Please post more Harry. I'm still in the process of gathering the literature...

G'day MCM

I will start posting Friday after work.

Its time for bed,,,,,,,,,Thursday 10:07 PM Sydney

 

 

 

This is rather long and contains some elements that are not to be discussed here, but it is a comprehensive discussion of the Big Bang Theory and the evidence that supports it, as well as the the current and past objections to the theory:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

If you have been reading the torrent of links listed above I would urge you to read this one.

L

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Re the link

 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

I have read this link many times, it is well written.

And yet it falls short of actually providing evidence.

Leo731, since you mentioned the link.

What evidence do you think it provides?

 

 

 

 Thanks Leo, I'll check it out. Looks like it is well referenced, so that is good.

   M.C.Malkemus : May I ask your opinion on this statement taken from that wp. Note that the velocity in question, was on the stars in the galactic center and not the flatness of the velocity curve under the subtitle Dark Matter.                             

"The origin of dark matter as an astronomical entity comes not from cosmology, but rather from the work of Zwicky and Oort in 1933 and 1940, respectively. Zwicky's studies of galaxies' velocities in large clusters convinced him that there must be more mass present in the clusters (in order to provide sufficient gravitational pull to keep the clusters from flying apart) than could be accounted for by the visible mass of the galaxies themselves. Likewise, Oort's measurement of the rotation curves of galaxies (essentially, the orbital velocity of stars around the galactic center plotted against the stars' radii) suggested that the mass interior to these stellar orbits indicated by simple Newtonian physics did not match the mass inferred by the light from the centers of those galaxies. Both of these observations were made well before modern cosmology had really taken shape and, hence, were independent of any need for dark matter to make cosmological measurements match the theory. More on the history of dark matter can be found here and in van den Bergh (1999). ",       

 I was under the impression the problem was with the high velocity of the stars in the outter reaches of the Galaxy.

Primordial:

I was under the impression the problem was with the high velocity of the stars in the outter reaches of the Galaxy.

That came much later, I believe (Faber, et al) ...

chipdatajeffB : I thought Mr. Zwicky's work was done on the Coma Cluster not on the Galaxys. I was unaware of that study.

 It's a good question, one which I don't have any idea about right now. I'll think about it and get back to you if I come up with a comment of interest.

Zwicky's interests were wide-ranging. The ones I'm most familiar with (and I'm no expert on Zwicky) are his surveys of supernovae and galaxies.

For some interesting reading, Google "Zwicky knew" ... a phrase which has become a bumper sticker -- a sign you "have arrived" and pretty rare for an astrophysicist or astronomer.

chipdatajeffB : I haven't looked yet, but thank you for your info.

Primordial,

I'll respond from my own biased lens on cosmology, if for no other reason than to play devil's advocate, and because I'm not convinced dark matter exists yet.

Whenever the explanation of dark matter came about, to either help explain why galaxies are moving away from us faster or to help explain why individual galaxies spin the way they do, it strikes me that we haven't detected one particle of dark matter, even though it is supposed to be the most abundant type of matter in the universe. Granted, this may be simply because we are not yet sophisticated enough to detect it... but it may also be similar to 'phlogiston': it was a good explanation for combustion until we understood the real reason for oxidation. Remember, phlogiston was a scientific theory almost for a century. Everything known indicated phlogiston, but it was dead wrong.

Concerning the rapidly accelerating galaxies at the farthest reaches of our current observation ability... I think  there is a very simple reason for this. 

Imagine concentric circles of one light year each (easier to visualize than spheres for now). Initially, for each additional circle, light travels away from us seemingly very fast. Once 10 billion spheres are added however, even though light is still traveling the same speed, it seems to be moving very slowly, or not at all. If distant galaxies moved away from us at precisely the same average speed, the further away from us they are, the faster they appear to move, even though all galaxies are moving at the same speed away from us. Now all this is assuming that space is expanding.

Now assume space is not expanding, assume no dark matter, and assume galaxies are shrinking, giving rise to the illusion that space is expanding.

So why would galaxies shrink? What we do know, is that super massive black holes form the center of mature galaxies. When two galaxies subsume each other, their SMBHs eventually become one SMBH and the two galaxies become one larger galaxy... for a time. Eventually, the SMBH reduces the size of the galaxy of what each galaxy was prior to subsumption. So in a local group, where ten galaxies existed, now there are nine. It stands to reason that if no additional matter is subsumed into a galaxy, eventually the SMBH absorbs all matter in the galaxy, and the galaxy disappears. Now where there were nine, there are eight galaxies.

Since this process is occurring all across the universe, there is relatively more space over time, and fewer galaxies to fill the space: space appears to expand, but it is just an illusion.

Prediction Hsub1: if this reasoning is incorrect, and space actually does expand, we should be able to view galaxies at the far reaches of the visible universe, slowly disappearing from our sight over time as they move outside the limit of the cumulative speed of light, and we can no longer view them: they will be moving faster than light relative to us. This will be measurable in all outer edge galaxies as they slowly diminish in their level of light over a period of years...

Prediction Hsub2: if this reasoning is correct, then we will not see galaxies disappearing past the outer limit of observation, because space is not expanding. (Although according to my theory (link at the top of these posts) we should see about half of the galaxies appearing and half of them disappearing over time, but that's another conversation.)

 

I did this rather quickly, let me know if something isn't clear.

M.C.Malkemus : Yes I understand your concept, in a manner this is what happens in space-time, mass controls the space-time relativistic magnitude relative to another observer.   

M.C.Malkemus:

Imagine concentric circles of one light year each (easier to visualize than spheres for now). Initially, for each additional circle, light travels away from us seemingly very fast. Once 10 billion spheres are added however, even though light is still traveling the same speed, it seems to be moving very slowly, or not at all.

This (the underlined part) is not observed. The frequency is shifted, but the velocity hasn't changed. Light doesn't "get tired" ... at least, it's not observed to do so.

M.C.Malkemus:

Now assume space is not expanding, assume no dark matter, and assume galaxies are shrinking, giving rise to the illusion that space is expanding.

I may be misreading you there. I take shrink to mean get smaller. Do you mean that, or do you mean they come closer together, or do you mean they do both?

... Eventually, the SMBH reduces the size of the galaxy of what each galaxy was prior to subsumption ... eventually the SMBH absorbs all matter in the galaxy, and the galaxy disappears.

So what happens to the mass? The gravitational effect would be the same, only operating over a different distance.

??

... there is relatively more space over time, and fewer galaxies to fill the space: space appears to expand, but it is just an illusion.

Does this follow logically from your previous argument? I don't think so. I take it you do not mean that due to the action of SMBHs space is being created, just that it is being emptied of matter. Is that what you meant? What is the observational evidence ... I mean, what would we look for? If current theories of BH evolution are even approximately correct, this process would take literally forever ... yet the observed effect you suggest is illusory already has occurred.

??

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Matter that enters a so called black hole adds mass to it. The mass is never lost.

Some say that there is a critical limit that the Black hole reaches 50 G Sun masses.

The biggest recorded BH is about 20 G Sun mass and very active altering not just its galaxy but other galaxies afar.

The idea that nothing can escape from a black hole in my opinion is not correct. The infalling vector force produce an event type of Horizon where the vector forces are greater than the escape velocity of EMR. The internal parts of the black hole made from Neutrinos, quarks, Neutrons what ever are known to have plasma properties that create jets vortex magnetic fields that are able to keep this stable for millions of years as shown in many images of giant jets. 

If you treat the so called BH as a physical ID than you can apply properties known to science.

If you wish science papers on these I will post them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Harry Costas:

The biggest recorded BH is about 20 G Sun mass and very active altering not just its galaxy but other galaxies afar.

... If you wish science papers on these I will post them.

I'd like to see something on the underlined part, above, if it describes something other than action by jets (e.g., gravitational effects).

chipdatajeffB:

M.C.Malkemus:

  it seems to be moving very slowly, or not at all.

This (the underlined part) is not observed. The frequency is shifted, but the velocity hasn't changed. Light doesn't "get tired" ... at least, it's not observed to do so.

 Agreed. I'm only referring at this point to what light looks like moving away from us, not towards us. The point I wish to make is that if light is moving away from us, it appears to move very fast when closer to us, and slower when farther away, even though it is moving at the same speed. If a light year sphere is added (increasing our depth of view by one light year) to the 10 billionth sphere from earth, it doesn't add much extra volume to what is already there, and the difference is hardly noticeable.

...

Yes, just emptied of matter, making space appear to be more relative to the smaller matter content of he universe.

OK, I understand. But the underlined part isn't what's observed re: dark energy and dark matter. The motions of galaxies demonstrate the "missing" matter. These motions don't just include what we'd observe as shrinking. they include large-scale relative motion that could not uniquely be attributed to shrinkage effects. In other words, there is more to relative galaxy motions than Hubble flow.

... the degradation of radioactive elements into smaller more stable atoms ...

Less massive does not necessarly mean smaller (in volume).

... and stellar evolution collapsing very large stars into neutron stars ...

The currently accepted model for this part of stellar evolution does not invoke dark energy or dark matter. This and the preceding point are in no way similar, though both require action on the atomic scale: radioactive decay is a direct result of action at the atomic scale, while the formation of a neutron star is a physical action that results in destruction of elements at the atomic scale (i.e., is an applied "outside force" at the atomic scale).

There are many observable phenomenon that could account for galaxy shrinkage. 

I don't have the maths for these additive shrinkage events, yet they are observable, and so far, dark matter and dark energy are not.

Neither is gravity. This is another case where we infer an action from its effects. The fact that we can't observe dark matter or dark energy directly is not evidence they don't exist.

To put this shoe back on the other (standard model) foot, to be fair, we don't "see" the force that causes the Universe to expand: we see its effects (we can detect and measure redshift, for example). We can detect and measure motion-induced changes in the frequencies of electromagnetic radiation locally. It is no big leap to apply those same effects over larger distances and times.

How would we do the same for shrinkage?

Oddly enough, the one thing that would support my theory more than anything else, is if a phenomenon exists that we cannot test for: atomic shrinkage.

If all atoms are slowly shrinking, this would give rise to many of the known observations we see in the universe with a simple explanation. 

I suppose there would be one way to prove it. If we could observe other moons 'traveling away from thier hosts' at exactly the same rate as our moon does from the earth, this could establish a constant for atomic shrinkage.