Thread: Steady- State Theory.

I was reading an article about the Steady-State theory yesterday. I don't know much about Thomas Gold but I do know that Fred Hoyle and Hermann Bondi were respected scientists, in Britain, and other countries.
Bondi was considered to be an expert in several areas of science (not just astronomy) and I wonder whether he finally accepted the "Big Bang" when the evidence,for this theory,became almost impossible to resist?
I understand that one of the attractions of the Steady-State theory,for some individuals,was that it put forward the idea that the universe had always existed and so there was no need for a beginning or moment of "creation".
Gold,Hoyle,and Bondi were all highly intelligent men but surely their theory implies that an infinite amount of time had already passed and that this is simply not possible because infinity,unlike time,only can exist in the human mind or imagination.

Creationists don't want a finite universe because an omnipotent deity should make an infinite universe. Many people, to include some at this forum, still doggedly prefer myth to the scientific method. As Carl Sagan said, "Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong." :-D

I believe that the "Big Bang" is by far the best explanation we have for the birth of the universe but surely this would also be the explanation favoured by those who believe in an omnipotent deity because the "Big Bang" implies a moment of creation and it is possible to argue that God pulled the switch/lever (the First Cause argument) altho' I don't go along with that!
The question which I asked about and puzzles me is why many scientists/astronomers were able to accept the idea of an infinite period of time as this concept is fundamental to the "Steady-State" theory which argues that the Universe has always existed. It is possible to imagine incredible periods of time but no matter how long these periods are they will never come near infinity!
I know what I'm trying to say but I am not explaining it very well.

Originally Posted by Halliday

I was reading an article about the Steady-State theory yesterday. I don't know much about Thomas Gold but I do know that Fred Hoyle and Hermann Bondi were respected scientists, in Britain, and other countries.
Bondi was considered to be an expert in several areas of science (not just astronomy) and I wonder whether he finally accepted the "Big Bang" when the evidence,for this theory,became almost impossible to resist?
I understand that one of the attractions of the Steady-State theory,for some individuals,was that it put forward the idea that the universe had always existed and so there was no need for a beginning or moment of "creation".
Gold,Hoyle,and Bondi were all highly intelligent men but surely their theory implies that an infinite amount of time had already passed and that this is simply not possible because infinity,unlike time,only can exist in the human mind or imagination.

Hoyle did finally accept the "big bang" theory - in fact he made up the name in derision of the concept. The cosmic microwave background is a definitive piece of evidence for the big bang theory.

Originally Posted by Halliday

It is possible to imagine incredible periods of time but no matter how long these periods are they will never come near infinity!

Of course one can't grasp it. For that matter, one can't truly grasp anything: Take a sock. But it is cloth. But the cloth is woven threads. But the threads are twisted yarns. But the yarns are clinging fibers. And so forth.

Originally Posted by Arch2008

Creationists don't want a finite universe because an omnipotent deity should make an infinite universe.

I consider BB founded in creationist logic because it presumes the universe must have been created.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by Halliday

It is possible to imagine incredible periods of time but no matter how long these periods are they will never come near infinity!

Of course one can't grasp it. For that matter, one can't truly grasp anything: Take a sock. But it is cloth. But the cloth is woven threads. But the threads are twisted yarns. But the yarns are clinging fibers. And so forth.

Originally Posted by Arch2008

Creationists don't want a finite universe because an omnipotent deity should make an infinite universe.

I consider BB founded in creationist logic because it presumes the universe must have been created.

I think one can grasp/understand infinity. One only has to think of the number system which goes on for ever and there are an infinite amount of numbers between one and two. Numbers can stand for things in the "real" world but numbers themselves are abstract human constructions. The question I was asking was whether infinity itself can really apply to anything in the universe-even the total number of subatomic particles is finite.
I don't understand what "I consider BB founded in creationist logic" means!
If you mean that the BB was thought up by individuals who cobbled a few bits of doubtful evidence together in order to prove, that an entity we could call, God created the universe,around 15 billion years ago,I don't agree with you.

Originally Posted by Halliday

The question I was asking was whether infinity itself can really apply to anything in the universe

Sure. It explains fading away for example. That's no abstract human construct. I think it also solves the riddle of attraction, but that's another topic.

Originally Posted by Halliday

I don't understand what "I consider BB founded in creationist logic" means!

BBers believe "the universe" (they mean space, time, all existence) was created. From nothing.

Their central assumption is that existence must have begun somewhere, sometime. Recall the creationist assertion "there must have been a maker".

Contrast the notion that existence has always existed.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

People talk about the Big Bang as though "That's It" and do not understand that there are other options to making up the elements.

Nucleosynthesis as per the Big Bang is not a process limited to it, but found throughout the universe in the workings of compacted matter and their jets.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0969
Nucleosynthesis in Magnetically Driven Jets from Collapsars

Authors: Shin-ichiro Fujimoto, Nobuya Nishimura, Masa-aki Hashimoto
(Submitted on 7 Apr 2008)

Abstract: We have made detailed calculations of the composition of magnetically driven jets ejected from collapsars, or rapidly rotating massive stars, based on long-term magnetohydrodynamic simulations of their core collapse with various distributions of magnetic field and angular momentum before collapse. We follow the evolution of the abundances of about 4000 nuclides from the collapse phase to the ejection phase and through the jet generation phase using a large nuclear reaction network. We find that the r-process successfully operates only in energetic jets (> 1e51 ergs), such that U and Th are synthesized abundantly, even when the collapsar has a relatively weak magnetic field (1e10 G) and a moderately rotating core before the collapse. The abundance patterns inside the jets are similar to those of the r-elements in the solar system. About 0.01-0.06 Msun neutron-rich, heavy nuclei are ejected from a collapsar with energetic jets. The higher energy jets have larger amounts of Ni56, varying from 0.00037 to 0.06Msun. Less energetic jets, which eject small amounts of Ni56, could induce a gamma-ray burst (GRB) a supernova, such as GRB 060505 or GRB 060614. Considerable amounts of r-elements are likely to be ejected from GRBs with hypernovae, if both the GRB and hypernova are induced by jets that are driven near the black hole.

Originally Posted by Halliday

I was reading an article about the Steady-State theory yesterday. I don't know much about Thomas Gold but I do know that Fred Hoyle and Hermann Bondi were respected scientists, in Britain, and other countries.
Bondi was considered to be an expert in several areas of science (not just astronomy) and I wonder whether he finally accepted the "Big Bang" when the evidence,for this theory,became almost impossible to resist?
I understand that one of the attractions of the Steady-State theory,for some individuals,was that it put forward the idea that the universe had always existed and so there was no need for a beginning or moment of "creation".
Gold,Hoyle,and Bondi were all highly intelligent men but surely their theory implies that an infinite amount of time had already passed and that this is simply not possible because infinity,unlike time,only can exist in the human mind or imagination.

See my version below of a Flat Space Universe.

FLAT SPACE universe
(Formerly the SSU)

Because of the violations of the laws of physics and proven experimental data by the ‘big bang’ supporters, I decided to promote the FLAT SPACE universe that is not expanding or contracting
and does not violate any laws or experimental data and also complies to the observational data.

To begin with, This Universe is infinitely old. There is no beginning or end.
However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process.
The toal matter content itself, does not because it complies with the 'Laws of Conservation of
Matter and Energy’. It also complies with the other conservation laws.

It complies with all the problems the current ‘big bang universe’ does not explain like the Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiments that refute the existence of a spatial ether as a carrier of the light waves. This then refutes space as the cause of the Cosmological redshift.

It portrays space as flat. No expansion or contraction. Hence no need for General Relativity.
The redshift of the current galactic observations is the product of the photon pulse expansions. This also complies with the Halton Arp redshift anomaly that the BB’ers refute.

The CMBR is the product of a state of 'thermal equilibrium’ of all the radiations and interstellar
particle radiations. It complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that all closed systems will redistribute their heat from the hot to the cold areas until a uniform temperature is
reached. Tne CMBR is that uniform temperature where the variation is only 7/100,000K.

Although space is infinite, the matter content is finite. This matter content then is a closed system. High energy photons can leave the universe. These losses are replaced by 'new' photons created by 'new' star creations.

Even though this is an everlasting Universe, there is no buildup of ‘heat energy’ by the high energy photons that the stars create. The reason for this is that the photons are expanding to create the Cosmological Redshift and continue to expand until they reach wavelengths beyond the radio waves and continue to oblivion and simply ending as regular negative electric field particles.
The ending of the photons then keeps the heat from increasing that would result from the new star creations and subsequent new photon creations.

Cosmo

The Big Bang wasn’t the energy of a hundred billion galaxies. Like one burning match starting a forest fire, the initial BB was the energy you would get from about a kilogram of matter if it were converted into energy. The universe didn’t explode into something. The universe is everything and it inflated. As the universe expanded to the size of about an atom, it cooled to almost absolute zero. This caused the superforce to separate into the forces we know today (weak, strong and electromagnetism…gravity was already separate). This separation released the energy that created everything in the universe. I cannot testify to how or why creationists think what they do. Logically, a finite universe that has the same laws of science throughout does not leave room for mystical places of myth where the omnipotent can hang out. Only an infinite universe leaves room for fairytales. When Lemaitre thought up the “primordial atom” he got a lot of flak from the rest of the scientific community, to include Einstein. Some people want an infinite universe that cannot ever be comprehended for the reasons I mentioned. What we still do not know, is what happened in the first ten million-trillion-trillion-trillionth of a second. (Not much to attribute to Zeus.) I don’t believe that the math of the Big Bang works, I know that it does.

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Cosmo said

To begin with, This Universe is infinitely old. There is no beginning or end.
However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process.

I agree: The next step is trying to understand and prove each step.

The toal matter content itself, does not because it complies with the 'Laws of Conservation of
Matter and Energy’. It also complies with the other conservation laws.

I'm trying to understand what you said. I'm confused. Please explain.

====================================

Hello Arch:

Are you interested in been right or trying to understand the workings of the parts within the universe.


You said

The Big Bang wasn’t the energy of a hundred billion galaxies. Like one burning match starting a forest fire, the initial BB was the energy you would get from about a kilogram of matter if it were converted into energy. The universe didn’t explode into something. The universe is everything and it inflated. As the universe expanded to the size of about an atom, it cooled to almost absolute zero. This caused the superforce to separate into the forces we know today (weak, strong and electromagnetism…gravity was already separate). This separation released the energy that created everything in the universe

It is a theory. I disagree, but! thats me.

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Cosmo said

To begin with, This Universe is infinitely old. There is no beginning or end.
However, the formed structures like galaxies, stars and photons, go through a recycling process.

I agree: The next step is trying to understand and prove each step.

The toal matter content itself, does not because it complies with the 'Laws of Conservation of
Matter and Energy’. It also complies with the other conservation laws.

I'm trying to understand what you said. I'm confused. Please explain.

The Conservation Laws include the Matter, Energy, Momentum and charge.
So this applies to the 'total' mass, energy, momentum of all structures and intrinsic charges of the protons and electrons.

====================================

Originally Posted by Harry

Hello Arch:

Are you interested in been right or trying to understand the workings of the parts within the universe.


You said

The Big Bang wasn’t the energy of a hundred billion galaxies. Like one burning match starting a forest fire, the initial BB was the energy you would get from about a kilogram of matter if it were converted into energy. The universe didn’t explode into something. The universe is everything and it inflated. As the universe expanded to the size of about an atom, it cooled to almost absolute zero. This caused the superforce to separate into the forces we know today (weak, strong and electromagnetism…gravity was already separate). This separation released the energy that created everything in the universe

It is a theory. I disagree, but! thats me.

Yes, the BBT is a religion. So it is not even a theory.

Cosmo

Hello Harry. Are you interested in posting the truth, or just trying to deceive?

Cosmo, if you think that BBT is a religion and not a science then you have totally embarassed yourself.

G'day Arch

What truth do you want?

Do you think to agree is truth?

Use science to prove your point and not emotions.

Cosmology is quite interesting, now trying to understand the workings is another issue.

If you are interested in been right, you will always be right.

Even though I may read hundreds of cosmology papers each year. You would think I would know a bit more than I do. The problem is this. The more I learn the more I find that I know very little. I keep knowing that I do not know and therefore keep reading.

If I thought for a moment that I "KNOW" than I would stop reading and fall into the TRAP.

Originally Posted by Arch2008

Hello Harry. Are you interested in posting the truth, or just trying to deceive?

Cosmo, if you think that BBT is a religion and not a science then you have totally embarassed yourself.

Since you are a supporter of the BB science, Then I would like to ask you a couple of questions?

What science is the BB based on?
I do not mean 'ad hoc' science but the sciences before the Hubble publications of his observations of the galaxies in our universe?

How do you separate science from religion?

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Yes, the BBT is a religion. So it is not even a theory.

Unlike you I am not a "scientist" Harry-just a layperson!
This thread was about whether the scientists/astronomers who put forward the SS theory ever accepted the BB theory. I also asked about time because I find it difficult to understand and accept that an infinite amount of time has already passed as put forward by those who do not accept the BB theory.
I do believe the BB theory to be the best explanation we have for the existence of the universe but that was not what the thread was about until Harry and Cosmo became involved.

G'day Halliday

Please explain the formation of over 100 Billion galaxies of varies stages and forms in deep field images 13 billion light years away.

I do not support any theory. I think that the theories should support themselves.
Such as the BBT if its foundations are based on ad hoc ideas than one day it will drop.


This is interesting reading:


http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213

The Faulty Assumptions of the Expanding-Universe Model vs. the Simple and Consistent Principles of a Flat-Universe Model -- with Moving Pisa Tower Experiment which Tests General Relativity

Authors: Jin He
(Submitted on 9 May 2006 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2007 (this version, v8))

Abstract: The standard model of expanding universe is based on the theory of general relativity (GR) which assumes that spacetime is curved. The reason of curved spacetime was given by Einstein that locally there is common acceleration for all test particles so that gravity is canceled. This is called the equivalence principle. The present paper shows that it is not true for Schwarzschild solution (static gravity of pure spatial inhomogeneity). The paper also presents isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravity. Freely falling particles locally have accelerations of any magnitude and any direction, which also indicates that the gravity can not be locally cancelled too. Realistic gravity is non-static which is the case in between. This indicates that the assumption of curved spacetime is a fundamental mistake. Therefore, a correct gravitational theory or a model of the universe must be based on the absolute flat background spacetime. The existence of such absolute spacetime is shown to be true from the following three basic principles about the universe: (1) the density of large-scale mass distribution of the universe varies with time (corresponding to an isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravitational field); (2) the gravity is described by a Lagrangian which is the generalization to the proper distance of special relativity (the metric form of GR); (3) Hubble law is approximately true. These lead to varying light speed and give account of `accelerating expansion`. Therefore, the assumption of big bang and expansion is incorrect.

[quote="Harry Costas"]G'day Halliday

Please explain the formation of over 100 Billion galaxies of varies stages and forms in deep field images 13 billion light years away.

I do not support any theory. I think that the theories should support themselves.
Such as the BBT if its foundations are based on ad hoc ideas than one day it will drop.


This is interesting reading:


http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213

The Faulty Assumptions of the Expanding-Universe Model vs. the Simple and Consistent Principles of a Flat-Universe Model -- with Moving Pisa Tower Experiment which Tests General Relativity

Authors: Jin He
(Submitted on 9 May 2006 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2007 (this version, v8))

Abstract: The standard model of expanding universe is based on the theory of general relativity (GR) which assumes that spacetime is curved. The reason of curved spacetime was given by Einstein that locally there is common acceleration for all test particles so that gravity is canceled. This is called the equivalence principle. The present paper shows that it is not true for Schwarzschild solution (static gravity of pure spatial inhomogeneity). The paper also presents isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravity. Freely falling particles locally have accelerations of any magnitude and any direction, which also indicates that the gravity can not be locally cancelled too. Realistic gravity is non-static which is the case in between. This indicates that the assumption of curved spacetime is a fundamental mistake. Therefore, a correct gravitational theory or a model of the universe must be based on the absolute flat background spacetime. The existence of such absolute spacetime is shown to be true from the following three basic principles about the universe: (1) the density of large-scale mass distribution of the universe varies with time (corresponding to an isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravitational field); (2) the gravity is described by a Lagrangian which is the generalization to the proper distance of special relativity (the metric form of GR); (3) Hubble law is approximately true. These lead to varying light speed and give account of `accelerating expansion`. Therefore, the assumption of big bang and expansion is incorrect.

I repeat I was not talking about whether the BB theory is correct or not altho' I believe it to be,by far, the best explanation.
I am sure we have lots more to find out.Other theories all seem to imply the universe has always existed,in some form,and therefore an infinite amount of time has already passed. I find it extremely hard to accept that.
A couple more points. You say you are a scientist but you do not talk like a technical expert-you sound more like a layperson!
Who is this fellow Jin He? Is he a scientist/astronomer?Where does he work and has his material been published in any form? Surely if you hold the opinion he has interesting and maybe important things to say you should give a bit more information about him.
"I say,that one turned!"

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Yes, the BBT is a religion. So it is not even a theory.

Unlike you I am not a "scientist" Harry-just a layperson!
This thread was about whether the scientists/astronomers who put forward the SS theory ever accepted the BB theory. I also asked about time because I find it difficult to understand and accept that an infinite amount of time has already passed as put forward by those who do not accept the BB theory.
I do believe the BB theory to be the best explanation we have for the existence of the universe but that was not what the thread was about until Harry and Cosmo became involved.

The original promoters of the SSU apparently 'did' accept the 'expansion' of space. So their SSU could not be a SS.

The definition of time, IMO, is that it is 'Uniform Unwavering Motiom or Change'.
So time remains constant.

The standard for time is the cesium atoms.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The definition of time, IMO, is that it is 'Uniform Unwavering Motiom or Change'.
So time remains constant.

Funny how mountains of experimental evidence demonstrate you're wrong. Curious, that.

The standard for time is the cesium atoms.

And, if we accelerate one of two cesium clocks to near light speeds, we will observe it ticking slower than the stationary cesium clock.

Seems time isn't a constant after all.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Who is this fellow Jin He? Is he a scientist/astronomer?Where does he work and has his material been published in any form? Surely if you hold the opinion he has interesting and maybe important things to say you should give a bit more information about him.

Jin He is an anti-Einstein conspiracy theorist. You can find his nonsense all over science forums and what is now his defunct website realcreation.org, which used to appear at crank.net but is no longer there. He's already had his papers deleted from other repositories.

He asserts a flat spacetime in favor of curved spacetime, and asserts light accelerates and is not a constant.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Jin He is an anti-Einstein conspiracy theorist. You can find his nonsense all over science forums and what is now his defunct website realcreation.org, which used to appear at crank.net but is no longer there. He's already had his papers deleted from other repositories.

Looks as if we could agree about Jin He anyway.

G'day halliday

Smile,,,,,,,so you want me to sound more like a scientist?

Problem we have than is understanding of terminology.

The next problem I have is Dislexia.

You said

I repeat I was not talking about whether the BB theory is correct or not altho' I believe it to be,by far, the best explanation.

Why do you believe that the BBT is the best explanation?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The definition of time, IMO, is that it is 'Uniform Unwavering Motiom or Change'.
So time remains constant.

Funny how mountains of experimental evidence demonstrate you're wrong. Curious, that.

The standard for time is the cesium atoms.

And, if we accelerate one of two cesium clocks to near light speeds, we will observe it ticking slower than the stationary cesium clock.

Seems time isn't a constant after all.

I do not give Einstein any credibility. Those time variations relative to velocity are just 'mind' manipulated.

Einstein is wrong on other counts too. That is why I do not accept his teeny wheeny corrections.
His mass/energy formula is wrong also. The mass portion is a general form and his use of 'c' in an 'energy' formula cannot be complete since 'c' energy levels vary with frequencies. So leaving out 'frequency' is an error.

His 'curvature' of space as a substitute for gravity is nonsense.
He himself admitted that his static universe would collapse.
In this case, he is right because if his curvature of space can influence the movements of the orbitting bodies ever so slightly, than his CoS would also 'ERODE' their momentum.
However, this does not happen even in the galaxy clusters where the 'dark' matter enhancement of gravity ten fold, does not cause these GC's to collapse.
Reason?
Newtons 1st and 3rd Laws of motion prove that 'to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'. So with this increased gravitational effect in the clusters, the galaxies simply had increased momentum to resist collapse.

In a Flat Space concept, there is no curvatrure of space. So there is no spatial influence of the orbital body movements. So, no collapse.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I do not give Einstein any credibility.

Einstein is wrong on other counts too.

His mass/energy formula is wrong also.

His 'curvature' of space as a substitute for gravity is nonsense.

To make these statements in the face of evidence, qualifies you as a kook, Cosmo.

Game over, thanks for playing.

G'day Cosmo

You said

Newtons 1st and 3rd Laws of motion prove that 'to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'. So with this increased gravitational effect in the clusters, the galaxies simply had increased momentum to resist collapse.

Simple and yet to the point.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I do not give Einstein any credibility.

Einstein is wrong on other counts too.

His mass/energy formula is wrong also.

His 'curvature' of space as a substitute for gravity is nonsense.

To make these statements in the face of evidence, qualifies you as a kook, Cosmo.

Game over, thanks for playing.

Einsteins M/E formula is wrong or incomplete.
The mass component is obviously applicable to the stars. Stars radiate in 3 directions. So the component c^2 is not applicable to stars but to a 'pie' type of radiation like 'standing waves' in the hydrogen atoms.
Photons can only be represented by 'wavelength' and a frequency of 'one'.
As I said above, when using c^2 in an energy formula, you must include the frequency also because frequencies have different energy levels.

Zwicky Gravity (dark matter) falsifies the curvature of space because this gravity being 10x times stronger than Newtonian gravity, 'would' WARP the space around the GC's. However this is not detected or seen.
So the 'curvature of space' is false.
Even Einstein himself admitted that his 'static' universe would collapse.
But the BBT saved his CoS idea. However, the BBT is also false, IMO.

Cosmo

G'day from the land of ozzzz


Cosmo said

So the 'curvature of space' is false.
Even Einstein himself admitted that his 'static' universe would collapse.
But the BBT saved his CoS idea. However, the BBT is also false, IMO.

How do you define space?

If space is without anything than space could not have any curvature.

Since space include all there can be, than I would expect curvature to exist. Based on the wave structure of matter.

Einstein was correct in calculating the parts of the universe to collapse, but not the total universe.

The BBT has gone with Santa. Till this dayI cannot work out how it became the standard model. It has directed many scientists in the wrong direction for decades and billions of dollars in projects. Many papers to this date assume that the BBT is correct than proceed to fit the data to the BB model. Thats real science for ya!

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

G'day from the land of ozzzz


Cosmo said

So the 'curvature of space' is false.
Even Einstein himself admitted that his 'static' universe would collapse.
But the BBT saved his CoS idea. However, the BBT is also false, IMO.

How do you define space?

If space is without anything than space could not have any curvature.

Since space include all there can be, than I would expect curvature to exist. Based on the wave structure of matter.

Einstein was correct in calculating the parts of the universe to collapse, but not the total universe.

The BBT has gone with Santa. Till this dayI cannot work out how it became the standard model. It has directed many scientists in the wrong direction for decades and billions of dollars in projects. Many papers to this date assume that the BBT is correct than proceed to fit the data to the BB model. Thats real science for ya!

Well, when they tell us how the start of the BBT originated, Than I could give them some credibility.
So, in the meantime, the BBT is cosmogony.

And the nature of the BB supporters is that they resort to 'censorship' while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
This is a religious tactic that uses 'force' to promote their doctrine.

Cosmo

G'day Cosmo

You said

And the nature of the BB supporters is that they resort to 'censorship' while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
This is a religious tactic that uses 'force' to promote their doctrine.

Thats what happens when main stream takes the flow. Even dead logs float down.

It has been over 4 decades that I have been called names and what ever because I would not agree with the BBT. Its only in the last few years that people are questioning and requesting scientific evidence rather than ad hoc ideas and Santa issues.

Any theory supported by science is a theory worth looking at.

At the same time, there is alot of work and research to be done.

At this moment, I'm reading through P-process, S-process, r-process, nu-process, compact matter, Neutron stars, quark matter and stars, exotic matter etc and one inparticular is the Plasma properties with attention to the double layer and the Z-pinch experiments in trying to understand the jet formation from compacted matter.

The more I learn the less I know.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Einsteins M/E formula is wrong or incomplete.

Cosmo

A picture is worth a thousand words...

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

How do you define space?

If space is without anything than space could not have any curvature.

Essentially, all of space in the universe "encapsulates" a gravitational field.

Does that help?

G'day (Q)

You hit the nail on the head

Originally Posted by Halliday

I was reading an article about the Steady-State theory yesterday. I don't know much about Thomas Gold but I do know that Fred Hoyle and Hermann Bondi were respected scientists, in Britain, and other countries.
Bondi was considered to be an expert in several areas of science (not just astronomy) and I wonder whether he finally accepted the "Big Bang" when the evidence,for this theory,became almost impossible to resist?
I understand that one of the attractions of the Steady-State theory,for some individuals,was that it put forward the idea that the universe had always existed and so there was no need for a beginning or moment of "creation".
Gold,Hoyle,and Bondi were all highly intelligent men but surely their theory implies that an infinite amount of time had already passed and that this is simply not possible because infinity,unlike time,only can exist in the human mind or imagination.

Well, infinity exists outside the human mind and that is in the FP universe.
I believe in the SSU but had to promote the FS universe because the original SSU is linked to Hoyle and etc.

The Laws of Conservation say so and I give those more credibility than the BBU that has NO real science for its existence.

The only REAL science the BBT was based on was the Dopplerian Red Shifts that were dropped because they implied a repeat of the 'Geocentric' universe with ONE center.

So the real science was replaced with a 'subjective' human opinion and proven with AD HOC human creations.

I can provide more that a dozen refutals of the BBT.

AS I said, it is COSMOGONY.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Einsteins M/E formula is wrong or incomplete.

Cosmo

A picture is worth a thousand words...

Those warships do not represent light but instead they represent 'hot air'. Ha ha.

For your information, 'c^2' represents the radiations of the hydrogen atoms when not radiating any photons. In other words, c^2 represents the 'standing waves' that do not provide any usable energy. Only the PHOTONS do that and they are 'single' straight line pulses. Only a single 'c' would be sufficient and it has a frequency of 'one' but you do need to supply the wavelength also to differetiate the energy level.

Also, the Einstein version does need to include the 'frequency' to differentiate the energy levels.

Cosmo

Harry

Study 'BASIC' physics like the Conservation Laws, the M-M Experiments and what they promote, the reality of the ARP RS Anomalies and the Bohr model of the HA that explains the HA radiations of photons.

Wasting your time on studying 'nuclear' physics is 'backward' science.
Understanding 'fusion' in the Sun is the way to go rather than nulear fission.
It does provide some energy with the nuclear reactors.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

For your information...

...it works. But, I guess you had to confirm your kookdom, eh sire?

Originally Posted by Cosmo

the reality of the ARP RS Anomalies

Wasting your time on studying 'nuclear' physics is 'backward' science.

Yes, don't use what works. Cling to kookdom. Follow Cosmo to your ultimate demise.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Cosmo said

Study 'BASIC' physics like the Conservation Laws, the M-M Experiments and what they promote, the reality of the ARP RS Anomalies and the Bohr model of the HA that explains the HA radiations of photons.

Doing that

Wasting your time on studying 'nuclear' physics is 'backward' science.
Understanding 'fusion' in the Sun is the way to go rather than nulear fission.
It does provide some energy with the nuclear reactors.

Doing that to.

Fusion and fission form an important part in the formation of the elements.

Fission forms a trigger process for a supernova backed up by fusion.

If we are lead to study one and not the other than there will be a void of info missing.

Your right I do waste my time.

Out of 100 papers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,two are worth reading

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Cosmo

the reality of the ARP RS Anomalies

Wasting your time on studying 'nuclear' physics is 'backward' science.

Yes, don't use what works. Cling to kookdom. Follow Cosmo to your ultimate demise.

The nuclear reacters 'pale' in comparison to the Suns radiations.
So, we have different sources of energy to harvest like solar panels, wind energy,and of course the different fossil fuels that derived from the Sun originally. These all "work' and are safe except for the long term health hazards.
The Sun radiates 95% of all the energy in the universe.

Do you claim your BBT works? How does the expansion of space create work?
Can we harvest it? Answers please.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

The nuclear reacters 'pale' in comparison to the Suns radiations.

So what? They work based on the theory. Game, set, match. Thanks for playing. 8)

No Harry, the Sun does not work the same as an H-bomb. Temperatures hot enough for fusion to occur is provided solely by the heat generated by the gravitational compression of gasses. Fission requires unstable isotopes that nearly do not exist in the Sun. No heavy isotopes exist in the Sun.

Photospheric composition (by mass)(Wikipedia):
Hydrogen 73.46 %
Helium 24.85 %
Oxygen 0.77 %
Carbon 0.29 %
Iron 0.16 %
Sulfur 0.12 %
Neon 0.12 %
Nitrogen 0.09 %
Silicon 0.07 %
Magnesium 0.05 %

G'day from the land of oz


Kalster said

No Harry, the Sun does not work the same as an H-bomb. Temperatures hot enough for fusion to occur is provided solely by the heat generated by the gravitational compression of gasses. Fission requires unstable isotopes that nearly do not exist in the Sun. No heavy isotopes exist in the Sun.

That is one opinion.

But! to say NO! is very limited.

Try to read more on the workings within the sun.

I will come back to this later.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

These papers are quite interesting

O. Manuel, Cynthia Bolon and Max Zhong, "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 252, 3-7 (2002).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf

O. Manuel, C. Bolon, A. Katragada and M. Insall, "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", J. Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

O. Manuel, C. Bolon & P. Jangam, "The sun's origin, composition and source of energy", in Lunar and Planetary Science XXIX, Abstract 1041, available as 1041-pdf from Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX (CD-ROM, 2001)

http://www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf

Title: The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379

On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

G'day from the land of oz


Kalster said

No Harry, the Sun does not work the same as an H-bomb. Temperatures hot enough for fusion to occur is provided solely by the heat generated by the gravitational compression of gasses. Fission requires unstable isotopes that nearly do not exist in the Sun. No heavy isotopes exist in the Sun.

That is one opinion.

But! to say NO! is very limited.

Try to read more on the workings within the sun.

I will come back to this later.

I agree with Kalster, Harry.

The man made fusion hydrogen bomb is not a fusion bomb, IMO.

In this type of bomb, my conclusion is that the hydrogen is separated as separate components. So these added protons and electrons are being separated at very high velocities to create very powerful magnetic radiations. So these very high magnetic 'radiations add to the energy level of the original fission bomb explosion.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

These papers are quite interesting

O. Manuel

I think Oliver has gone from kook to conspiracy theorist that all of astrophysics is wrong, and the scientific community is covering up the "iron" sun theory.

G'day from the laned of ozzzzzzzzz


(Q) I think your missing and "I"


The Iron sun theory is backed by many scientists.

The one thing that scientists have read out of context in Prof Manuels papers is that they think that the sun has an Iron core. These are the critics without any form of science info.

The formation of Iron in stars is general info. The actual layers formed by the varies elements is also general info.

The formation of compact gravity sinks in the formation of most stars is also general info.

Mr Q , you say things without backing them up.

Harry, our sun is not hot enough to produce iron. IT IS NOT HOT ENOUGH!

G'day Kalster

Do a bit of research before you make assumptions.



http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...23iron-sun.htm

Nov 23, 2005
The Iron Sun

The image of the sun above was recorded in the light given off by iron atoms that have lost 11 of their 26 electrons. The energy required to remove that many electrons is far greater than the energy available at the surface of the sun. These iron ions occur high in the sun's atmosphere--in the corona--where the effective temperature is 2 million degrees or more, 400 times that of the photosphere.

The conventional explanation is that the high temperature causes the iron atoms to collide with enough force to knock off those 11 electrons. But then the question arises about how the atmosphere can be hotter than the surface. The corona is farther away from the putative source of energy inside the sun, and it is less dense. It should be cooler than the photosphere.

Read some of the links from google search

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...Sun+cosmology+


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...ncia_sol01.htm
Iron sun debate


The sun
http://www.omatumr.com/index1.html


Info on the sun
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/


The Sun’s Origin, Composition and Source of Energy
http://www.thesunisiron.com/archives/report_to_fcr.htm


NASA Calls on APL to Send a Probe to the Sun
http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pre...008/080501.asp

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory is sending a spacecraft closer to the sun than any probe has ever gone – and what it finds could revolutionize what we know about our star and the solar wind that influences everything in our solar system.

The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

Solar Abundance of Elements from Neutron-Capture Cross Sections
http://www.omatumr.com/PapersArxiv.html

Surface Evidence of an Iron-Rich Solar Interior and a Neutron-Rich Solar Core
http://www.omatumr.com/PapersArxiv.html

An Iron-Rich Sun and Its Source of Energy
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410646

An Iron-Rich Sun and Its Source of Energy
Authors: O. Manuel, A. Katragada
(Submitted on 27 Oct 2004)

Abstract: Mass-fractionation enriches light elements and the lighter isotopes of each element at the solar surface, making a photosphere that is 91 percent H and 9 percent He. The solar interior consists mostly of elements that comprise 99 percent of ordinary meteorites (Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca) elements made in the deep interior of a supernova. Solar energy arises from a series of nuclear reactions triggered by neutron-emission from the collapsed supernova core on which the Sun formed. Solar mass-fractionation, solar neutrinos, and the annual solar-wind outpouring of 3 E43 H atoms from the solar surface are by-products of solar luminosity.

Wow, lively debate! :-D

The SST vs BB debate was historically really interesting. At the time (1950s and 1960s-ish), there wasn't enough observational evidence to pin down which theory was correct and so there were big debates on the subject (actually, a really nice illustration of how science should work).

Gradually, relevant observational evidence started to accrue (the discovery of the CMB being a big one) which favoured BB theory. Nowadays, I would argue that the level of this evidence has become overwhelming.

I'm not sure if Fred Hoyle finally cam to accept BB theory, but at time (middle of 20th century) when this debate was ongoing, his position was scientifically very reasonable. I think he stuck to his guns for longer than he should have, which is to say he continued to support SST beyond the point where the observational data no longer supported it.

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

The Iron sun theory is backed by many scientists.

The one thing that scientists have read out of context in Prof Manuels papers is that they think that the sun has an Iron core.

Complete fabrications.

Mr Q , you say things without backing them up.

G'day (Q)


Thats your opinion.

Please read Prof Olivers profile than draw your conclusions.

Rich said

Gradually, relevant observational evidence started to accrue (the discovery of the CMB being a big one) which favoured BB theory. Nowadays, I would argue that the level of this evidence has become overwhelming.

I'm not sure if Fred Hoyle finally cam to accept BB theory, but at time (middle of 20th century) when this debate was ongoing, his position was scientifically very reasonable. I think he stuck to his guns for longer than he should have, which is to say he continued to support SST beyond the point where the observational data no longer supported it.

Both the SST and the BBT have their faults.

It will take years before we have a model that can expalin the observations of today.

As for the evidence by CMB being a big one. Check the evidence once again.
Its an opinion and not a fact.

Originally Posted by Rich_121

Wow, lively debate! :-D

The SST vs BB debate was historically really interesting. At the time (1950s and 1960s-ish), there wasn't enough observational evidence to pin down which theory was correct and so there were big debates on the subject (actually, a really nice illustration of how science should work).

Gradually, relevant observational evidence started to accrue (the discovery of the CMB being a big one) which favoured BB theory. Nowadays, I would argue that the level of this evidence has become overwhelming.

I'm not sure if Fred Hoyle finally cam to accept BB theory, but at time (middle of 20th century) when this debate was ongoing, his position was scientifically very reasonable. I think he stuck to his guns for longer than he should have, which is to say he continued to support SST beyond the point where the observational data no longer supported it.

To determine which universe is right, I suggest you get in touch with the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

Than read the Old Testament on the beginning of the universe.

Which do you consider to be more realistic?

In my opionion, the LoCaM wins hands down!

The BBT is nothing but 'power' science or more appropriately, Cosmogony.


Cosmo

Originally Posted by Rich_121

Wow, lively debate! :-D

The SST vs BB debate was historically really interesting. At the time (1950s and 1960s-ish), there wasn't enough observational evidence to pin down which theory was correct and so there were big debates on the subject (actually, a really nice illustration of how science should work).

Gradually, relevant observational evidence started to accrue (the discovery of the CMB being a big one) which favoured BB theory. Nowadays, I would argue that the level of this evidence has become overwhelming.

I'm not sure if Fred Hoyle finally cam to accept BB theory, but at time (middle of 20th century) when this debate was ongoing, his position was scientifically very reasonable. I think he stuck to his guns for longer than he should have, which is to say he continued to support SST beyond the point where the observational data no longer supported it.

Rich, welcome to this forum...

Although some feel Hoyle died (2001) feeling he was wrong, most agree he had not changed his mind.

SSU (Steady State Universe) is primarily regarded as an advanced state of the 'Eternal Universe' which has been accepted theory well back in History. BBT, which by any explanation is a creation of the Universe from a certain point, originally 2 Billion Years ago, to a now estimated 13.7-14.2 billion years ago. Religious philosophy/mythology first mention this spontaneous creation, dating well back before before even the acceptance of our earth orbiting the sun, or that the earth and mankind was the center of all things. 2500BC in Hindu Mythology and the Christan/Muslim explanations about 400-500 AD. The 'Big Bang' was first used by Fred Hoyle, think about 1950, while describing a Catholic Priest version (1927) of this spontaneous creation. There is a religious connection, doubt anyone would deny. Now called BBT (Big Bang Theory).

Most folks that question BBT, I am one, wonder how or why something could form from literally nothing or at best something unlike anything we can explain in Science, Chemistry or any current science. All the things given explanations today for that event, may be explained in other ways, while no explanation for how/why or in fact where enough of whatever this substance (soup to plasma) came from.
The laws of physics, which Cosmo relies are are said to not have existed, prior BB or that ours laws or accepted principles for existence, simply do not apply.

Then we read almost daily, some exotic idea to explain the unexplainable, or are told as you believe, the evidence is just to overwhelming for anything else. Have you read anything lately on Galaxy Formations, that had to have formed 10 BLY ago, or they would not fit BBT, which is accepted as just another unexplained phenomenon. IMO, there are as many ideas that agree with both SSU/BBT or that the issue is far from settled. My goal and think others, is to keep the subject in science, look at and study both or even new ideas and never ever, presume that one or another idea is correct or incorrect, because any one is regarded accepted.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


Jackson33
You said

Then we read almost daily, some exotic idea to explain the unexplainable, or are told as you believe, the evidence is just to overwhelming for anything else. Have you read anything lately on Galaxy Formations, that had to have formed 10 BLY ago, or they would not fit BBT, which is accepted as just another unexplained phenomenon. IMO, there are as many ideas that agree with both SSU/BBT or that the issue is far from settled. My goal and think others, is to keep the subject in science, look at and study both or even new ideas and never ever, presume that one or another idea is correct or incorrect, because any one is regarded accepted.

YEP

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Einsteins M/E formula is wrong or incomplete.

Cosmo

A picture is worth a thousand words...

The success of nuclear reactors doesn't prove that E= mc^2 It proves that matter and energy are interchangeable, but not what amount they exchange for.

E = M * (Some really big amount) is certainly true.

Whether that really big amount is exactly equal to C^2 is up for debate, especially since C is a constant, and we have to use constants in other parts of the equation in order to set our units right.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Cosmo

the reality of the ARP RS Anomalies

Wasting your time on studying 'nuclear' physics is 'backward' science.

Yes, don't use what works. Cling to kookdom. Follow Cosmo to your ultimate demise.

I half agree with you, because I'm actually pretty fascinated with nuclear science, but there's still a sort of attitude in this post that whatever over half the members of a group decide to believe should be taken as law.

Truth is not a democracy, Q.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Harry, our sun is not hot enough to produce iron. IT IS NOT HOT ENOUGH!

Who says it has to have produced it? The Earth isn't hot enough to produce Iron either, and yet it's got Iron in its composition.

The Sun wasn't always a star. Just like the Earth, it too formed at some point, and it probably didn't have just Hydrogen in it when it formed.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz


There are varies theories as to the formation of our solar system


One needs to look at the stages and rejuvination of stars and the process of a supernova. With in that the formation of all the elements.

Our solar sytem according to one theory originated from a supernova that left a compact core that the solar envelope built on. If this is correct than reseacrh to find out what the core is made from is a priority.

This is one reason why NASA is sending a probe to the Sun.

Well, I doubt we'll find anything to prove or disprove the sun having an iron core. It stands to reason that the sun would have been the first thing to form in the solar system, and it would have an easier time beating all the other objects to the punch if it had some iron to help it attract lighter matter.


I don't buy into the idea of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn having no heavy elements in their cores either. That whole idea is just silly. If nothing else, objects with heavy elements in them have probably crashed into them over the years.


Come to think of it: forget even needing iron at the time of its formation. The sun has likely been hit by enough iron bearing objects to have some iron content. And, unless there's already a heavier material at its center..... don't you think the iron would probably work its way there?

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Kojax said

I don't buy into the idea of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn having no heavy elements in their cores either. That whole idea is just silly. If nothing else, objects with heavy elements in them have probably crashed into them over the years.

They are gas giants because they hold onto the light gases. Yes it does have the heavier elements.

As for Iron in the Core I do not agree with. Iron and Ni would be found around the core. Elements fuse toward Fe and heavier elements fission down to Fe.

Iron compacts to about 10^5 kg/m3 under extreme conditions.

Neutrons compact to 10^17 Kg/m3. For this reason some say the core of the Sun is made from a Neutron composite. Do not forget that a proton + electron gives you a Neutron. Neutrons been Neutral are able to be compacted compared to Protons with a charge. You could say its a Hydrogen Atom with a slight change.

Because of the high density it allows the core to hold onto the solar envelope preventing it to expand out like a balloon. The Neutron high density keeps the temp within the solar envelope under control.

How the core releases energy and so on is another issue.

So, in a sense, compacted hydrogen is denser than iron?

(Hydrogen = proton + electron, so I'd say that effectively what you're describing is compacted hydrogen, so compact the proton and electron join to make a neutron)

Stars that fuse heavier elements than iron must do so at a net energy loss. Interesting. One has to wonder at how huge such a star must be.

G'day from the land of ozzz


Kojax said

So, in a sense, compacted hydrogen is denser than iron?

Yep, I think.

Stars that fuse heavier elements than iron must do so at a net energy loss. Interesting. One has to wonder at how huge such a star must be.

Not so big at all, our Sun does it, its good to be the Sun (Mel Brooks as King)

Maybe a bit of reading on R-process and S-process, may help in understanding.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+S-p.../0/1/0/all/0/1

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+r-p.../0/1/0/all/0/1


and P-process
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+p%2.../0/1/0/all/0/1


This link was interesting, if you are into reading.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608341

Sensitivity of p-Process Nucleosynthesis to Nuclear Reaction Rates in a 25 Solar Mass Supernova Model

Authors: W. Rapp, J. Goerres, M. Wiescher, H. Schatz, F. Kaeppeler
(Submitted on 16 Aug 2006)

Abstract: The astrophysical p process, which is responsible for the origin of the proton rich stable nuclei heavier than iron, was investigated using a full nuclear reaction network for a type II supernova explosion when the shock front passes through the O/Ne layer. Calculations were performed with a multi-layer model adopting the seed of a pre-explosion evolution of a 25 solar mass star. The reaction flux was calculated to determine the main reaction path and branching points responsible for synthesizing the proton rich nuclei. In order to investigate the impact of nuclear reaction rates on the predicted p-process abundances, extensive simulations with different sets of collectively and individually modified neutron-, proton-, alpha-capture and photodisintegration rates have been performed. These results are not only relevant to explore the nuclear physics related uncertainties in p-process calculations but are also important for identifying the strategy and planning of future experiments.

And

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601502

Stellar evolution of massive stars at very low metallicities

Authors: R. Hirschi, C. Fröhlich, M. Liebendörfer, F.-K. Thielemann
(Submitted on 23 Jan 2006)

Abstract: Recently, measurements of abundances in extremely metal poor (EMP) stars have brought new constraints on stellar evolution models. In an attempt to explain the origin of the abundances observed, we computed pre--supernova evolution models, explosion models and the related nucleosynthesis. In this paper, we start by presenting the pre-SN models of rotating single stars with metallicities ranging from solar metallicity down to almost metal free. We then review key processes in core-collapse and bounce, before we integrate them in a simplistic parameterization for 3D MHD models, which are well underway and allow one to follow the evolution of the magnetic fields during collapse and bounce. Finally, we present explosive nucleosynthesis results including neutrino interactions with matter, which are calculated using the outputs of the explosion models.
The main results of the pre-SN models are the following. First, primary nitrogen is produced in large amount in models with an initial metallicity $Z=10^{-8}$. Second, at the same metallicity of $Z=10^{-8}$ and for models with an initial mass larger than about 60 Mo, rotating models may experience heavy mass loss (up to more than half of the initial mass of the star). The chemical composition of these winds can qualitatively reproduce the abundance patterns observed at the surface of carbon-rich EMP stars. Explosive nucleosynthesis including neutrino-matter interactions produce improved abundances for iron group elements, in particular for scandium and zinc. It also opens the way to a new neutrino and proton rich process ($\nu$p-process) able to contribute to the nucleosynthesis of elements with A > 64. (Abridged)

I doubt if any stars reach the iron stage since that would require several phase transitions.
The heaviest surface stars observed were detected to have Heium as the outer component.
The iron in the stars are from the 'impacting bodies that all seem to contain iron.

Regarding elements heavier than iron, I think these elements are formed in the planet interiors like our Earth. After all, these elements are in the interior of our Earth.
The pressures and very high temperatures in the center of the Earth could be the cause of these fusions.

Cosmo