[Harry Costas (OP)]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Deep field images

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2004-07-d-full_jpg.jpg [nofollow]

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/cosmology/universe:%20age_size/2004/07/image/d/ [nofollow]

http://www.fripro.com/STEREO%20UNIVERSE%20UIDE.htm [nofollow]

Show a potential of over 100,000,000,000 galaxies and within those a variety of galaxy form from spiral to elliptical.

How can all these be formed in just 13.7 Billion years?

Do we explain this by science or by using ad hoc theories?

Do we allow the thinking of the BBT stop us in our tracts to go out on a limb and formulate new theories?


http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4771 [nofollow]
The origin of 'Great Walls'

Authors: Sergei Shandarin
(Submitted on 27 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 29 Jan 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: A new semianalytical model that explains the formation and sizes of the 'great walls' - the largest structures observed in the universe is suggested. Although the basis of the model is the Zel'dovich approximation it has been used in a new way very different from the previous studies. Instead of traditional approach that evaluates the nonlinear density field it has been utilized for identification of the regions in Lagrangian space that after the mapping to real or redshift space (depending on the kind of structure is studied) end up in the regions where shell-crossing occurs. The set of these regions in Lagrangian space form the progenitor of the structure and after the mapping it determines the pattern of the structure in real or redshift space. The particle trajectories have crossed in such regions and the mapping is no longer unique there. The progenitor after mapping makes only one stream in the multi-stream flow regions therefore it does not comprise all the mass. Nevertheless, it approximately retains the shape of the structure. The progenitor of the structure in redshift space depends on a few non-Gaussian fields and also it is strongly affected by two anisotropic fields that determine the pattern of great walls as well as their huge sizes. All the fields used in the mappings are derived from the linear potential smoothed at the current scale of nonlinearity which is $R_{nl} = 2.7$ {\hmpc} for the adopted parameters of the \lcdm universe normalized to $\sigma_8 = 0.8$. The model predicts the existence of walls with sizes significantly greater than 500 {\hmpc} that may be found in sufficiently large redshift surveys.

[Soul Surfer]

The scientific models of the evolution of material and structures in the expanding universe fit with the experimental and observational physics very well indeed.

There is plenty of time and space for the observed complexities to form.  Gravitational collapse tends to form stringy shapes but the first large stars and quasars push material away from them with their radiation and explosive shock waves. and this tends to great bubbles and walls.

material can collapse to form large stars in a million years or so and these large stars only last about a million years before exploding violently

[Harry Costas (OP)]

G'day Soul

You said

The scientific models of the evolution of material and structures in the expanding universe fit with the experimental and observational physics very well indeed.

There is plenty of time and space for the observed complexities to form.  Gravitational collapse tends to form stringy shapes but the first large stars and quasars push material away from them with their radiation and explosive shock waves. and this tends to great bubbles and walls.

material can collapse to form large stars in a million years or so and these large stars only last about a million years before exploding violently

If that is so, please provide the science to support such a statement.

[Bored chemist]

G'day Soul

You said

The scientific models of the evolution of material and structures in the expanding universe fit with the experimental and observational physics very well indeed.

There is plenty of time and space for the observed complexities to form.  Gravitational collapse tends to form stringy shapes but the first large stars and quasars push material away from them with their radiation and explosive shock waves. and this tends to great bubbles and walls.

material can collapse to form large stars in a million years or so and these large stars only last about a million years before exploding violently

If that is so, please provide the science to support such a statement.

What, all of it?
Every scientific  observation made in astronomy since Copernicus?
That would be rather a long post.
If you have any evidence refuting it let us know.

[Soul Surfer]

Thanks BC I was about to say the same thing.  The detailed information and evidence is in all the text books please read them and learn. We just cannot answer a question as big as that.  If there are any details that you have problems with please ask a more specific question and I will hopefully clarify it for you.

[Harry Costas (OP)]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Please supply evidence

Hear say what say means nothing.

I want to see evidence supported by science and not by ad hoc theories.

All observations and images show a clustering effect from solar systems to Galaxies to clusters of local galaxies to superclusters of galaxies.

[Bored chemist]

This
"Please supply evidence"
goes both ways. If you have an alternative hypotheis you need to evince it.

You have already been told that the evidence is in lots of textbooks. How many have you looked at since you read that?
If the answer is none then you need to think about whether the problem is a lack of evidence or your refusal to look at it.
You remind me of Galileio's critics who refused to look through the telescope.

[Harry Costas (OP)]

G'day Bored

I do supply much evidence and yet when I request any form of evidence.

None are served.

[Ophiolite]

Show a potential of over 100,000,000,000 galaxies and within those a variety of galaxy form from spiral to elliptical.

How can all these be formed in just 13.7 Billion years?

Why would you think they cannot be formed in that time? If you argue that it just seems too long you are employing the logical fallacy Argument from Incredulity. That won't wash, no matter how much it satisfies you personally.
[/quote]

[LeeE]

G'day Bored

I do supply much evidence and yet when I request any form of evidence.

None are served.

Troll.

[Soul Surfer]

Agreed. Harry Costas we consider you are a troll just trying to start arguments without putting any useful input yourself.  Unless you frame your questions in a more reasonable and answerable manner we will have to ignore you.

[Ophiolite]

Agreed. Harry Costas we consider you are a troll just trying to start arguments without putting any useful input yourself. 

In fairness, I think Harry believes he is correct. He genuinely thinks he is exposing some deliberate, or implicit conspiracy and a great flaw in our current cosmology. He has been roving internet forums for many years now spouting the same ideas. Trolling? I don't think so. Unsubstantiated delusions? Possibly. Time wasting persistence, with the best of intentions. Almost certainly.

[BenV]

G'day Bored

I do supply much evidence and yet when I request any form of evidence.

None are served.

I assume you can see why people would think this is trolling?

If you're suggesting something other than the mainstream view, please provide your evidence first.  It's only polite.

[Harry Costas (OP)]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Is this some form of a joke?

Refer back to my first post, than read your responses.

Think about it for a sec.

If you wish to add to the discussion than please do so.

Leave out the troll parts.

So! who can supply scientific evidence to support the BBT

or are you too busy trying to insult.

[Ophiolite]

Refer back to my first post, than read your responses.

Think about it for a sec.

If you wish to add to the discussion than please do so.

Leave out the troll parts.

So! who can supply scientific evidence to support the BBT

or are you too busy trying to insult.

Well, clearly you can (offer evidence in support of the Big Bang), for you did so in your first post. On the other hand you have offered nothing that is contrary to Big Bang Theory, except your personal incredulity. That won't wash.

I think that's the second time I've pointed this out to you, but no response.

[Harry Costas (OP)]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

What is evidence?
Is there evidence supporting the BBT?
It seems that there is no evidence.

This paper is quite interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0153 [nofollow]
Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics

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

Abstract: The space expansion physics contains several paradoxes which were clearly demonstrated by Edward Harrison (1981, 1995, 2000), who emphasized that the cooling of homogeneous hot gas (including photon gas of CBR) in the standard cosmological model based on the violation of energy conservation by the expanding space. In modern version of SCM the term "space expansion" actually means continuous creation of vacuum, something that leads to conceptual problems. Recent discussion by Francis, Barnes, James, and Lewis (2007) on the physical sense of the increasing distance to a receding galaxy without motion of the galaxy is just a particular consequence of the arising paradoxes. Here we present an analysis of the following conceptual problems of the SCM: the violation of energy conservation for local comoving volumes, the exact Newtonian form of the Friedmann equation, the absence of an upper limit on the receding velocity of galaxies which can be greater than the speed of light, and the presence of the linear Hubble law deeply inside inhomogeneous galaxy distribution. The common cause of these paradoxes is the geometrical description of gravity, where there is no a well defined concept of the energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field, no energy quanta - gravitons, and no energy-momentum conservation for matter plus gravity because gravity is not a material field.

and
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0162 [nofollow]
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)

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.

[lyner]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

. . . . .

Refer back to my first post, than read your responses.

. . . . . .

So! who can supply scientific evidence to support the BBT

or are you too busy trying to insult.

I read the OP and it consists of some stunning pictures and a link to an alternative theory / hypothesis.

I have to ask you, have you really read through any more than the abstract and do you actually understand what is said? Also, have you actually read any serious Cosmology and are you aware of just how consistent the evidence which indicates a BB. (No one on this forum needs to supply evidence of the BB as it is to be found all over the place. The burden of proof is with you, as you're introducing the new idea.)
How much Cosmology (mainstream and the new stuff you quote) do you actually UNDERSTAND and how much do you just fancy having a go at the establishment?

It's very easy to post stuff that will be read. It's harder to write stuff that people will actually appreciate. Perhaps you could assemble some of the new ideas and present them in an understandable way, rather than posting a couple of links and then having a rant at the old stuff.
I presume you want to establish some credibility?

[Harry Costas (OP)]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

I read all the ABS that I post.

As far as Astrophysics and Cosmology is concerned, I read daily a few scientific papers.

Over the last 40 years it adds up.

As for the support of the BBT 95% of all papers support the BBT.

But! most assume the BBT is correct than proceed to fit the data.

Science is about questioning and testing.

So! how can over 100,000,000,000 galaxies found in deep field images 13.2 Grs away form in just 500 million years.
Now what evidence can support that.

Also looking through all the images Hubble site, Chandra site and many others we find a clustering effect and not an expansion. Time taken to form these objects has to be accounted for. Also the evolution of Galaxies and the sequence of how they evolove. We are not talking of one star we are talking of over 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars some small some 100 times that of our Sun.

The question pops up: Are we lead by data that contains errors?

[Pwee]

Hi Harry!

Maybe I can help you.

Here is 2 podcast episodes of the Astronomycast. They are talking about astronomy and always state the supporting evidence too:
http://www.astronomycast.com/cosmology/the-big-bang-and-cosmic-microwave-background/
http://www.astronomycast.com/extragalactic/more-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

(Hope TNS volks dont mind me posting about a concurent science podcast  [] )

It could be a good summary of the evidence out there and you can read forward from there as this podcast doesn't go too much into the details.

I must say that I didn't listen to those 2 episodes as there are other things that interest me more in astronomy, but I know that in all other episodes they always aim to support everything with hard evidence.

Good luck finding your answer!

[lyner]

There is nothing in the BB idea to prohibit clustering. It's just a matter of the local situation regarding Gravitational Potential and Kinetic Energy. The same Critical Density criterion applies in small regions as over the whole Universe. No one is surprised that the Solar System isn't expanding, for the same reason.

I was not aware that there is any conflict between the calculated time for a star to form and the calculated available time since the postulated BB. The sheer large numbers involved are no serious objection per se. They all get on with their own formation at the same time.

I was suggesting that there is more to a paper than just the Abstract and that, if you'd read the whole paper, you might have constructed some argument based on the content. That would certainly have made people sit up and listen.
You must have seen the plethora of posts on all fora which are just after having a rant and your OP rather gave that impression. Hence the hostile reception from a few regulars.