Cosmology

Re: Origins of the Universe

Kevin Bozard — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:44:08 GMT

Harry Costas:

I have gone out of my way to share information and all I get is negative emotions.

As you have on other forums that you have been banned from. You make your points repeatedly, but you can't seem to backup anything you present with enough scientific evidence to prove those points. Yet, your quest is to make everyone believe that what you're posting is fact. You may say that you've looked at both sides and based your beliefs on the one that is not filled with ad hoc ideas, yet your forceful support shows otherwise. Count this thread as another locked quest, as well as any others that you pursue in this fashion.

Re: Origins of the Universe

Harry Costas — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:09:53 GMT

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

I have gone out of my way to share information and all I get is negative emotions.

The link speaks of feedback, what do you think that means.

What do you think a cyclic process represents?

The process has to be explained via quantum mechanics.

Your not going to get a process that cycles the universe as a total.

So! go out of your way and read up on the workings of the parts within the universe.

Re: Origins of the Universe

Primordial — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:41:18 GMT

kuzinov : This is a quote from one of Harrys websites he gave as a reference "This image from NASA's Hubble, Chandra and Spitzer space telescopes shows a giant jet of particles that has been shot out from the vicinity of a type of supermassive black hole called a quasar. The jet is enormous, stretching across more than 100,000 light-years of space - a size comparable to our own Milky Way galaxy.".

Re: Origins of the Universe

kuzinov — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:34:18 GMT

I see nothing in that link that even remotely adresses what you're trying to tell us about a "recyclic" universe. You're still not offering anything to back up your points, it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python sketch when the man pays for an arguement.

Re: Origins of the Universe

zachsdad — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:21:58 GMT

Three of your four links go to empty pages. The fourth goes to a pretty picture of a jet. I don't doubt the existance of jets, or that in that one case a jet is directed at a galaxy. What there is no evidence of is that jets cause galaxy formation. Even in the one instance where the jet is directed at a neighboring galaxy, there is no mention of star formation due to it, or even any unusual star formation in the target galaxy. It is sheer coincidence. Your fantasy, sir has no clothes.

Re: Origins of the Universe

Harry Costas — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:14:12 GMT

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

To understand the cyclic process, one needs to understand how matter can alter from one phase to the next.

We see this transition in stars and compact stars and particulaly the so called black holes. Matter pulled into a dense object, changed to degenerate matter such as Neutron matrix, in time this matter is ejected from this matrix and reforms into normal matter. Simple processes.

Information on Black holes and their workings holds the key to a recylic process that will alter the thinking of modern cosmology.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3162
Instability of Black Hole Horizon With Respect to Electromagnetic Excitations

Authors: Alexander Burinskii
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2009 (this version, v2))

QUOTE

Abstract: Analyzing exact solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations in the Kerr-Schild formalism we show that black hole horizon is instable with respect to electromagnetic excitations. Contrary to perturbative smooth harmonic solutions, the exact solutions for electromagnetic excitations on the Kerr background are accompanied by singular beams which have very strong back reaction to metric and break the horizon, forming the holes which allow radiation to escape interior of black-hole. As a result, even the weak vacuum fluctuations break the horizon topologically, covering it by a set of fluctuating microholes. We conclude with a series of nontrivial consequences, one of which is that there is no information loss inside of black-hole.

Re: Origins of the Universe

Harry Costas — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:40:10 GMT

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

You have a choice to think what you want.

Someone asked about Jets.

Sun Jet movies
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007 ... ayjets.htm

Galaxy jets
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/00_rel ... 00pic.html

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/08_rel ... 11008.html

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/3c273/

'Death Star' Galaxy Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/07_rel ... 21707.html

"We've seen many jets produced by black holes, but this is the first time we've seen one punch into another galaxy like we're seeing here," said Dan Evans, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and leader of the study. "This jet could be causing all sorts of problems for the smaller galaxy it is pummeling."

and so on.

Magnetic reconnection is the Key Process.

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

Leo keep reading

Re: Origins of the Universe

leo731 — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:27:18 GMT

In case anyone missed this recent post on another cosmological thread by Harry:

Through out history people were held back because of existing assumptions and coontrols. The BBT is hypertheical built on ad hoc ideas that observations cannot back up. So why is that people have assumed the BBT to be a fact, than calculate to age the universe without the understandings of its working parts.

Know this, in deep field images 13.2 billion light years away we observe about 100 billion galaxies, knowing the complexity and the billions of stars that make up one galaxy, you would think that modern scientists would comeup with a stronger theory than the BBT. Behind the scenes there are many scientist working extremely hard in trying to understand the working parts. The BBT backed up by the church and politics has restricted funds to only the BBT projects making it the standard model. Whre scientist researched alternative models they were removed from the project and their working place.

It now obvious why you are so disdainful of anyone or anything connected to the BBT theory. This is a paranoid and utterly unscientific attitude that cannot help but warp your outlook and puts you in a place that makes any argument, any evidence, and any theory that doesn't fit into your cherished doctrine unacceptable and not open to serious debate.

Since this is your thread I will allow you to rave on all that you like but it should be clear to anyone that reads this that your opinions and documentation are highly suspect and should be treated with the utmost incredulity.

Re: Origins of the Universe

zachsdad — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:42:08 GMT

Harry,

Please format your responses to fit the viewing windows of the forum. These colorful, oversized blocks of text are very annoying, and inconsiderate.

Long ago in this thread I asked a question that you ignored. I will ask it again. Can you show us any observational evidence substantiating your claim to a re-cycling universe? You say that jets begit galaxies. Where is this happening? We can see galaxy mergers taking place, we can see rough young galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field, but I have yet to see even one galaxy which can be linked to a jet. The only thing I see being recycled here is your argument.

Re: Origins of the Universe

kuzinov — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:58:56 GMT

Sorry, I'm just not buying into these arguments. I find it very difficult to believe some sort of shadow anti-universe is sending it's gravity here. For starters, that would be anti-gravitons, which I highly doubt would work well in this Universe. I'm not buying into the jet hypothesis either. Anything emitting that much matter would be easily seen, galaxies are made of lots and lots of matter.

It's been made abundantly clear that some people here don't believe in BBT, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinions. The trouble I'm having is the fast and loose definition of science in this thread, just because you don't like a theory doesn't make it invalid, it just means you don't like it. Some of the ideas being thrown about here are for one, at the fringe of cosmology and some sound way more fantastic than the Big Bang itself. I have a major problem when a paper says things like "let's throw some conjecture in here", especially when it's being linked as proving how poor some of our scientific understanding is. I'm not interested in conjecture, I want observable data. There's plenty for an expanding Universe and while all the details haven't been perfectly proven, it's a far better theory than some of the ideas being cast about here. It just strikes me that there's some people here who would grab on to any other theory, just as long as it isn't the BBT and that's poor science indeed.

Re: Origins of the Universe

Harry Costas — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:34:12 GMT

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

These links alter the meaning of black holes and thus alter the way we see things working. It re-enforces a cyclic process.

Beam-like Excitations of Kerr-Schild Geometry and Semiclassical Mechanism of Black-Hole Evaporation

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2365

Authors: Alexander Burinskii

(Submitted on 13 Mar 2009)

Abstract: It has been shown (gr-qc/0511131) that exact solutions for electromagnetic (EM) excitations of the Kerr-Schild (KS) geometry form outgoing beams which have very strong back reaction to metric and break the BH horizon. As a result, interaction of a BH with EM vacuum covers the horizon by a set of fluctuating microholes (0705.3551[hep-th]). We show here that twosheeted twistor structure of the KS geometry corresponds to a holographic structure of quantum BH spacetimes, and scattering of the ingoing vacuum take place on the holographically dual 2+1 source of the Kerr BH. We obtain the corresponding exact KS solutions and show that outgoing radiation contains two components: a) the singular set of the beam pulses which are responsible for the transparency of the horizon and b) regular component which are responsible for BH evaporation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551

Links below 2 off

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131

Rotating "Black Holes" with Holes in the Horizon

Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli

(Submitted on 24 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2006 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Kerr-Schild solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell field equations, containing semi-infinite axial singular lines, are investigated.

It is shown that axial singularities break up the black hole, forming holes in the horizon. As a result, a tube-like region appears which allows matter to escape from the interior without crossing the horizon. It is argued that axial singularities of this kind, leading to very narrow beams, can be created in black holes by external electromagnetic or gravitational excitations and may be at the origin of astrophysically observable effects such as jet formation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551

Aligned electromagnetic excitations of a black hole and their impact on its quantum horizon

Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli

(Submitted on 24 May 2007 (v1), last revised 29 Dec 2008 (this version, v5))

Abstract: We show that elementary aligned electromagnetic excitations of black holes, as coming from exact Kerr-Schild solutions, represent light-like beam pulses which have a very strong back reaction on the metric and change the topology of the horizon.

Based on York's proposal, that elementary deformations of the BH horizon are related with elementary vacuum fluctuations, we analyze deformation of the horizon caused by the beam-like vacuum fluctuations and obtain a very specific feature of the topological deformations of the horizon. In particular, we show how the beams pierce the horizon, forming a multitude of micro holes in it. A conjecture is taken into consideration, that these specific excitations are connected with the conformal-analytic properties of the Kerr geometry and are at the base of the emission mechanism.

Re: Origins of the Universe

Harry Costas — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:49:19 GMT

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Chip your 110% correct.

The following link is very interesting.

It's not a question of me being correct, its a question of science evidence and whether it can be tested an proven. In many cases evidence here one day gone the next.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2402

A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some Theory Developed Over the Last 90 Years

Authors: Geoffrey Burbidge

(Submitted on 14 Nov 2008)

Abstract: This meeting is entitled "A Century of Cosmology." But most of the papers being given here are based on work done very recently and there is really no attempt being made to critically review what has taken place in the last 90 or 100 years. Instead, in general the participants accept without question that cosmology equates to "hot big bang cosmology" with all of its bells and whistles. All of the theory and the results obtained from observations are interpreted on the assumption that this extremely popular model is the correct one, and observers feel that they have to interpret its results in terms of what this theory allows. No one is attempting to seriously test the model with a view to accepting it or ruling it out. They are aware, as are the theorists, that there are enough free parameters available to fix up almost any model of the type.

The current scheme given in detail for example by Spergel et al (206, 2007) demonstrates this. How we got to this stage is never discussed, and little or no attention is paid to the observations obtained since the 1960s on activity in the centers of galaxies and what they imply. We shall show that they are an integral part of a realistic cosmological model. In this paper I shall take a different approach, showing first how cosmological ideas have developed over the last 90 years and where mistakes have been made. I shall conclude with a realistic model in which all of the observational material is included, and compare it with the popular model. Not surprisingly I shall show that there remain many unsolved problems, and previously unexpected observations, most of which are ignored or neglected by current observers and theorists, who believe that the hot big bang model must be correct.

Re: Origins of the Universe

chipdatajeffB — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:13:34 GMT

We (moderators) have deleted a post and reply here today that got personal.

Let's please keep the discussion about the issue and not about the people (members).

Re: Origins of the Universe

kuzinov — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:37:51 GMT

Okay Harry we get it, you don't believe in the BBT. But, most of us do, there's tons of documentation out there backing it up, there's no need for any of us here to prove it to you personally, you're more than qualified to go to library and read Brief History of Time or other texts. We also don't need to be hammered endlessly by you and fluflu. Most of us understand the theory quite well and are quite happy with the ramifications. You're not going to change our minds so please stop trying. I really don't appreciate the way you're talking to Gary who has written very well thought out posts on this matter. What you need to understand is the position you are taking is at the fringe and it's no real surprise the reception it's getting.

Re: Origins of the Universe

Harry Costas — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:17:56 GMT

G'day from the land of ozzzz

This paper maybe of interest to some. If you wish to read , than do so, if you wish to discuss it than do so. I just thought it is worth sharing. Do I think its correct, my opinion is not that important.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3354
How flat can you get? A model comparison perspective on the curvature of the Universe
Authors: Mihran Vardanyan (Oxford), Roberto Trotta (Imperial College London), Joe Silk (Oxford)

(Submitted on 21 Jan 2009)

Abstract: The question of determining the spatial geometry of the Universe is of greater relevance than ever, as precision cosmology promises to verify inflationary predictions about the curvature of the Universe. We revisit the question of what can be learnt about the spatial geometry of the Universe from the perspective of a three-way Bayesian model comparison. We show that, given current data, the probability that the Universe is spatially infinite lies between 67% and 98%, depending on the choice of priors. For the strongest prior choice, we find odds of order 50:1 (200:1) in favour of a flat Universe when compared with a closed (open) model. We also report a robust, prior-independent lower limit to the number of Hubble spheres in the Universe, N_U > 5 (at 99% confidence). We forecast the accuracy with which future CMB and BAO observations will be able to constrain curvature, finding that a cosmic variance limited CMB experiment together with an SKA-like BAO observation will constrain curvature with a precision of about sigma ~ 4.5x10^{-4}. We demonstrate that the risk of 'model confusion' (i.e., wrongly favouring a flat Universe in the presence of curvature) is much larger than might be assumed from parameter errors forecasts for future probes. We argue that a 5-sigma detection threshold guarantees a confusion- and ambiguity-free model selection. Together with inflationary arguments, this implies that the geometry of the Universe is not knowable if the value of the curvature parameter is below |Omega_curvature| ~ 10^{-4}, a bound one order of magnitude larger than the size of curvature perturbations, ~ 10^{-5}. [abridged]