Poll

what do you believe

The Big Bang
Constant Universe
Creationism
Other

is the big bang correct?

  • 380 Replies
  • 178266 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 7709
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #150 on: 18/03/2009 06:14:43 »
yeah, a human being developed and manufactured the computer, but how many are smarter that one?     
Aye? [???]

*

Offline aevela78

  • First timers
  • *
  • 4
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #151 on: 18/03/2009 06:46:45 »
i would love to hear your take on the subject......aye

*

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 7709
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #152 on: 18/03/2009 06:49:58 »
On what subject? The Big Bang?

There are already 7 pages on the subject, what more can I say? [:)]

*

Offline aevela78

  • First timers
  • *
  • 4
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #153 on: 18/03/2009 07:04:31 »
you have got to be kidding me....from a molecularly finite point known as the singularity.....all of this matter, mass, intelligence, space and dark matter emerged....seems too weird for me....i believe that we as human beings are wasting our time trying to figure out the impetus of the universe, and need to spend more time on our own existence.  in any event....pursuant to science theory...are we not going to be destroyed when our sun...yes a star...runs out of "fuel".     

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #154 on: 21/03/2009 15:23:17 »
    
IS THE CONCEPT OF A BIG BANG CORRECT?

No, absolutely not.  It is based on a misunderstanding of the atomic nucleus and nuclear energy (E = mc^2).

So much nonsense has been written under the guise of cosmology and theoretical physics that I recommend going back to the basic data to find the answers.

Only 3,000 data points represent the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclei that make up the entire visible universe.  They will lead you to three fundamental truths:

1. The neutron-proton interaction is strongly attractive.

2. The neutron-neutron interaction is strongly repulsive.

3. The proton-proton interaction is identical to the n-n interaction, PLUS Coulomb repulsion between + charges.

Here are the data, on a 3-D plot of M/A (mass or energy per nucleon) vs  Z/A (charge density) vs A:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm
[nofollow]

Here are links to peer-reviewed manuscripts where the the importance of these fundamental interactions for our understanding of the Sun and the cosmos are discussed:

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
[nofollow]

2. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf [nofollow]

3. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf
[nofollow]

4. "Nuclear systematics: IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266, No. 2, 159-163  (2005).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Fk01.pdf
[nofollow]


5. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf [nofollow]

6. "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114; DOI:10.1007/s10894-

http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051
[nofollow]

I will be happy to answer any questions.

Fortunately the new U .S. Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, has the background to see through all of the rubbish that currently fills the literature on cosmology and theoretical physics.

It will be interesting to see if science plays a dominant role over politics in Dr. Steven Chu's tenure as head of the US Department of Energy (DOE).

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 [nofollow]

*

Offline 112inky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #155 on: 26/03/2009 04:07:47 »
Hey.. i think the big bang theory is more convincing than the other ones...  [:)] [:)] [:)]

*

Offline Fluid_thinker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 54
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #156 on: 26/03/2009 17:11:24 »
Hey maybe it isw just like the Matrix

We are all fictious software programmes in the construct


*

Offline Woodpile

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #157 on: 28/03/2009 02:11:06 »
The BB seems to be the best working hypothesis, but I wasn't there when it happend, so for all I know, it might not have happened at all.

However, I do accept that the universe does actually exist, unless I'm just imagining it all [;)]


Solipsism is a wonderful thing.  It rebutts every argument but it is Cotton Candy philosphy- All Flavor, No Substance...

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #158 on: 09/04/2009 21:36:18 »
what do you believe?

None of them. I am Copenhagenist at heart, so i simply do not believe the universe will allow us to simplify it's infinite complexities so easily. Thergo, i do not believe we will ever know, or should prefer one to another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪•)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline sanjidcb

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #159 on: 16/04/2009 16:54:13 »
What is Belive. lolzzzzzzzzzzzz See this ................
The Earth for example is believed by the majority of people to be gradually cooling down. So models are developed around this assumption to emphasise how slowly a planet might be cooling down, when in reality with a surface covered mostly with a very efficient coolant H2O, coupled with the water cycle to assist its effectiveness, the Earth over many billions of years should not be still spewing out molten lava onto it’s surface and have lakes of hot water a geezers gushing from the floor. Yet, this is exactly what we find with our both feet firmly on the ground. Now, if our model for the Earth is completely wrong and the Earth is gradually getting warmer due to it’s slowly but surely increasing mass, which is transmitted to the core as additional atomic friction, a whole different set of predictions might be in order as we guesstimate the temperatures of other planets.
newbielink:http://infinitewellnesssolutions.com [nonactive]

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #160 on: 23/04/2009 17:08:22 »
I just discovered a little problem for the Big Bang theory. If expansion is the reality, spectra from distant stars should be shifted the same amount at both ends of the spectrum. It seems that it may not be.

Edit: Well, it seems that I'm wrong about that. [:)] It is normal that the red is shifted more than the blue.

« Last Edit: 28/04/2009 22:02:44 by Vern »

*

Offline tangoblue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 301
  • RANDOMNESS RULES!!!
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #161 on: 30/04/2009 12:12:17 »
no one know for sure how the universe was created dude.... oh man. [O8)]

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #162 on: 30/04/2009 21:01:04 »
Quite right tangoblue. Science models and describes the way the universe we observe behaves. It doesn't pretend to tell us what to believe or that the big bang really happened. It looks at the universe as we see it today, and it sees expansion, with good evidence that it was smaller and less mature in development in the past. This suggests the hypothesis that it may have been expanding from some start point. To see whether this is a reasonable hypothesis, we try to see whether our existing model of the universe would allow it, and whether, if you use the model to run forward from such a starting point, you could end up with the sort of universe we see now, without too many tweaks and adjustments. The answer to those two questions, with some caveats, is broadly 'yes'. We can't actually model the start point itself, but the rest works out fairly well, although there are a few holes - it's good enough to be considered a reasonable theory by most. The other point to consider is whether there is another theory that fits the observations as well or better and has as good or better explanatory and predictive power. So far, the consensus is 'no'. So it's possible the universe is steady-state, or perhaps it's turtles all the way down, but most agree that the big bang is the best fit so far for what we observe. Science is less about certainty than about reducing uncertainty.
« Last Edit: 30/04/2009 21:02:50 by dlorde »

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #163 on: 03/05/2009 22:56:31 »
The thing that I can't get past is that you must accept the notion that empty space can expand and stretch photons moving through it. That is really a weird notion. It would be even more weird except that Einstein used variable space-time. If we had stuck with the Lorentz version of relativity phenomena in which space and time were solid constants and it was the matter that distorted to produce the phenomena, there could be no notion of a Big Bang.

*

Offline Chirios

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #164 on: 05/05/2009 09:11:52 »
The Red shift "Hypothesis" holds that light is a constant un-altering reliable tool for measuring over long distance. Albert Einstein wrote light can be bent by gravity. Light has a mass and therefore must show characteristics of mass. We cannot have a special law for different mass. It has been written by others that light is slowed down over great distances. Slowing light down in the calculations for red shift would undoubtedly show an expanding universe. Add to this the fact that we are measuring from a planet that has an orbit around the sun with many other planets all of which have mass and all of which according to Einstein can affect light.

Eh?

Imagine if you will, a star moving away from something stationary. Say a random rock with no external gravitational influences. A person is standing on the surface of the rock, with all the equipment needed to measure and observe red shift. Now, the star constantly produces light, which moves in straight lines. Gravity gets weaker the further away the light beam moves; since it is inversely proportional to the square of distance. The gravitational well of the star would therefore be insignificant. By the time the light hit the person standing on the surface of the rock any red shift due to gravitational forces would be so slight that it could be ignored. Or if the planet was within the "gravitational well" then it still wouldn't matter. The proportion of red shift would still be the same. 

Quote
Now, even if light is eventually found to be a constant “which I doubt

What makes you doubt that light is a constant? In any case, there is lots of evidence for special relativity - see muon decay experiment. NASA has also done experiments which show time dilation for obiting satellites.

Quote
but can be bent by the gravity from other huge planets, this can seriously affect the distance of objects even when measurements are taken over many years. A projectile has mass on Earth. Measured over 50 metres and travelling fast enough it could be viewed as a constant speed. Yet the end result is the object falls to Earth. One could then argue that is because gravity is affecting it’s velocity and this my friend is precisely the point. Gravity does indeed affect velocity here on Earth, so it must follow that gravity also affects the velocity of objects passing within the gravitational field of planets and stars as it travels many billions of miles.

Velocity is a vector and as such is determined by direction as well as magnitude. In this particular case, only the vertical component of velocity of the projectile is affected by gravity. The horizontal component stays the same until the projectile hits the ground and friction forces occur (assuming no air resistance)  A light beam travelling through space travels in straight lines; thus (according to classical mechanics) we could only expect its velocity to change if it was travelling directly to or directly away from the star.

Any bending would effect perhaps the position of the star in the night sky, but it would not affect the distance. The brightness of the star would still be the same, since the intensity of light would still be the same. Also, the variation is like ridiculously small, have you seen the maths for what you're talking about? We're talking about an apparent change in position of less than a single degree. 

Quote
Add to this reflection from particles orbiting around Large masses in distant galaxies and it soon becomes apparent that relying on light as a constant might not be all it is cut out to be. So take away the red-shift, which clearly cannot be relied upon and what have we got left as evidence for the assumption of a big bang for the arrival of the Universe?

Reflection from particles? I don't understand how this affects the constancy of velocity for light.

Evidence for the big bang includes of course all the evidence for the theories from which it draws its assumptions. There is the uniformity of the universe, doppler effect, the cosmological principle, cosmic microwave background radiation, pretty much every experiment ever done on light ever, and everything we know about particles including absorption and emission spectra.
Quote
It never ceases to amaze me that when someone proposes a preposterous academically originated hypothesis, how many more academics rush forth to defend it.

I look forward to your reply with interest.

Scientists only support things which have experimental evidence for them.
« Last Edit: 06/05/2009 13:49:02 by Chirios »

*

Offline Fortran

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 91
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #165 on: 14/05/2009 16:41:58 »
A wonderful subject this, and there's a little something that puzzles me about the big bang.

I understand that time is dilated as the mass increases, ie two clocks, one sent to a black hole for a week, another kept here on earth, after one earth week the earth clock has moved 1 week the BH clock has only moved a second or so.

Now here's the nub, we say that the big bang happened around 13BN years ago however it seems to me that as you look back in time the universe (we are told gets smaller) therefore the mass density of the universe increases and time must dilate. You must get to a point where the universe was all contained in such a tiny space that time had dilated so much that the actual age of the universe is close to (and may even be) infinite.

THis means that as the universe gets older time has sped up (could this falsley lead us to believe the rate of universal expansion is increasing???

Another thing CMBR - where is the proof that it is an echo of the big bang? it is merely background radiation seen from all parts of the sky - there are other possible explanations, one discovered by the voyager spacecraft.

Quote
Scientists only support things which have experimental evidence for them.
Unless it's the hawking radiation theory where there is NO experimental evidence to back it up and we will have to wait 10 to the power of 70 years for the proof....




« Last Edit: 14/05/2009 16:45:10 by Fortran »
You are only smart if you are surrounded by fools, so have a bit more patience for those of us that are complete idiots!

I like this place, if they don't ban me I'll stay here.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #166 on: 14/05/2009 18:48:31 »
Quote from: Fortran
Now here's the nub, we say that the big bang happened around 13BN years ago however it seems to me that as you look back in time the universe (we are told gets smaller) therefore the mass density of the universe increases and time must dilate. You must get to a point where the universe was all contained in such a tiny space that time had dilated so much that the actual age of the universe is close to (and may even be) infinite.
It seems to me that the Big Bang theory gives more problems than it solves. It was necessarily a black hole when it began. It consisted of the whole of the universe. This should be enough mass for quite a large black hole. If light can't escape a black hole, all the energy must still be inside the primordial black hole. Therefore the universe must be a black hole. But then we must be inside the event horizon.

Now we have black holes inside black holes.

Edit: But never fear; we have the rapid expansion period in which we can suspend the laws of nature. So we can just ascribe whatever values to the natural laws needed to make the Big Bang as we imagine it.
« Last Edit: 14/05/2009 18:51:30 by Vern »

*

Offline moonrider

  • First timers
  • *
  • 5
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #167 on: 02/06/2009 10:44:40 »
We can't really say that the Big Bang Theory is correct, since it was and still a theory. Which means it is not yet proven. Or there are just some missing evidences or missing links to the outcome that we say the Universe itself. But, I believe it though.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #168 on: 06/06/2009 21:50:15 »
The big bang theory evades falsification by changing the laws of nature. I can't think of any other notion that requires a rule change except other creation theories. I suspect that nature's rules are more substantial than theories. 

*

meta-sci

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #169 on: 23/06/2009 21:57:25 »
I'm very sorry Sophie but I must disagree, on that of chance and probability. It is no 'chance' in that all alternative views in history are publically available. Most are off-shoots from that of the infrastructural belief containing some sort of momentary patriotism. Any pure change in direction has been due to regime change or assimilation. Providing one has a psychology, an economy, and a product, one can create the most amazing block-busters. Such has been shown in religion-, science+, politics, and hollywood. No revolution of thinking has undermind it infrastructural regime simply by firepower, although many coups have occured, these are usually the cause of politics and humanities and not the cause of revolutionary thinking. On the few occasions history has shown revolution of thought, it most certainly not has been due to that of proof alone. Each case involves a comprimise, as is the case with the inquisition-the church conceded to Copernicusism not because the calculations added up, it was because Issac Newton belonged to another regime that was in competition and certainly posed a threat, had Newton been Roman, he may well have been under house arrest instead of being 'on the house' and rested. Einstein-science may have accepted Einstein for his Relative views but that is not what got the Einstein universe into the syllabus, the pay-off was nuclear reaction, e=mc^2, it was this in which the world stood aside, the implications involved. Every story has a pay-off, except your own to yourself(in lonely reality). We can only be convince that we do not know and enjoy answering the questions at hand, to push the boundaries of those that came before, and remember to pay the dry-cleaning for those who's lapels we soiled on the way to further hieghts.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #170 on: 23/06/2009 22:35:24 »
Einstein-science may have accepted Einstein for his Relative views but that is not what got the Einstein universe into the syllabus, the pay-off was nuclear reaction, e=mc^2, it was this in which the world stood aside, the implications involved.
Your peculiar sentence structure makes comprehension difficult. If I understand you correctly then you are mistaken. Einstein was accepted by the science community and the world at large after the eclipse of 1919(?) confirmed his predictions. The nuclear possibility only emerged a couple of decades later.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #171 on: 29/06/2009 21:17:10 »
IS BIG BANG POSSIBLE?

   
IS THE CONCEPT OF A BIG BANG CORRECT?

No, absolutely not.  It is based on a misunderstanding of the atomic nucleus and nuclear energy (E = mc^2).

So much nonsense has been written under the guise of cosmology and theoretical physics that I recommend going back to the basic data to find the answers.

Only 3,000 data points represent the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclei that make up the entire visible universe.  They will lead you to three fundamental truths:

1. The neutron-proton interaction is strongly attractive.

2. The neutron-neutron interaction is strongly repulsive.

3. The proton-proton interaction is identical to the n-n interaction, PLUS Coulomb repulsion between + charges.

Here are the data, on a 3-D plot of M/A (mass or energy per nucleon) vs  Z/A (charge density) vs A:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm
[nofollow]

Here are links to peer-reviewed manuscripts where the the importance of these fundamental interactions for our understanding of the Sun and the cosmos are discussed:

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
[nofollow]

2. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf [nofollow]

3. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf
[nofollow]

4. "Nuclear systematics: IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266, No. 2, 159-163  (2005).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Fk01.pdf
[nofollow]


5. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf [nofollow]

6. "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114; DOI:10.1007/s10894-

http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051
[nofollow]

I will be happy to answer any questions.

Fortunately the new U .S. Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, has the background to see through all of the rubbish that currently fills the literature on cosmology and theoretical physics.

It will be interesting to see if science plays a dominant role over politics in Dr. Steven Chu's tenure as head of the US Department of Energy (DOE).

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 [nofollow]

In view of a new paper on gravity in elementary particles, I have somewhat softened my opposition to the concept of a Big Bang.  See: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=9197.0 [nofollow]

"If the universe is finite, then neutrons themselves may be the particle-sized black holes that were made in a Big Bang and compressed into massive, highly energetic neutron stars.
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1667v1 [nofollow]

If the universe is infinite, then it may oscillate between expansion as interstellar space is filled with Hydrogen from neutron decay, and contraction after the neutron stars have evaporated and gravitational forces become dominant."

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #172 on: 10/07/2009 12:14:05 »
ACCEPTANCE IS THE ANSWER IN A LIFE OF SCIENCE

A lecture that my research mentor heard by Nobel Laureate Francis William Aston at the Imperial University of Tokyo on Saturday June 13, 1936 [See: Autobiography of the late Professor Paul K. Kuroda "My Early Days at the Imperial University of Tokyo"] exactly four months before my birth, directed my research career (1960-present) to the Sun's origin, composition and operation — as revealed by measurements with the mass spectrometer that Aston developed.

Another Nobel Laureate, Theodore W. Richards, explained the importance of such measurements in 1919: “If our inconceivably ancient Universe even had any beginning, the  conditions  determining  that beginning must even  now be engraved in the atomic weights.” 

Events since 1960 have convincingly demonstrated that . . .

Acceptance of observations, whether or not the causes were known, allowed my research to evolve from Earth's Origin => Earth's Evolution => Origin of the Solar System => Local Element Synthesis => Sun's Composition => Source of Energy in an Iron-Rich Sun => Interactions between Nucleons => Neutron Emission => Core of the Sun => Global Climate Change, and finally => Energy Source that Powers the Cosmos and Fills Interstellar Space with Hydrogen. 

Scientists who insisted on understanding causes before accepting observations still remain at the 1960 starting point; certain that the cosmos is powered by Hydrogen-fusion and that the Sun is a representative ball of Hydrogen from the imaginary interstellar cloud that formed the Solar System. 

They could not, for example, accept the empirical link of all primordial Helium with "strange" Xenon at the birth of the Solar System — a.) Observed in 1975 across the microscopic distances represented by diamond and iron sulfide inclusions of the Allende meteorite [See “Host phase of a strange xenon component in Allende”, Science 190 (1975) 1251-1262]; b.) Confirmed in diverse meteorites [See: "The enigma of helium and anomalous xenon," Icarus 41 (1980) 312-315]; and c.) Verified across the planetary distances represented by Jupiter and Earth when the Galileo probe sent back isotope data from Jupiter's Helium-rich atmosphere [See: "Isotope ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97 (1998) abstract 5011].

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 [nofollow]
or http://www.omatumr.com [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 10/07/2009 16:11:56 by om »

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #173 on: 11/07/2009 02:11:37 »
G'day from the land of ozzzz

There are various BBT some state the origin from one singularity others state the origin from multi singularities through out the universe at the same time. It does not matter which one you choose. They both state that the universe started at about 13.7Gyrs.

A simple observation of deep field images North and Soouth show us a potential of over 100,000,000,000 Galaxies in various formations from spiral to elliptical, small clusters of galaxies to super clusters of galaxies and super massive condensed matter (some call black holes)having a mass over 18 G Sun mass and a life span of 10^69 yrs.
The complexity is far greater than we can imagine and yet we have people stating that all this can be formed in just 13.7 Gyrs and supporting this with ad hoc theories to make the model work.

As a simple comparison our continents are aged to be about 4 billion years and our Sun to be about 5 billion years having its origin from a possible Supernova from a previous Sun phase. This is just our Sun, what about the star clusters found in the MW that have millions of stars within them, how long did they take to form.

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #174 on: 11/07/2009 23:07:39 »
WELCOME, HARRY!

G'day from the land of ozzzz

There are various BBT some state the origin from one singularity others state the origin from multi singularities through out the universe at the same time. It does not matter which one you choose. They both state that the universe started at about 13.7Gyrs.

A simple observation of deep field images North and Soouth show us a potential of over 100,000,000,000 Galaxies in various formations from spiral to elliptical, small clusters of galaxies to super clusters of galaxies and super massive condensed matter (some call black holes)having a mass over 18 G Sun mass and a life span of 10^69 yrs.
 
The complexity is far greater than we can imagine and yet we have people stating that all this can be formed in just 13.7 Gyrs and supporting this with ad hoc theories to make the model work.

As a simple comparison our continents are aged to be about 4 billion years and our Sun to be about 5 billion years having its origin from a possible Supernova from a previous Sun phase. This is just our Sun, what about the star clusters found in the MW that have millions of stars within them, how long did they take to form.

I agree.

There is something very simplistic about the assumption that . . .

a.) An absolute vacuum, something that does not exist, is "normal" and requires no explanation,

b.) Matter and energy, that which fills the universe, is "abnormal" and requires an explanation,

c.) Basic conservation laws allow us to calculate that the "abnormal" has existed for 13.7 Gyrs, but

d.) Basic conservation laws are violated before a neutrino can travel from the Sun to Earth!

Modern cosmology is no more realistic than Alice in Wonderland, but it is entertaining.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 [nofollow]
or http://www.omatumr.com [nofollow]

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #175 on: 12/07/2009 02:18:43 »
G'day Oliver

Thank you for the welcome.

Your post reminded me of this paper.

newbielink:http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0537 [nonactive]
Sociology of Modern Cosmology

Authors: Martin Lopez-Corredoira
(Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2))

Quote
Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.

It also reminds me that the KING does not wear invisible robes.

Science takes priority over the flow of information that is supported by ad hoc theories. I have not seen any other science topics where journal writing in cosmology overtakes the science. You read many papers and journals assuming that the BBT is a fact than proceed to fit the data regardless of scientific evidence available proving that the BBT is not correct. Are we blinded by the light of the MOB?

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #176 on: 12/07/2009 04:56:08 »
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDS

Research proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.

If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.

This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. 

Perhaps I am just an optimist, but I have recently noticed encouraging signs of less arrogance in the violation of scientific principles by NAS and federal agencies and of less arrogance in the violation of basic human rights by leaders of the United States government.

Hopefully ethical web sites like the "Naked Science Forum" may be able to help save science from total self-destruction.
« Last Edit: 12/07/2009 19:21:51 by om »

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #177 on: 12/07/2009 08:17:10 »
G'day from the land of ozzzz

Behind the Iron Curtains scientists are doing "their thing".

The problem is trying to find those scientists.

Have to read many papers to find a few.

Most papers have the BBT mind set affecting the outcome of the DATA.

Many Forums are directed by the same.


*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #178 on: 12/07/2009 09:57:00 »
Behind the Iron Curtains scientists are doing "their thing".
Harry, the iron curtain fell almost twenty years ago. It is no more real today than the iron sun. If your cosmology is as up to date as your politics it is no surprise you post the same debunked ideas across the internet.

G'day from the occassional visitor to the land of Oz.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #179 on: 12/07/2009 10:12:38 »
G'day ophiolite

You missed the point on the Iron Curtain like many other points.

What debunked ideas?

Or you just like being a critic

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #180 on: 12/07/2009 19:13:39 »
LET'S LEAVE OUT POLITICS

I have been published, censored, misrepresented, and black-listed by some of the world's finest scientific journals and proceedings publishers. 

Thanks to the kindness of Fate, I survived and avoided efforts to silence me by publishing papers in a variety of science journals and conference proceedings - in various countries, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and in countries aligned with neither side!

My most rigorously honest publication - with absolutely no intrusion from editors or reviewers - was a paper transcribed directly from an audio recording of my 1977 comments on elemental and isotopic variations in meteorites from stellar nuclear reactions - nucleosynthesis  [Proceedings of Robert Welch Foundation Conference on Chemical Research XII. Cosmochemistry (1978) 263-272].

I have published papers, for example, in Science; Geochemical Journal of Japan; Nature; Chinese Science Bulletin 41 [Chinese, issue 19 (1996) 1778-1782]; Geokhimiya [Russian, number 12 (1981) 1776-1801]; Nuclear Physics; Journal of Analytical Chemistry; Physical Review; Energy and Environment; Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry; Zeitschrift für Naturforschung; Comments on Astrophysic;  Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics; Icarus; Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta; Health Physics; Talanta; Journal of Fusion Energy; Meteoritics; Journal of Geophysical Research; Geochemical Journal of Japan;  Earth and Planetary Science Letters; Yadernaya Fizika [Russian 69 number 11 (2006) 1847-1856; ibid. 67 (2004) 1983-1988]; Environmental Science & Technology;  Journal of Economic Geology; "Proceedings of the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference" [Lunar Science Institute]; Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry; "AIP Conference Proceedings"; "Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Neutrino Oscillations" [Istituto Veneto di Scienze ed Arti]; "Isotopic Ratios in the Solar System" [Centre National D'Etudes Spatiales]; "The Origin of the Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post 1957 Observations" [Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers]; "Neutrino Mass and Related Topics" [World Scientific Publishers]; "Encyclopedia of Science and Technology" [McGraw-Hill Book Company]; "Coal Science and Technology" [Elsevier Science Publishers]; "Institute of Physics Proceedings", "Essays in Nuclear, Geo- and Cosmo-chemistry" [Burgess International Publishing Group]; "Isotopes in Earth and Planetary Science" [Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences]; "Proceedings of the SOHO-ACE Workshop 2001 on Solar and Galactic Composition" [Physikalisches Institut Universität Bern]; etc.

Looking back over the past 50 years, I can honestly say that my research career has been advanced by the actions of scientists, editors, and NAS members who chose to ignore unexpected experimental observations.

Those actions allowed me to continue the path of discovery while mainstream astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists remained stymied - stuck with the 1960 illusion that:

(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),
(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos,
(c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars,
(d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and
(e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!

The above are all empirically false.  Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept. 

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 13/07/2009 04:13:16 by om »

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #181 on: 12/07/2009 21:11:32 »
What debunked ideas?

Or you just like being a critic
I think we both know who the critic is here Harry.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #182 on: 13/07/2009 04:12:04 »
GET A GRIP!

What debunked ideas?

Or you just like being a critic
I think we both know who the critic is here Harry.

Relax, Ophiolite, what is does not depend on our opinions.

Critics become "groupthink" scientists when the mainstream shifts.

Continental Drift, Helio-centric Solar System, Iron Sun, Neutron Repulsion, etc.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel   




*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #183 on: 13/07/2009 08:42:43 »
LET'S LEAVE OUT POLITICS
You are the one who brought it up.
I have been published, censored, misrepresented, and black-listed by some of the world's finest scientific journals and proceedings publishers.
Does it ever occur to you that they may have a good reason?
Thanks to the kindness of Fate, I survived and avoided efforts to silence me .........
Do you understand the difference between ignore and silence?
Looking back over the past 50 years, I can honestly say that my research career has been advanced by the actions of scientists, editors, and NAS members who chose to ignore unexpected experimental observations.
If their actions have enhanced your career, why are you complaining?

(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),
(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos,
(c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars,
(d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and
(e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!

The above are all empirically false.  Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept.
Item (b). What empricial evidence show this to be false?
« Last Edit: 13/07/2009 08:46:24 by Ophiolite »
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #184 on: 13/07/2009 11:28:30 »
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

I understand that the flow of information down a river takes along even dead logs.

How can the dead log question the strong current flowing down main stream?

It takes a strong swimmer and determination to swim against a strong current and many times without being noticed untill the current changes.

History proves it over and over again.

The following paper is quite interesting, rather than expressing my opinion and avoiding the Chinese Whisper read it.

newbielink:http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3151 [nonactive]
Critical Thoughts on Cosmology

Authors: Wolfgang Kundt
(Submitted on 18 Feb 2009)

Quote
Abstract: An overview is given in section 1, of uncertain building blocks of present-day cosmologies. Thereafter, these edited lecture notes deal with the following four special problems: (1) They advertise Wiltshire's result -- making `dark energy' obsolete -- that accelerated cosmic expansion may be an artefact, due to an incorrect evaluation of the cosmic timescale in a Universe whose bulk matter is inhomogeneously distributed. (2) They cast doubt on Hawking's prediction of black-hole evaporation. (3) They point at various inconsistencies of the black-hole paradigm, in favour of nuclear-burning central engines of AGN. (4) They re-interpret (a best case of) `anomalous redshifts' as non-cosmological, kinematic redshifts in strong jet sources.
« Last Edit: 13/07/2009 11:30:38 by Harry Costas »

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #185 on: 13/07/2009 15:43:22 »
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW OR TO DEBATE?


(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),
(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos,
(c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars,
(d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and
(e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!

The above are all empirically false.  Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept.

Item (b). What empricial evidence show this to be false?


Ophiolite:

If you want to understand, I will be happy to explain.

If you only want to debate - as an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym - then it would be a waste of my time, yours, and the resources of the Naked Science Forum.

I am Oliver K. Manuel.  My background includes:
 
(a.) BS, MS, and PhD degrees in Chemistry
(b.) About 50 years of active teaching and research
(c.) NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship in Physics
(d.) Fulbright Fellowship at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
(e.) Former NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo
(f.) Research funded by NSF, AEC, ERDA, DOE, etc.
(g.) Directed research of ~50 BS, MS and PhD students
(h.) Former Department Chairman
(i.) Taught Nuclear, Physical, Analytical and General Chemistry
(j.) Published > 100 research publications
(k.) Invited speaker at international science conferences in Canada, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, the United States, the USSR and Wales.

Who are you?  What is your background?  I need to know so that I can explain to you why:

(a.) The Sun is NOT a ball of Hydrogen (H),
(b.) H-fusion does NOT power the Sun and the cosmos,
(c.) Neutron stars are NOT "dead" nuclear embers of stars,
(d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are REPULSIVE, and
(e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a NOT new mystery!

Thanks, Ophiolite.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel


« Last Edit: 13/07/2009 15:47:12 by om »

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #186 on: 13/07/2009 15:48:34 »
The following paper is quite interesting, rather than expressing my opinion and avoiding the Chinese Whisper read it.
Yes it is quite interesting. Since the author is a believer in the Big Bang Theory I must ask what it is your opinion on the paper? I would have thought you would have been offering us papers that questioned the very concept of the Big Bang, not ones that supported it.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #187 on: 13/07/2009 16:12:21 »
Quote
If you only want to debate - as an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym - then it would be a waste of my time, yours, and the resources of the Naked Science Forum.
Careful doctor Manuel, that is in danger of getting personal. Describing me as anonymous is certainly accurate, but the coward bit and the implication of hiding are unjustified. Persons can have many reasons for wishing to protect their anonymity. I may express politcal views on this or other forums that would be unpopular with my employers. I might not wish to risk the chance of them learning of these. Is that cowardice? I would call it sensible protection of my family's income.

More to the point my academic and professional qualifications (which pale into insignificance besides yours) are quite irrelevant. So too are your qualifications. This is not a dispute between degrees, but between facts, observations, deductions and hypotheses. It is the ideas that count, not the man or woman promoting them.

But to show willing here is some information that may help you pitch your explanation at the right level:
(a.) B.Sc (Honours) Geology
(b.) About 40 years of active work in technical, logistic, administrative, R & D, teaching and managerial roles in three major global companies, one medium sized company, one small company and as a consultant.
(c.) Acknowledged global expert in my particular (very restricted)technical field which has absolutely nothing at all to do with astronomy and is therfore irrelevant, but you did ask. 
(d.) Interest in astronomy spanning fifty years at the level of the enthusiastic armchair amateur. My specific interest is in planetary formation. My university minors in chemistry and physics are of some use in this regard.

I would specifically like you to address your point (b.) in which you dispute that the sun is powered by hydrogen fusion. This is the only one I think I would have sufficient background to stand a chance of debating with you on.

And yes, I do wish to debate. You seem to think that deabting is a cowardly act. I do not simply want an explanation of your views, I wish to challenge those views and see your responses to those challenges. I am at a loss to understand why you would think that is unhealthy.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #188 on: 13/07/2009 17:43:37 »
Thanks, Ophiolite, for letting us know that you have a B.Sc (Honours) in Geology.

What is the most abundant element in Earth?

What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?

Professor W. D. Harkins published the answer in the Journal of the American Chemical Society 39 (1917) 756-879.

What stellar nuclear reactions and conditions produce this element?

Professors Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle published the answer to this question in Reviews of Modern Physics 29 (1957) 547-650.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
« Last Edit: 13/07/2009 18:22:13 by om »

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #189 on: 13/07/2009 20:41:18 »
I rather thought the idea was for you to explain your ideas to me, not for you to probe my knowledge. Or were those rhetorical questions? You appeared to supply the answers.
Or are you using the Socratic method of teaching? Whatever, I’ll play ball. (And thank you so much for apologizing for implying I was “an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym.”)

What is the most abundant element in the Earth?
Off the top of my head I would say oxygen, with iron a very close second. (The top of my head has gone bald in recent years, so it is always as well to check.)

The most abundant elements in the Earth are O and Fe (both close to 32%).
White, W.M. Geochemistry page 17

………..and oxygen is the most abundant element on Earth.
Krebbs, R.E. The History and Use of Our Earth’s Chemical Elements page 41

From the Figure 4. Fe (32%) Oxygen (30%)
The Academic Press The Encyclopedia of the Solar System page 32

Although these are only textbooks, rather than original research they are considerably more current that your 1917 reference. (I do not intend to demean Harkins. His insights into such matters as the relative abundances of odd and even atomic numbered elements supported his position as a nuclear evolutionist. He was a geochemist before the term was coined.)

Of course, it is a somewhat meaningless question. There is still considerable debate as to light component in the core. Different views yield variations in bulk Earth composition of 2 or 3 percentage points for iron, readily shifting it between the most abundant, to the second most abundant in the planet. Equally, controversy rages over mantle composition and volatile depletion therein, on a whole mantle basis. Oxygen might easily vary by a similar percentage.

Shall we just agree that there is a lot of iron? I doubt your argument is materially effected if it is only placed as number two.

What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?
I have absolutely no idea? I have never heard of an ordinary meteorite. I have heard of siderites and their many subdivisions, IAB, IIc, IID, IIE, etc; and siderolites, including pallasites and lodranites; not to mention aerolites, both chondrites such as the enstatite chondrites, the olivine-hypersthene chondrites, and everyone’s favourite the carbonaceous chondrites, and achondrites like the diogenite and eucrite varieties. I’ve forgotten to mention most of them, but nowhere in there can I find an ‘ordinary meteorite’. Please enlighten me.

I find no fault with B2FH. WHo would argue with genius?

What is your point?
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #190 on: 14/07/2009 00:07:39 »
G'day Ophiolite

Sounds like you are a smart cookie.

Self Discovery is probably the best path.

Read some of these papers

newbielink:http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/index.html [nonactive]

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #191 on: 14/07/2009 17:28:08 »
DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST

I did not complete high school, I never had a course in geology, but I worked at the interface of nuclear chemistry, geology, physics and astronomy for almost 50 years and my first PdD graduate has been a professor of geology at a major university for a few years less. 

I rather thought the idea was for you to explain your ideas to me, not for you to probe my knowledge. Or were those rhetorical questions?  You appeared to supply the answers.  Or are you using the Socratic method of teaching?  Whatever, I’ll play ball.

The idea is for you to learn something from this exchange, which may happen if you are personally engaged.  Knowledge cannot be poured on a student, . . . like water.

(And thank you so much for apologizing for implying I was “an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym.”)

The comment was not meant to be personal.  I simply cannot afford to invest time trying to explain science to those who are locked in their ego cages, trying to confirm their self-importance by arguing or challenging every concept that they don't understand.

I am pleased to see from your response that you are not one of those.

What is the most abundant element in the Earth?

Off the top of my head I would say oxygen, with iron a very close second. (The top of my head has gone bald in recent years, so it is always as well to check.)

The most abundant elements in the Earth are O and Fe (both close to 32%).
White, W.M. Geochemistry page 17

………..and oxygen is the most abundant element on Earth.
Krebbs, R.E. The History and Use of Our Earth’s Chemical Elements page 41

From the Figure 4. Fe (32%) Oxygen (30%)
The Academic Press The Encyclopedia of the Solar System page 32

You are right, Ophiolite.  IRON (Fe) is the most abundant element in the Earth and in ordinary meteorites.  Fe is element #26. 

Oxygen (O) is the second most abundant element in the Earth.  O is element #8. 

Oxygen (O) is the most abundant element at the surface of the Earth.

[There is a lesson there.]

Although these are only textbooks, rather than original research they are considerably more current that than your 1917 reference. (I do not intend to demean Harkins. His insights into such matters as the relative abundances of odd and even atomic numbered elements supported his position as a nuclear evolutionist. He was a geochemist before the term was coined.)

You are right again, Ophiolite. 

Harkins used the results of wet chemical analysis of over 400 meteorites to show that the abundances of even numbered elements are higher than those of odd numbered elements.

Harkins also correctly predicted that even-numbered elements have higher nuclear stability than odd-numbered elements.  Harkins' 1917 prediction about higher nuclear stability of even-numbered elements was finally confirmed in the 1930s.

How did Harkings figure that out in 1917?  See item (2.) below

Papers that are "more current" than Harkins' 1917 paper are not necessarily more informative.

Two techniques seem to advance knowledge:

(1.) Experimental observations
(2.) Meditation and contemplation

Modern science has fallen in love with technology, which can certainly provide data faster and more accurately than older techniques.  That leaves little or no time for item (2.) above.

Modern instruments crank out data much faster than we can adsorb, and there is now a tremendous overload of reliable data out there that has never been comprehended.

Many scientists cannot see the forest for the leaves!

I experienced this problem myself when I was a NASA PI for Apollo samples.  I had a "state of the art" mass spectrometer, designed and built by my research advisor at UC-Berkeley - Professor John H. Reynolds.  It seemed that NASA would have another lunar sample in my mailbox almost every day, wanting me to crank out additional data for the next Lunar Science Conference.

Of course, it is a somewhat meaningless question. There is still considerable debate as to light component in the core. Different views yield variations in bulk Earth composition of 2 or 3 percentage points for iron, readily shifting it between the most abundant, to the second most abundant in the planet.  Equally, controversy rages over mantle composition and volatile depletion therein, on a whole mantle basis. Oxygen might easily vary by a similar percentage.

You display great insight in questioning the composition of the Earth's core.

From the information I have obtained from meteorites, I tend to go along with John Wood's (Harvard) idea that the fluid outer core is mostly nickel-iron mixed with sulfides, like the troilite inclusions found in iron meteorites.  The fraction of the core of the terrestrial planet that contains (Fe,Ni)S increases with distance from the Sun: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars.  The fraction that is metallic Fe,Ni increases toward the Sun: Mars, Earth, Venus, Mercury.

Shall we just agree that there is a lot of iron?  I doubt your argument is materially effected if it is only placed as number two.

Okay.

What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?

I have absolutely no idea? I have never heard of an ordinary meteorite. I have heard of siderites and their many subdivisions, IAB, IIc, IID, IIE, etc; and siderolites, including pallasites and lodranites; not to mention aerolites, both chondrites such as the enstatite chondrites, the olivine-hypersthene chondrites, and everyone’s favourite the carbonaceous chondrites, and achondrites like the diogenite and eucrite varieties. I’ve forgotten to mention most of them, but nowhere in there can I find an ‘ordinary meteorite’. Please enlighten me.


The term, "Ordinary meteorites" came from Harkin's 1917 paper.

I find no fault with B2FH. WHo would argue with genius?

What is your point?

I want you to know the stellar nuclear reactions and the stellar conditions that produce IRON (Fe).  Okay, it is the e-process defined by B2FH.  What does e represent?

I thank you, Ophiolite, for your willingness to learn.  I have family responsibilities and must sign off now.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel 
« Last Edit: 14/07/2009 17:52:33 by om »

*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #192 on: 15/07/2009 00:59:15 »
G'day from the land of ozzzz

The reason why I post links is to share the information and give credit to those who write them.

Do we really know what the heck is going on out there?.

I'm not a smart cookie, I know that. For this reason I want to see evidence and scientific logic to direct my thoughts. I just hope mainstream is correct, because billions of dollars spent on projects in the name of Standard Models.

This paper is informative and the ABS explains it. Yes I do read the links.

newbielink:http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0162 [nonactive]
Field Fractal Cosmological Model As an Example of Practical Cosmology Approach

Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev (Astron.Inst.St.-Petersburg Univ.)
(Submitted on 1 Oct 2008)

Quote
Abstract: The idea of the global gravitational effect as the source of cosmological redshift was considered by de Sitter (1916, 1917), Eddington (1923), Tolman (1929) and Bondi (1947), also Hubble (1929) called the discovered distance-redshift relation as "De Sitter effect". For homogeneous matter distribution cosmological gravitational redshift is proportional to square of distance: z_grav ~ r^2. However for a fractal matter distribution having the fractal dimension D=2 the global gravitational redshift is the linear function of distance: z_grav ~ r, which gives possibility for interpretation of the Hubble law without the space expansion. Here the field gravity fractal cosmological model (FGF) is presented, which based on two initial principles. The first assumption is that the field gravity theory describes the gravitational interaction within the conceptual unity of all fundamental physical interactions. The second hypothesis is that the spatial distribution of matter is a fractal at all scales up to the Hubble radius. The fractal dimension of matter distribution is assumed to be D = 2, which implies that the global gravitational redshift is the explanation of the observed linear Hubble law. In the frame of the FGF all three phenomena - the cosmic background radiation, the fractal large scale structure, and the Hubble law, -could be consequences of a unique evolution process of the initially homogeneous cold gas. Within field gravity fractal framework a new qualitative picture of the structure and evolution of the Universe has emerged, with some quantitative results that may be tested by current and forthcoming observations.

*

Offline Fortran

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 91
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #193 on: 17/07/2009 09:10:23 »
ahhhh... Iron and Oxygen, Earth's two most abundant elements -- Rust -- Hemaglobin!

Hemaglobin... the color of the glow of health and of the blush of embarrassment, the color of both the wondrous renewability of the womb and the shameful sin of war.  Hemaglobin, of all the proteins, the most symbolic of life!!

(And why do I feel underfoot around 2 struggling titans? -- or at least 1½ titans?)

Now dave, just lie back on the couch and tell me all about it..  :)
You are only smart if you are surrounded by fools, so have a bit more patience for those of us that are complete idiots!

I like this place, if they don't ban me I'll stay here.

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #194 on: 17/07/2009 16:27:26 »
DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST (continued)

Yes.  Iron (Fe), element #26, is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites and in rocky plants that orbit close to the Sun.

Oxygen (O), element #8, is the next most abundant element.

Those facts alone suggest that the Earth and ordinary meteorites came from a supernova.

Both of these elements are produced by very rapid, violent nuclear reactions in a supernova.

1. B2FH reported that Iron (Fe) was made by the e-process, equilibrium process.  That is the violent nuclear reactions that occur near the core of a supernova, consuming other elements to produce the most stable of all nuclear species, Fe-56.  Those same nuclear reactions also produce lesser amounts of Ni-58 and Ni-60.

Fe and Ni are the ash, or stable end products, of nuclear reactions driven to completion, just as . . .

CO2 and H2O are stable end products of grape sugar oxidation. 
[Incomplete oxidation makes alcohol, then vinegar, then . . . . CO2 and H2O.]

Meteorites made mostly of Fe,Ni metal still fall from the skies today.
The core of the Earth and other terrestrial planets consists mostly of Fe,Ni metal.
Initially there were more metal meteorites than stone meteorites accreting here, as suggested by Turekian and Clarke ["Inhomogeneous accumulation of the earth from the primitive solar nebula," Earth & Planetary Science Letters 6 (1969) 346-348], but the solar nebula itself was never homogeneous.

2. B2FH reported that Oxygen (O) was made by Helium burning.  That is also a violent series of nuclear reactions that overcome Coulomb repulsive forces between the positive charges on the Helium nuclei (He-4) and fuse them together to make high abundances of other nuclei with high nuclear stability: C-12, O-16, Ne-20, Mg-24, Si-28, S-32,  etc.

He-4 + He-4 + He-4 => C-12
C-12 + He-4 => O-16
O-16 + He-4 => Ne-20
Ne-20 + He-4 => Mg-24
Mg-24 + He-4 => Si-28
Si-28 + He-4 => S-32, etc.

The products of explosive He-burning - [O, Mg, Si and S] - and products of the e-process  - [Fe and Ni] - make up the bulk of the material in the Earth, in ordinary meteorites, and in the other terrestrial planets that orbit close to the Sun.

Conclusion: Geochemical information on the composition of the Earth and ordinary meteorites, when combined with nuclear astrophysics from B2FH, confirm that major elements in the Earth and in ordinary meteorites came from a supernova.

Questions:

How does the O/C ratio on Earth compare with that in the solar photosphere?

Why was Nobel Laureate W. A. Fowler puzzled by the O/C ratio in the photosphere?

Can Ophiolite describe where rocky, Earth-like planets were first observed in another planetary system outside the solar system?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com [nofollow]





*

Offline Harry Costas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 26
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #195 on: 19/07/2009 03:40:05 »
G'day Oliver

Your response is fantastic, thank you for the info.

*

Offline eonfluxs7

  • First timers
  • *
  • 4
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #196 on: 19/07/2009 20:02:12 »
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDS

Research proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.

If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.

This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. 

Perhaps I am just an optimist, but I have recently noticed encouraging signs of less arrogance in the violation of scientific principles by NAS and federal agencies and of less arrogance in the violation of basic human rights by leaders of the United States government.

Hopefully ethical web sites like the "Naked Science Forum" may be able to help save science from total self-destruction.
-----
This info will make me harder for me to continue my research. Even more, I am an Indonesian that usually being banned before say something. 
-----
There are many ideas about universe. There are many names comes up like G-String to the String Bikini.
I just make a simple research based on Newtonian, Keplerian and Einstein's Gravity. I found that the Big Bang is only a stage of our universe process. Perhaps, there are some big bang had occurred in our universe.

The time before big bang can be read here: newbielink:http://ian-titen.blogspot.com/2009/07/view-from-event-horizon.html [nonactive]

The big bang is an explosion of mass after loss the energy can be seen in the video here: newbielink:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hPXivsrqnk [nonactive]

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #197 on: 20/07/2009 05:08:43 »
DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST (continued)

G'day Oliver

Your response is fantastic, thank you for the info.


Thanks, Harry.
- - - - - - - - - -
Before continuing, let me answer the questions that I asked Ophiolite:

1. In the Earth O/C ~ 1000 and in the solar photosphere, O/C ~ 2 !

2. The latter value is a major problem for nuclear astrophysics, as noted by Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler:

“. . . we still cannot show in the laboratory or in theoretical calculations why the ratio of Oxygen to Carbon in the Sun and similar stars is close to two to one . . .” [William A. Fowler in Cauldrons in the Cosmos: Nuclear Astrophysics by Claus E. Rolf and William S. Rodney (David N. Schramm, series editor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 1988) page xi].

The problem is this:  It is almost impossible to get three He-4 nuclei to fuse into C-12.  The conditions which make this happen are so extreme that another He-4 is almost always added.  I.e., almost all of the C-12 should have been quickly converted into O-16.

3. Rocky, Earth-like planets were first observed outside the solar system orbiting the pulsar collapsed core of a supernova, PSR 1257+12 [A. Wolszczan and D. A. Frail, “A planetary system around the millisecond pulsar PSR1257+12," Nature 355 (1992) 145-147; A. Wolszczan, “Confirmation of earth-mass planets orbiting the millisecond pulsar PSR B 1257+12”, Science 264 (1994) 538-542].
- - - - - - - - - -

We showed above that Earth and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of elements like Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg - elements that were made in a supernova.  All six of these elements have even atomic numbers.

Harkins used data from wet chemical analysis of over 400 meteorites to conclude correctly in 1917 that “... in the evolution of elements much more material has gone into the even-numbered elements than into those which are odd...” [See page 869 of W. D. Harkins Journal American Chemical Society 39 (1917) 856-879].

However, Cecelia Payne analyzed line spectra from the solar photosphere and correctly reported in 1925 that an odd numbered element, Hydrogen (H), appears to be the most abundant element in the atmosphere of the Sun and the next lightest element, Helium (He) is the next most abundant element in the atmosphere of the Sun [See: Cecelia H. Payne Stellar Atmospheres (Harvard Observatory Monograph #1, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1925) pp. 177-189].

Cecelia Payne did not suggest that the interior of the Sun is H and He!  And indeed it is not.

The most abundant elements inside the Sun are Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg - like in meteorites, but lightweight elements are highly enriched in the atmosphere of the Sun.  We know that because independent quantitative measurements on two separate samples of the Sun show conclusively that . . .

a.) Lightweight isotopes are systematically enriched in the solar wind relative to their abundances in planetary material [See: "Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222], and
 
b.) Lightweight s-products are systematically enriched in the solar photosphere relative to the abundances predicted from neutron-capture cross sections [See: "Nuclear systematics: Part IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radio-analytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (205) 159-163]. 

I am unable to post the data here for you to see, but you can see it in Figure 6 of the paper, "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass," Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856; Yadernaya Fizika 69, (2006) number 11; astro-ph/0609509; PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com [nofollow]

PS - The energy source that continuously produces solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and the solar-wind Hydrogen pouring from the surface of the Iron Sun in exactly the proportions measured is shown on page 20 as messages # 263063 and # 264134 of the Naked Science Forum discussion of Science Photo of the Week http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=957.475 [nofollow]

« Last Edit: 20/07/2009 19:16:52 by om »

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #198 on: 21/07/2009 05:03:55 »
ASTROPHYSICISTS RE-DISCOVER: DYING STAR WAS LINKED TO BIRTH OF SOLAR SYSTEM

Eonfluxs7 need not despair.  "Truth is victorious, never untruth" [Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85].

In the last 24 hours there have been several news reports:
 
A team of international astrophysicists have discovered that a dying star was linked to the birth of the solar system !
http://www.physorg.com/news167302986.html [nofollow]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720092022.htm [nofollow]

That is precisely what we told astrophysicists over 30 years ago, in scientific journals and in research conferences attended by leading astrophysicists:

1. "Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements", Transactions Missouri Academy Sciences 9 (1975) 104-122.

2. "The xenon record of element synthesis", abstract P58, presented at the 1976 AGU Meeting, Sheraton Hotel, Washington DC, April 14 (1976); Published in Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 57 (1976) 278.

3. "Xenon record of the early solar system", Nature 262 (1976) 28-32.

4. “Key issues in xenology: The main issues and where they are leading us today”, Gregynog Workshop on Isotopic Abundance Anomalies, Montgomery, WALES (August 1976).

5. "Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195 (1977) 208-209.

6. "Proceedings of Robert Welch Foundation Conference on Chemical Research XII. Cosmochemistry," Robert Welch Foundation (1978) 263-272.

7. "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277 (1979) 615-620.

Even today this "team of international astrophysicists" fails to grasp that:

a. Most elements in the iron-rich object on which they live came directly from the deep interior of the dying star.

b. Large masses of iron that fall from the sky today as iron meteorites also came directly from the dying star.

c. The dying star expelled the material that now orbits the Sun, which re-formed on the remnant stellar core, a pulsar.

d. The Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen; This lightest of all elements is a neutron-decay product that covers the solar surface.

e. The Sun is heated primarily by repulsive interactions between neutrons in the pulsar on which it formed.

So do not despair, eonfluxs7.  Those who abuse political power and position are almost always corrupted and eventually destroyed by their own arrogance.

Recently when global warming became a wide-spread public concern, astrophysicists and astronomers were unprepared to explain the Sun's very obvious role in climate change. 

For over three decades they had ignored any and all experimental findings that threatened to expose the standard solar model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun as an illusion that was inconsistent with such obvious solar features as solar eruptions, sunspots, solar cycles, and the solar wind -- Not unlike the illusion of a child who believes apples must be red on the inside because they are red on the outside!

The well-established link between Earth's climate and solar cycles was, however, explained by experimental data from the mid-1970s that revealed Earth's heat source to be the unstable remains of a supernova that exploded 5 Gyr ago and gave birth to the solar system [See: "EARTH'S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN", Energy and Environment: SPECIAL ISSUE: Natural drivers of weather and climate, volume 20 (2009) 131-144. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704 [nofollow] ]

Remember, eonfluxs7, that science itself has this spiritual foundation: "Truth is victorious, never untruth" [Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85].   

 
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDS

Research proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.

If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.

This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. 

-----
This info will make me harder for me to continue my research. Even more, I am an Indonesian that usually being banned before say something. 

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/ [nofollow]
« Last Edit: 21/07/2009 12:27:48 by om »

*

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #199 on: 23/07/2009 22:41:20 »
DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST (continued):

Before responding to Ophiolite's request for empirical evidence that Hydrogen-fusion does NOT power the Sun nor the cosmos
, please consider this

Prayer for Serenity in Science:

"Grant me the serenity to accept WHAT IS.
Courage to challenge my own beliefs toward WHAT IS.
Wisdom to know that attitudes may distort perception of WHAT IS,
But attitudes cannot change WHAT IS."

- - - adapted from Reinhold Niebuhr

WHAT IS: [Established by fifty (50) years of measurements and contemplation along the road less traveled!]

1. The Sun is mostly IRON, not HYDROGEN.
2. The Sun discards HYDROGEN as a WASTE PRODUCT.
3. Nuclear dissociation, rather than fusion, powers the Sun and the cosmos and fills interstellar space with HYDROGEN.

1. Hydrogen is a trace element inside the Sun, although this lightest of all elements comprises 91% of atoms in the photosphere.  The most abundant elements inside the Sun are Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg.  Mass-fractionation inside the Sun has been quantitatively established by two completely independent measurements:

1 a.) Abundances of twenty-two (22) noble gas isotopes in the solar wind relative to their abundances in planetary material [See: "Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222], and

1b.) Abundances of seventy-two (72) s-products in the solar photosphere relative to the abundances predicted from neutron-capture cross sections [See: "Nuclear systematics: Part IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radio-analytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (2005) 159-163].

When solar surface abundances are corrected for the mass fraction empirically defined by either

_ a.) Noble gas isotopes in the solar wind, or
_ b.) s-products in the photosphere,

The most abundant elements inside the Sun turn out to be Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg - the elements that are also most abundant in ordinary meteorites!
 
The probability (P) that these three measurements fortuitously (by meaningless chance) agree on the dominant abundance of these same seven elements is zero (0),
P < 0.00000000000000000000000000000002 ! http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1 [nofollow]

2. Antoine Lavoisier coined the name Hydrogen for the colorless, flammable gas that is released together with heat as sulfuric acid reacts with zinc:

Sulfuric Acid + Zinc  => Zinc Sulfate + Heat + Hydrogen

The Sun also releases Heat and Hydrogen, but Hydrogen has been mistakenly classified as the fuel rather than as a by-product of the solar engine.

3. Solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar wind Hydrogen pouring from the surface of the Sun arise from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core that trigger this series of nuclear reactions: 

[attachment=8827]

3 a.) Neutron-emission generates 60% of solar luminosity:
---- <n> => n + 12 Mev

3 b.) Neutron-decay generates 5% of solar luminosity:
---- n => proton + electron + 1 MeV

3 c.) Protons fuse to He-4 as they are accelerated upward by deep-seated magnetic fields, generating 35% of solar luminosity:
---- p => 0.25 He-4 + 7 MeV

3 d.) Protons surviving the upward journey depart in the solar wind, generating 100% of SW Hydrogen:
---- 3 x 10^43 protons => depart annually in the solar wind.

3 e.) Repulsive interactions between neutrons (above) were discovered with the help of five students in the last graduate class that I taught in the spring semester of 2000.


The five students were Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Daniel Ragland, Matthew Seelke, and Bing Zhang, all at the University of Missouri-Rolla.

The above picture is shown as Figure 16, page 16 of the AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 822 (2006) pages 206-225:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0510001 [nofollow]

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” – Herbert Spencer

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 [nofollow]

Postscript: The following comment about a cross-sectional view of the Sun in a bottle, originally posted on Physics World (May 4, 2009), may help Ophiolite and other readers understand the operation of the Sun.

The comment concerns a book review by Dr. Cris W. Barnes [Deputy Division Leader of the Physics Division at the Los Alamos National Laboratory] of Charles Seife's book, "Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking" [2008 Viking Books].

It should be okay to repeat the comment here, since someone other than me deleted it from Physics World.

NO MORE THAN WISHFUL THINKING

Unfortunately, the idea of controlled fusion is based on an illusion that the Sun and other ordinary stars are giant balls of Hydrogen heated by Hydrogen fusion.

They are not: The Sun in a bottle would not be a bottle of Hydrogen!

True, the solar surface is covered with Hydrogen - the lightest of all elements.  This is smoke from the nuclear furnace at the solar core - not the primary fuel. 

Each year the Sun exhausts 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen in the solar wind, like CO2 pouring from the exhaust pipes of cars and chimneys of homes and factories.

The Sun operates like a high-efficiency furnace.  The first stage of the furnace generates 65% of solar luminosity.  The first stage also generates Hydrogen as a neutron decay product. 

Most of the Hydrogen - like the dirty, dark waste gas of a coal furnace that encounters hot catalytic converters  - is further burned into Helium as the Hydrogen moves upward toward the solar surface.  This generates 35% of solar luminosity and 100% of the solar neutrinos. 

If the Sun were in a very tall bottle that allowed nothing to escape through the walls:

a.) Pouring from the top of the bottle would be heat and light, Bottle-Wind Hydrogen that had been produced in the bottle, and enough Bottle Neutrinos to account for 35% of the heat and light by Hydrogen-fusion. 

b.) At the bottom of the bottle would be a tiny, invisible speck emitting neutrons.

c.) Near the bottom of the bottle, neutrons would decay to Hydrogen ions and electrons.

d.) Strong magnetic fields would carry the Hydrogen upward.

e.) Most of the Hydrogen would fuse into Helium during this upward journey

f.) The upward flow of Hydrogen would maintain mass separation in the bottle selectively carrying lightweight elements and lightweight isotopes of each element to the top of the bottle and away in the Bottle-wind.

See: The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856 or Yadernaya Fizika (Russian) 69, number 11, Nov 2006; PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509 [nofollow]

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com [nofollow]


« Last Edit: 29/07/2009 21:53:13 by om »