Gary Kent,

Your mathematical modeling for universe growth is impressive. The beginning parameters are definitely something to be explored. My personal opinion is that although we can study and come close in imitating some of the parameters mathematically, I don’t think that we have all of the parameters involved, nor do we have a full knowledge of how they interact with each other under varying conditions involving the evolution of the universe, especially at it‘s beginning.

For instance, you mentioned Alan Guth’s idea of equilibrium through hyper inflation. Maybe it did not occur this way. At the time that he put forth his theory, they had not yet discovered dark energy, and that the expansion of the universe seemed to be speeding up, since about 5 billion years ago. However the idea that equilibrium occurred has not really come under question, because observations show that the universe is homogenous to a great degree. The real question is how did it occur.

If it didn’t happen by hyper inflation then maybe equilibrium occurred by the universe expanding very slowly in the beginning. Very slowly. If your model has an expansion or growth constant that is constant, then how does that affect the early growth of the universe? In other words if the expansion rate is faster now than it was a few billion years ago, did it’s expansion in the more distant past continue to show that it was slower? What does your model show? Are we truly in a new epoch of inflation or did the beginning of our universe expand in slow motion, and then start speeding up as matter continued to be spread out, until it reached it’s current speed today? Has it been a truly bumpy ride, or is your model showing a smooth transition in growth rate?

When does dark matter enter the picture as far as the growth of the universe is concerned? What kind of parameters do you use in describing it’s consistency and influence on our universe? If your model predicts a rate of growth starting from a singularity, then it should also make a prediction as to how large it is now.  Does it?

Please Gary, give us a little more detail as to what your models have been able to show. I am curious.

G'day from the land of ozzz

People assume the BBT is correct than proceed to assume there was a start to it all, than people talk about growth of the universe, rather than try to undertand the working parts within the universe and how they evolve. 

As a start look at the evolution of galaxies. How their form changes shape.

 

 

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

I like to share this interesting link. There is one more, after I read it I will post it.

 Why is there so much confusion between expansion and acceleration and no expansion or acceleration?

You would think that the scientists can reslove such simple issues.

[0809.0537] Cosmographic Hubble fits to the supernova data
Cosmographic Hubble fits to the supernova data

Authors: Celine Cattoen (Victoria University of Wellington), Matt Visser (Victoria University of Wellington)
(Submitted on 3 Sep 2008)

 

Happy New Year from the land of ozzzzz

The age of stars, cluster of stars, stellar black holes, larger stellar black holes, huge black holes, supermassive black holes.

They all go through a cyclic process that alster their age.

Every time we date stars we date them with their existing properties that we can see.

Many paper will put the age of stars upto 13.2 Grs, other 15 Gyrs and other 17 Gyrs.

Now do you date a cluster of 1 million stars, a stellar black hole 3 million stars, a huge BH 3 billion, a super massive black hole 18 Billion sun masses with a life span estimated ove 10^50 yrs.

One needs to work out their origin, evolution and so on.

Just to rely on the BBT and call everything 13.7 Gyrs is a cop out and not very scientific.

Are we living in the dark ages that we cannot tell that the KING is not wearing invisible robes. 

 

 

 

Harry Costas:

... Many paper will put the age of stars up to 13.2 Grs, other 15 Gyrs and other 17 Gyrs.

I'm not aware of published work for the latter--I thought that figure was dumped in the mid-1980s. Do you have a favorite link you could provide for me to read? And what about those 20Gyr-old Milky Way stars you mentioned in another post?

I'd be very interested in reading something recent about either of those ...

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

How awear are you?

Are you worried about being right or having a better understanding?

 

 

 

 

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 G'day from the land of ozzz

Maybe reading about Jets and there formation may explain whats in black holes.

At the end of the day, nobody really knows because we have not seen a black hole or even an event horizon.
But the folowing links for those interested in reading up, is quite fascinating.


Relativistic poynting jets
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1


Accretion flow transonic
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1

Than again what do you think degenerate matter is?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2034
Transonic properties of the accretion disk around compact objects

Authors: Banibrata Mukhopadhyay
(Submitted on 13 Nov 2008)

Abstract: An accretion flow is necessarily transonic around a black hole. However, around a neutron star it may or may not be transonic, depending on the inner disk boundary conditions influenced by the neutron star. I will discuss various transonic behavior of the disk fluid in general relativistic (or pseudo general relativistic) framework. I will address that there are four types of sonic/critical point possible to form in an accretion disk. It will be shown that how the fluid properties including location of sonic points vary with angular momentum of the compact object which controls the overall disk dynamics and outflows

.


and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3401
The X-ray Jets of Active Galaxies

Authors: D.M. Worrall (University of Bristol)
(Submitted on 17 Dec 2008)

Abstract: Jet physics is again flourishing as a result of Chandra's ability to resolve high-energy emission from the radio-emitting structures of active galaxies and separate it from the X-ray-emitting thermal environments of the jets. These enhanced capabilities have coincided with an increasing interest in the link between the growth of super-massive black holes and galaxies, and an appreciation of the likely importance of jets in feedback processes. I review the progress that has been made using Chandra and XMM-Newton observations of jets and the medium in which they propagate, addressing several important questions, including: Are the radio structures in a state of minimum energy? Do powerful large-scale jets have fast spinal speeds? What keeps jets collimated? Where and how does particle acceleration occur? What is jet plasma made of? What does X-ray emission tell us about the dynamics and energetics of radio plasma/gas interactions? Is a jet's fate determined by the central engine?

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0923
Dynamics of black holes

Authors: Sean A. Hayward
(Submitted on 6 Oct 2008)

Abstract: This is a review of current theory of black-hole dynamics, concentrating on the framework in terms of trapping horizons. Summaries are given of the history, the classical theory of black holes, the defining ideas of dynamical black holes, the basic laws, conservation laws for energy and angular momentum, other physical quantities and the limit of local equilibrium. Some new material concerns how processes such as black-hole evaporation and coalescence might be described by a single trapping horizon which manifests temporally as separate horizons.

This process of forming jets will be the most important process to understand.

It will explain the phase changes in star formation and the various forms of galaxy evolution and possibly explain the universe and how its parts work.

 

Harry Costas:

Are you worried about being right or having a better understanding?

OK, well, that is helpful exactly how?

What would help me gain a better understanding is learning how someone gets the idea there are 20Gyr-old stars in the Milky Way ... a question that's been asked here several times now, without answer ... or did I miss something?

It's not a matter of "there are such stars, or there are not" ... it's a matter of learning how someone gets that idea, the techniques used to show those ages, how the data were reduced, etc.

If stars older than a galaxy exist in the galaxy (especially if they exist in surprisingly large numbers or are extraordinarily "old" relative to our concept of stellar evolution), then something is wrong with our current understanding of either stellar evolution, or galaxy evolution, or both.

I'd be quite surprised to learn there is nothing wrong with our current understanding ... but this would be quite a stretch, so it'd be an interesting read (whether it ultimately turned out to be true, or not).

 ...and we believe the consistant Histories theory, we shouldn;t even ask how old those stars are....or dinousuars for that matter.

lol

 

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

If you think along the lines of the Big Bang than, you will think along those lines.

If you have passion to learn what the hell is going on than you will need to change your line of thinking.

 Read some of the papers from

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.10.htm

 Or

Wait for several years until it becomes main stream. 

 

 

 

You can go to all kinds of goofy places on the internet, that will tell you just about anything you want to hear. If you want to believe that the Earth was created in a literal 6 - 24 hour days, you can find websites supposedly proving such. If you want to believe that the universe springs eternal, you can find such websites, but if you are looking for the truth then you have to be open minded and examine the evidence. Hubble didn’t have an agenda when he found that galaxies are traveling away from each other. Radio active isotopes breakdown at steady rates indicating how long things have been around. Fossil evidence shows certain proofs about how long the earth has been around. That light travels at a certain speed and from certain distances in the past, all amount to evidence of age, and certain activities of the universe. If you have a belief system that you are unwilling to change no matter what the evidence indicates, then you must somehow come up with an alternate explanation that will explain away the evidence. (such as 20 billion year old stars, that don’t exist.) You must make up stories to keep your belief system intact. Misleading others though should be a crime.

DM:

I don't think he meant disparity in age determination relative to "authorities" such as Biblical ones ... I think he meant consistent histories in the quantum mechanical sense. Now, I don't think that applies here directly, but it's interesting reading if you haven't looked it up before.

Harry Costas:

... If you have passion to learn what the hell is going on than you will need to change your line of thinking.

 Read some of the papers from

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.10.htm

Let's make this really simple, in case there are other simpletons besides me who want to understand it.

Will you please provide a citation or link to support your assertion that there are stars which are 20Gyrs old in the Milky Way?

This is really, really simple, Harry. You said it. I asked you for a reference. I'd like something a good deal more direct than a pointer to home page of the Alternative Cosmologies Web site. I did not see the reference there.

 

Jeff,

In my last comment I was in no way being derogatory towards the Bible. I have the utmost respect for the Book. I know that the Bible’s creative days were not literal 24 hour days.

I was also in no way referring to anything that “test” has written either. My comments are directed at people who ignore real scientific discoveries and evident realities, in order maintain what they want to believe.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello dusty, the bible and science should never be discussed together.

Hello Chip:

Mate, if you think along the lines of the BBT it does not matter what evidence I give you.

But! Do a simple calculation.

Deep field images 13.2 Gys show over 100 billion galaxies.

These galaxies are similar to the local galaxies ranging in form. Their stars have a dating upto about 12 or more.

13.2 + 12 = 25.2 yrs

This is not taking in consideration any rejuvination.

In our galaxy they have dated stars upto 18 Grs and question how they can be if the estimated BBT age is 13.7 Grs.

I for one do not think along the lines of the BBT, that means I'm free to apply science to the logic. 

 

 

 

 

Sigh.

"They" who? Where? When?

I guess I'm done, since this isn't leading anywhere ...

read the bible. There is no past nor future only the eternal present. What is interesting is that many mathematicians are now adhering to this view. I know that the bible is not a scientifically accurate book but it is interesting. -- Mike-- p.s. write after the big band there existed only sub atomic particles which coalesced over different periods of time. The laws of physics at that time were not yet set so indeed these particles travelled much faster than the speed of light.This is the time when the "theory for everything was initiated" which Einstein tried to discover without success.

Harry,

 You wrote: "These galaxies are similar to the local galaxies ranging in form. Their stars have a dating upto about 12 or more.".  This is not true!  The Hubble deep field shows an evolution in galaxies from the earliest and most disorganized to current structures as a function of redshift.  This is actually evidence against any "steady state" cosmology and for a big bang like cosmology. 

CFB

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello CFB, you said 

Harry, You wrote: "These galaxies are similar to the local galaxies ranging in form. Their stars have a dating upto about 12 or more.".  This is not true!  The Hubble deep field shows an evolution in galaxies from the earliest and most disorganized to current structures as a function of redshift.  This is actually evidence against any "steady state" cosmology and for a big bang like cosmology. 

 Observation are observations,,,,,,,,look into deep field images.

Saying something is not true is quite a statement.

Redshift is under dispute, another data affected by the intinsic properties of compact matter and jet formation

If you think you have evidence to prove me wrong than show me. 

 

 

Harry,

There are about 10,000 papers written about Galaxy evolution and the Hubble deep field since 1994.  Go to http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html and read the first 100.  This should provide you with all the observational evidence you need.  Try http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511598, http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0405, http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2388, or http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.1043. 

Yes! observations are "observations"  not conjecture.  I agree that you should look into the deep field images and also look at the analysis of these images as they indicate galaxy evolution.  Redshift is not under dispute, only some dispute about what it means to cosmology.  No one has offered any real evidence that redshift is an intrinsic property of matter.  There are Arp's postulates, but no credible evidence.

CFB