different way than had previously been thought. So the answer to the question which forms the title of this thread is "yes it can".
Great we now have a better model (subject to confirmation) for how it did this.
That's what science is about.
 

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
G'day Bored

You said

Quote
It is possible for the galaxies to have formed in the time available- it just happened in a slightly different way than had previously been thought. So the answer to the question which forms the title of this thread is "yes it can".

Bored to you know what "evidence" is and "here say" is?

What I'm saying :

Support you idea with some form of science logic.

The Big Bang Theory in a nut shell is this: Not that I agree with it.

This is a standard quote

Quote
The Standard explanation of the Big Bang has it that all matter came from a small point. The matter emerged and was flung (moved) outwards.

No, that is completely wrong. It is a popular myth that survives because it takes too much time and effort to explain what the Big Bang really is. But it is not any kind of explosion into pre-existing space. It has no center and no edge. Instead, the Big Bang is an explosion OF space, not an explosion INTO space. Since the very beginning, all matter and galaxies remain pretty much in place in their local space except for small local motions. The reason that galaxies get farther apart is not because of motion of galaxies through space, but because more empty space is continually being created between them. The whole universe is a 3D analog of an expanding balloon surface with dimes taped to it. All the dimes (representing galaxies) are getting farther apart from all the others even though none of them is moving, and there is no center and no edge to the balloon surface.
T
 

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
G'day

If redshift can be explained by other means. What doe this mean to evidence and data from Redshift.Do we close our eyes and feel comfortable with what ever model we do have, or do we question it until the cows come home one way or another.

Possible Interpretations of the Magnitude-Redshift Relation for Supernovae of Type IA

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000AJ....119.2583B&db_key=AST&high=3abd925d4714244 [nofollow]

Quote
It has been shown by Riess et al. and Perlmutter et al. that the observed redshift-magnitude relation for supernovae of type Ia, which suggests that the deceleration parameter q0 is negative, can be explained in a Friedmann model with a positive cosmological constant. We show that a quasi-steady state cosmology (QSSC) model can also fit the supernova data. Since most of the emphasis and publicity have been concentrated on explanations involving the Friedmann model, we show how a good fit can be obtained to the observations in the framework of the QSSC. Using this model, we show that absorption due to intergalactic dust may play an important role. This may explain why a few of the supernovae observed show large deviations from the curve determined by the majority of the data.
 

Offline AllenG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 503
    • View Profile
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
I agre allenG a clear case of troll like behaviour.  Just one final note Harry I will not bother to reply again unless you behave more sensibly and present your arguments and do not just quote papers that you do not understand.

I am not against to arguments in favour alternatives to the conventional big bang from a singularity and in fact present some of them myself in the new theories area in these pages under the title of "Evolutionary cosmology" but you are not presenting coherent ideas in an understandable form and until you do I am out.
 

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
G'day Soul

You said

Quote
I am not against to arguments in favour alternatives to the conventional big bang from a singularity and in fact present some of them myself in the new theories area in these pages under the title of "Evolutionary cosmology" but you are not presenting coherent ideas in an understandable form and until you do I am out.

Why bother with silly statements?

Do you have any form of undertsanding of cosmology?

I have not seen one discussion issue.

So please do not waste my time.
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
The huge amounts of Galaxies and the complexity cannot form in just 13.7 Gyrs regardless of how many ad hoc theories you present.
As part of my one man crusade to counteract poor English I am compelled to make this off-topic remark.
You cannot have 'huge amounts of galaxies'. Amount is an analog term refering to anything that exists as a continuum. Galaxies are discrete, digital things. The correct expression is 'huge numbers of galaxies'. Even BBC announcers are making this basic error which suggests that the end of civilisation may be near.

Now back on topic: simply repeating endlessly that the galaxies cannot form in 13.7 billion years does not make it so. We have a number of plausible models describing galaxy formation and stellar evolution. Clearly they cannot all be true in detail, but the theoreticians have no difficulty offering viable explanations. If you deny this you need to dismantle the arguments for each model of galaxy formation and stellar evolution. Good luck with that! May we expect your first attempt anytime soon? Or will you simply continue to deny, deny, deny?

It seems Ophiolite that you lack any understanding of star formation and galaxy evolution.
You are not very discerning. I have an elementary grasp of galaxy formation and a passable amateurs understanding of stellar formation and evolution, since the latter is intimately tied into planetary formation, a subject I do no something about.

You are wasting my time and your time with silly troll remarks.
That is both inaccurate and offensive. Numerous posters here (and countless posters on other forums) have accused you of trolling. I, and others, have pointed out why your actions are seen as trolling. I have suggested how you can counter these claims. Once again you have chosen not to do so. With the best will in the world I find it difficult not to believe all those voices directed at you, crying "troll", may be correct.

I think you are happy with your thoughts. It seems you have not read one link that I posted.
 
This may help your thoughts along.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0002
Again Harry, you don't seem to understand what you are reading. The authors do not claim the Big Bang did not happen. The authors do not claim that galaxies could not form in 13.7 billion years. The authors do not claim anything comparable with your claims. All they say is, to paraphrase, there is still a lot of uncertainty in the specifics of our observations and that makes it difficult to determine which model of galaxy formation and the like we should follow.
 

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
G'day Ophiolite

You said

Quote
All they say is, to paraphrase, there is still a lot of uncertainty in the specifics of our observations and that makes it difficult to determine which model of galaxy formation and the like we should follow.

That I agree with.

Please leave the Troll and othe forums out of it, you are above such silly statements.

So far you have not expressed your thoughts on the discussion you have spent more time being a critic.

So far, from all the Forums that I have discussed, not one has provided concrete evidence for the BBT. I do not have to prove that the BBT is correct. I put more weight on star formation and galaxy evolution to explain the ongoing processes that do not require the ad hoc theories of the BBT.


Regardless, this paper is informative.

Is space really expanding? A counterexample

Authors: Michal Chodorowski (Copernicus Center)

(Submitted on 9 Jan 2006 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2006 (this version, v2))

Quote
Abstract: In all Friedman models, the cosmological redshift is widely interpreted as a consequence of the general-relativistic phenomenon of EXPANSION OF SPACE. Other commonly believed consequences of this phenomenon are superluminal recession velocities of distant galaxies and the distance to the particle horizon greater than c*t (where t is the age of the Universe), in apparent conflict with special relativity. Here, we study a particular Friedman model: empty universe. This model exhibits both cosmological redshift, superluminal velocities and infinite distance to the horizon. However, we show that the cosmological redshift is there simply a relativistic Doppler shift. Moreover, apparently superluminal velocities and `acausal' distance to the horizon are in fact a direct consequence of special-relativistic phenomenon of time dilation, as well as of the adopted definition of distance in cosmology. There is no conflict with special relativity, whatsoever. In particular, INERTIAL recession velocities are subluminal. Since in the real Universe, sufficiently distant galaxies recede with relativistic velocities, these special-relativistic effects must be at least partly responsible for the cosmological redshift and the aforementioned `superluminalities', commonly attributed to the expansion of space. Let us finish with a question resembling a Buddhism-Zen `koan': in an empty universe, what is expanding?
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Harry,  we're receiving complaints about you now.

We would all appreciate it if you could lay out your criticisms of the big bang theory, rather than endlessly state your opinion and link to random scientific papers.

It's also been pointed out to me that you've been banned from other fora for trolling - maybe you're just very bad at communicating, but if I receive one more complaint you can add this to the list of fora you have been banned from.
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Harry,  we're receiving complaints about you now.

We would all appreciate it if you could lay out your criticisms of the big bang theory, rather than endlessly state your opinion and link to random scientific papers.

It's also been pointed out to me that you've been banned from other fora for trolling - maybe you're just very bad at communicating, but if I receive one more complaint you can add this to the list of fora you have been banned from.



erhmm..I well..kinda banned him already !...please change accordingly if appropriate !..or if you feel I was too hasty.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Well, I think that's fair enough!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums