0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
They must be created all the time!
Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 17/10/2009 03:19:00They must be created all the time!This seems so to me. And for advocates of a steady state universe, there only needs to ba about one proton per cubic mile of space created each year to carry on the cycle. This quantity probably needs study.
Is space expanding or is it a steady state?
"Tired light" has problems too....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN
Can atoms be made, or are we limited by the whole of the physical universe by what we have (so if we destroy an atom to release energy, it will never be replaced)
A Universal law (by our understanding) would be that something can not come from nothing, correct?
In this steady state universe you propose, where is the anti matter that would also be created going?
Quote from: DimiCan atoms be made, or are we limited by the whole of the physical universe by what we have (so if we destroy an atom to release energy, it will never be replaced)What do you mean by "made"? IF you "make" a desk you basically construct it from trees, i.e. something else. In this sense one can "make" atoms.QuoteA Universal law (by our understanding) would be that something can not come from nothing, correct?Not really, but in most cases that's true. It's concievable that the universe was made with a total energy of zero so in that sense it was something from nothing. Negative energy of gravitational potential energy is canceled from the postive energy of mass and kinetic energy.
I still don't see how that is creating atoms. All your doing is altering a state. That isn't creating something from nothing.
On another note for your steady state universe if galaxies are continually being created why are all quasi galaxies only observed in the distant past.
I'm not sure what a quasi galaxy is. As far as I know every observation of very distant objects show them to be just like the objects we see up close.
I believe that he's referring to the fact that the further out in space we look the younger objects appear. E.g. near objects appear just as objects near us appear. But if you observer things out near the furthest we can see then we are esentially looking back in time and things like galaxies appear much younger and less evolved.
Quote from: PMBI believe that he's referring to the fact that the further out in space we look the younger objects appear. E.g. near objects appear just as objects near us appear. But if you observer things out near the furthest we can see then we are esentially looking back in time and things like galaxies appear much younger and less evolved.Yes; I have seen that assertion that far objects appear younger. However, every attempt to show that far objects are actually less evolved than near objects has failed as far as I know.
Objects discovered at such vast distances present a timing problem for big bang theorists. In big bang theory, for a large star to become a black hole or a GRB, it would probably need to be a second (or third) generation star, and it would have limited time to form and use up all its fuel. In the period of 630 hundred million years after the big bang, the first stars would have to “die,” then second generation stars would form from the material left over from the first stars. The second generation stars operated for their entire “lifetime.” Then, one of these second generation stars would have become the GRB at the end of its “life.” It is debatable whether there would be enough time for all this to happen for the GRB to occur so that we would see it.Astronomers have long believed that early in the history of the universe, just a few hundred million years after the big bang, there would be stars that were different from most stars in the universe today. Astronomers have searched for evidence of these so-called “first generation” or “Population III” stars for years. There is no observational evidence of their existence, but they still play an important role in big bang theory. Such stars would be of different composition, for example, in having no heavy elements and consisting of only hydrogen, helium, and minor amounts of lithium.No one has detected stars without heavy elements above Helium. In, fact astronomers have observed evidence of elements like carbon and iron in objects that are claimed to be from the early eras of the Big Bang.4,5,6 Indeed, there is evidence that some GRBs contain metals such as iron and magnesium.7 Heavier elements like carbon or iron, according to big bang ideas, could not be produced in the big bang itself but instead must have been produced in supernova explosions that took place when large stars died. Astronomers who operate by naturalistic assumptions and do not allow for supernatural creation as Genesis describes must resort to complicated scenarios like these to explain the origin of the chemical elements.
As for Red Super Giant Stars, I can say little. They seem to have been more common in earlier epochs, and endup as Supernova that, among other things, spew forth just about every heavy element needed for life.
Quote from: litespeedAs for Red Super Giant Stars, I can say little. They seem to have been more common in earlier epochs, and endup as Supernova that, among other things, spew forth just about every heavy element needed for life.I have never seen evidence that this is real. It needs to be real to support the Big Bang scenario, and true believers try and make it real but there is no evidence that earlier epochs were any different than current times.
yor_on - you wrote: "If there was a big bang with stars created 'simultaneously' everywhere..."The universe of the 'inflation era' was not uniform, and this has only recently been confirmed. Maybe it was the Kobi satellite. It means the distribution of matter in the early universe was not uniform. Indeed, the very clear 'strandy' appearance of the universe today, is in complete coordination with the distribution of microwave background radiation recently found.
Mad Mark alluded to a pertinent fact that no quasars have been found any nearer than about seven billion light years. If quasars are not young galaxies than why would they not be distributed evenly through out the Universe?yor, I notice something about inflation, It has another word attached to it called theory,(an educated guess attempting to explain observation)does not mean that inflation occurred. It only means we are attempting to explain observation.