Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Zero Point Energy examples around Ball Lightning, Comets, Spritesup to Quasars
Next: Connect the 9-11 Dots to Israel
From: Yousuf Khan on 9 Apr 2010 13:55 Surfer wrote: > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:01:22 -0400, Yousuf Khan > <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Surfer wrote: >>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:34:05 -0400, Yousuf Khan >>> <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is >>>> evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed >>>> distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at >>>> the time," he added. >>>> >>> This paper obtains an older age for the universe: >>> >>> ".....The data and theory together imply an older age for the universe >>> of some 14.7Gyrs...." >>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569 >>> >>> Maybe that can resolve the issue. >> There are a number of different measurements that result in different >> ages for the universe, but I thought they were all converging around the >> 13.7 Gyr average. At 14.7 Gyr, that would be quite a bit higher than the >> average. >> > In this case the older age results from using a theory that differs > from GR. The same data then gives a different age. > > If analysis using GR is giving ages that are too young when compared > with other observations, that might be a sign that the new theory is > better. The problem is that there are conflicting results. You can measure the age of the universe through various radio isotope measurements. You can measure by simply running the Big Bang film backwards. You measure it with red shifts, etc. Others use the look of distant galaxies to determine their maturity. So it's all coming up with slightly different ages. The theory that says 14.7 Gyrs would be in conflict with a half dozen other theories, with equally valid POV's. Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 10 Apr 2010 11:22 Brad Guth wrote: > On Apr 7, 2:59 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Brad Guth wrote: >>> I'll buy that it's way older than 13.75e9 years, if not more than 10 >>> fold older. >>> ~ BG >> If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg. >> Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just >> reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current >> incarnation. >> >> Yousuf Khan > > Correct, as far as anyone knows we've been sucked into black holes and > reincarnated dozens upon dozens of times. Perhaps our next demise and > subsequent incarnation is within "The Great Attractor", along with > dozens of other galaxies headed from all directions into the same dark > and scary location. I was talking about subatomic particles (such as protons, neutrons, electrons, etc.) being destroyed and reborn during Big Bangs and Big Crunches. I wasn't suggesting that they would again form the exact same complex things such as humans or even specific individual humans, such as you or me. As for whether we'd be reborn into the Great Attractor, I doubt that, as that's a structure within our current universe. It too would be destroyed during the next dying phase of the universe, along with everything else. When the universe rebirths itself, then there's no guarantee that the Great Attractor will be reborn, or even anything similar to it. Yousuf Khan
From: Brad Guth on 11 Apr 2010 17:13 On Apr 10, 8:22 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > Brad Guth wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2:59 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Brad Guth wrote: > >>> I'll buy that it's way older than 13.75e9 years, if not more than 10 > >>> fold older. > >>> ~ BG > >> If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg. > >> Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just > >> reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current > >> incarnation. > > >> Yousuf Khan > > > Correct, as far as anyone knows we've been sucked into black holes and > > reincarnated dozens upon dozens of times. Perhaps our next demise and > > subsequent incarnation is within "The Great Attractor", along with > > dozens of other galaxies headed from all directions into the same dark > > and scary location. > > I was talking about subatomic particles (such as protons, neutrons, > electrons, etc.) being destroyed and reborn during Big Bangs and Big > Crunches. I wasn't suggesting that they would again form the exact same > complex things such as humans or even specific individual humans, such > as you or me. > > As for whether we'd be reborn into the Great Attractor, I doubt that, as > that's a structure within our current universe. It too would be > destroyed during the next dying phase of the universe, along with > everything else. When the universe rebirths itself, then there's no > guarantee that the Great Attractor will be reborn, or even anything > similar to it. > > Yousuf Khan Perhaps our GA is a cosmic hyper wormhole over to the next universe. At any rate, the human species will have failed at exist long before our red giant or white dwarf sun ever gets us that far. ~ BG
From: Brad Guth on 11 Apr 2010 20:47 On Apr 8, 9:39 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear BRad Guth: > > On Apr 8, 9:20 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 8, 5:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4/8/10 7:09 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > ... > > > > Tell us what's within the barycenter called "The > > > > Great Attractor"? > > > > Slight concentration of galactic cluster mass... > > > it happens. > > > invisible galactic cluster mass? > > We've discovered entire galaxies that are close, but were invisible > simply because they had few hot stars. We've found the missing normal > matter in intergalactic space, as ionized hydrogen and oxygen atoms. > Dark Matter. The things we cannot see appear to be legion... > > David A. Smith Sounds good. So what is the new all-inclusive mass of our universe? ~ BG
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Apr 2010 20:59
On 4/11/10 7:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > On Apr 8, 9:39 pm, dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> Dear BRad Guth: >> >> On Apr 8, 9:20 pm, Brad Guth<bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 8, 5:24 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/8/10 7:09 PM, Brad Guth wrote: >> ... >>>>> Tell us what's within the barycenter called "The >>>>> Great Attractor"? >> >>>> Slight concentration of galactic cluster mass... >>>> it happens. >> >>> invisible galactic cluster mass? >> >> We've discovered entire galaxies that are close, but were invisible >> simply because they had few hot stars. We've found the missing normal >> matter in intergalactic space, as ionized hydrogen and oxygen atoms. >> Dark Matter. The things we cannot see appear to be legion... >> >> David A. Smith > > Sounds good. So what is the new all-inclusive mass of our universe? > > ~ BG The WMAP data give the most precise values for the density of ordinary [baryonic] matter made of protons and neutrons: 0.4 yoctograms per cubic meter, and for the total of dark and baryonic matter: 2.5 yoctograms per cubic meter. These correspond to omega_b = 0.0224 +/- 0.0009 and omega_m = 0.135 +/- 0.009. |