0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
My maths isn't good enough to do a calculation, has anybody attempted one.
Among the several thousand quasars known today (cf.Hewitt & Burbidge 1993; Veron-Cetty & Veron 1993;Hewett, Foltz, & Chaee 1995) there are a number of caseswhere a quasar is found in close angular proximity to agalaxy (Monk et al. 1986; Arp 1987; Stocke et al. 1987;Burbidge et al. 1990; Borgeest et al. 1991; Bowen et al.1991; Womble 1993; Burbidge 1995), but where the redshiftsof the galaxy and the quasar are notably dierentfrom each other. This led Arp and others to conclude thatthis points to a Doppler interpretation of the observed redshiftsof the quasars (Arp et al. 1990 and references therein).In this hypothesis quasars are ejected from galaxies (cf.Valtonen & Basu 1991) and, hence, do not lie at thosecosmological distances which are inferred from their measuredredshifts. This point of view has been criticized byvarious authors ( The Redshift Controversy ÏÏ ; Weedman1976). Serious arguments against the hypothesis of Arp etal. are the agreement of the cosmological interpretationwith the observational data from gravitationally lensedquasars (e.g., Dar 1991), the detection of the host galaxiesof some quasars (e.g., Bahcall 1995; Bahcall, Kirhakos, &Schneider 1995; Disney et al. 1995; Hutchings & Morris1995), the nondetection of tidal perturbations in the morphologyof quasar-galaxy associations (e.g., Sharp 1985,1986), or other reasons (e.g., Newman & Terzian 1995).Although the arguments for the cosmological interpretationof the quasar redshifts are highly convincing, here Idiscuss another observational test which could allow us tocheck whether the apparent close angular proximity ofsome quasars to galaxies is due to a spatial closeness ofthese objects to each other.
]Had a second thought, star shift is observed during a solar eclipse has any one obseved a frequency shift at the same time.
Don't think you sent that Vern?
Creationism doesn't contradict the big bang. It explains what was there before the big bang.
Yebbut how could you convince someone who just didn't choose to believe in the BBT? After all, "it just doesn't make sense" does it?LOL
He himself was not sure if his theory was correct.
what do you believe?
Hello Hei-Tai and welcome to Naked Scientists.The BBT has failed to convince me also. Too many assumptions about stuff no one has ever seen.
Hi there everyone.... You are absolutely correct Vern. I do put a difference between both as well. Its good to know that there are people who feel that way..Irishgirl
From elsewhere, re an audible Big Bang, if you wish... The 'Big Bang' was a term coined by the late great Sir Fred Hoyle who should have been awarded the Nobel but shamefully, to the Swedish Academy of Sciences' discredit, wasn't. But Fred wasn't a proponent of Big Bang Theory, in fact he bitterly opposed it, advocating rather the Steady State Theory where matter was constantly being created, which accounted for an observed expansion of the universe.Ironic that Fred coined 'Big Bang' as a term of ridicule and derision when now it's the accepted term by cosmologists and the public alike for a theory of origins, consistent with most observations, especially the cosmic background radiation referred to in these pages.Interestingly, the Big Bang wasn't big and it didn't go bang. In fact it was pretty much over, which is to say its destiny was writ in stone as it were, when the primordial universe was not much larger than a grapefruit.Intuitively I would think an observer, receptive to all possible audio frequencies, within a Big Bang event would find it a reasonably hostile environment as far as ambient noise is concerned. To paraphrase, find me a noisier place. An observer outside of a Big Bang event is beyond definition as there is no space or time or place or any set of events within which an observer can exist there. There is no there there...And the Nobel? Well, Fred described the processes that created the heavy elements, nuclearsynthesis, within stars, and how these elements were flung about space by stellar events including supernovae, eventually forming other stars, planets, moons, comets, oceans, people, peacocks and popcorn. A heroic achievement.That Fred was denied a Nobel after discovering the origins of the stuff we are all made of is truly lamentable. He was not without some controversy and was fearless in challenging accepted wisdom in many disciplines beyond his native physics, astronomy and mathematics. One idea he developed was 'panspermia', the theory that life arrived on Earth and elsewhere from space; from comets and other interplanetary and interstellar debris. Well, you can imagine how he was mocked in his time. Yet, with recent discoveries on Mars, and the discovery of hundreds of ex-solar planets around neighboring stars, the idea of panspermia is looking increasingly less ludicrous these days.To conclude. I'm not sure if the Big Bang was audible or not. But if it was audible there is a good chance that, if Fred Hoyle was around, you wouldn't hear it. Fred's noise was louder.  Best wishes & regret if this contribution is inconsistent with the low trust, high hostility and zero tolerance demonstrated in some of this debate.
My opinion of Big-Bang is that we cannot never solve the problem how universe start.
I don't see a system of logic in the BIG BANG THEORY. The world could not have been just spontaneously been formed with such delicacy, complexity and such beauty. Everything is so calculated and balanced.
Wow, I just stumbled upon this site and after seeing this thread I had to sign up and post.The amount of misinformation being spread about the Big Bang is quite amazing. I also find it amazing many people can form opinions for/against the theory with such little knowledge about it.For example:QuoteMy opinion of Big-Bang is that we cannot never solve the problem how universe start.The big bang theory doesn't aim to explain how the universe started, where did you make this stuff up from? The first line from wiki says "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation." which sums it up better than I could have. The key part here is the 'evidence', there's lots of evidence for the big bang, in fact just go to the wiki page on it and read it, it even links to sources if you don't think wiki's a credible enough.
So,,,i dont see any scientific reasons and fact that Big-Bang-theory is correct or that is it proved any kind of measured scientific data.
We actually dont know what kind is the earth-middle-inside and that is the temperature inside of earth-ball-middle.
Because i think earth diameter,,,what is the surface-matter thickness? If all is middle-center full of hot lava then must make question,,why this surface level temperature is only -40-+40 C. ?
The Earth isn't comprised of a layer of crust then suddenly it's all lava, look this stuff up, it takes 5 seconds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
if I see a tall tree and measure its height and the next week I measure it and it hasn't grown, does this mean the tree has always been this height?
If you calculate 6000km-diameter ball energy-amount at lava-temperature,,,my thought is that surface level must much more warm be.
6000-km diameter ball and if it is full of 600-800C temperature matter then it's thermal power is so big that this 30km thin layer-surface cannot be so good thermal insulation.
Example moon,,,if moon get layers,,cave,,oil-pocket etc,,then can comes heat,,lava,etc.
But do whole universe has same life-cyccle?