Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[gnostic]

Well, it´s really tested in this article:

Hubble Team Breaks Cosmic Distance Record
Quote:
By pushing NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope to its limits, an international team of astronomers has shattered the cosmic distance record by measuring the farthest galaxy ever seen in the universe. This surprisingly bright infant galaxy, named GN-z11, is seen as it was 13.4 billion years in the past, just 400 million years after the Big Bang".

According to the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, this should´nt be possible at all.

View attachment 46470


Now the question remains if the BB proponents revise this entire idea according to the scientific method when a hypothesis is contradicted - or it keeps on beeing a dogmatic scientific religion.

View attachment 46471

Where in this scheme do you find the initial BB Nucleosynthesis evolution of galaxies and where is the "farthest away galaxy" found in the scheme? It´s located in a stage where galaxies shouldn´t have been found at all and as such it is a contradiction of the BB Nucleosynthesis which then shall be revised and even discarded.

Just try to get the written dots and image together before going automatically into denial mode.

View attachment 46472
You do realize that galaxies in large numbers are found on the left side of the scheme and a pair of galaxies are found in the right side of the scheme where the BB nucleosynthesis is thought to begin in the assumed BB theory?

Such a galactic formation shouldn´t have taken place so early after BB and this notion is mentioned all over the places in articles.

It would be nice that you too notise what is said in articles in order to have a fruitfull debate.

You really didn’t bother to read the article where you found that image from, did you?

Because it is becoming quite apparent to me, if you understood the article, you would know the article has never intended as attempts to debunk the Big Bang theory. The discovery of GN-z11 is simply galaxy most further back in time, that was worth further exploring/ investigating.

The article certainly doesn’t indicate that the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is wrong in any way, as you’ve claimed so vehemently.

What really is apparent is that you don’t you don’t bloody well know what you are talking about, and you have either misinterpreted the image or you are conflating your (falsely) claims as if they agree with you about the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) being wrong.

The period of BBN ended around 20 minutes after the Big Bang, which would mean GN-z11 is around about 400 million years after the BBN.

You are trying to distort the article, by taking out-of-context.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
No matter how much you´re jumping around in the scientific circus of assumptions and it´s concensus answers, you STILL have to explain logically your postulated "connection of gravity/weight of air with the frequently changes in atmospheric pressure" which is scientific defined as "weight of air!

Why should I at all? There is no such vacuum in space.

You can take off explaining which strong dwarf is sitting in the center of the Earth pulling at everything, even far out in space.

We can create a container with a vacuum in it on Earth. You claimed that apples fall because of the weight of the air. If the apple is put into that vacuum container, does your explanation predict the apple with fall faster, slower, the same, or not at all? Why?

 

[ratiocinator]

Because on the plasma stages ALL atoms can by affected and governed by electric currents and its magnetic fields.

Regardless of the fact plasma cosmology doesn't match observations (i.e. it has been falsified) what has this got to do with the bulk of the atmosphere that isn't plasma?

 

[gnostic]

In fact 99.99 % of all atoms in cosmos are at the plasma stages.

The only problem with your percentage, that you are forgetting that ordinary matters only make up less than 5% of the universe, according to the last data release from the Planck’s mission in 2013.

Yes, much of the atoms are in plasma state, because most of the atoms are in the stars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I first read about ZPE as a cause of gravity about 15 years ago, it was based on the Casimir effect which I'm sure you are familiar with. Whilst the first Casimir effect experiment was carried out at micro level wavelengths,, the principle apparently is also in play in the macro. For example, the radiation pressure between the Earth and the Moon is less than that impacting on the dark side of the Moon and the Earth side opposite the side facing the Moon due to the fact that all wavelengths larger than the distance between the Earth and the Moon are excluded from being a part of the radiation pressure between them, whilst they are not on the sides facing into deep space and thus there is a resultant force tending to push them closer together. Anyway here is a paper on ZPE/Casimir Effect gravity.

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:214280/FULLTEXT01.pdf

There is no "dark side of the Moon" in that sense. There is a far side of the Moon and on average the radiation pressure is the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only problem with your percentage, that you are forgetting that ordinary matters only make up less than 5% of the universe, according to the last data release from the Planck’s mission in 2013.

Yes, much of the atoms are in plasma state, because most of the atoms are in the stars.

Aha! Plasma! Check mate atheists!

 

[exchemist]

I first read about ZPE as a cause of gravity about 15 years ago, it was based on the Casimir effect which I'm sure you are familiar with. Whilst the first Casimir effect experiment was carried out at micro level wavelengths,, the principle apparently is also in play in the macro. For example, the radiation pressure between the Earth and the Moon is less than that impacting on the dark side of the Moon and the Earth side opposite the side facing the Moon due to the fact that all wavelengths larger than the distance between the Earth and the Moon are excluded from being a part of the radiation pressure between them, whilst they are not on the sides facing into deep space and thus there is a resultant force tending to push them closer together. Anyway here is a paper on ZPE/Casimir Effect gravity.

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:214280/FULLTEXT01.pdf

The Casimir effect can be explained without reference to ZPE at all, simply by a relativistic treatment of London forces.

I'm not downloading material from an unknown source, sorry. I may take another look at your Massie paper later, if the spirit moves me.

 

[Polymath257]

I know. Everything regarding BB is an oversimplification because it can´t be explained in details.

But when scientist claims their linear hypothesis to begin with a bang and a nucleosynthesis which begins with the formation from the primordal elements, they of course cannot postulate entire galaxies to be made close to their beginning estimate as thought in the article.

Sure they can. The period of nucleosynthesis ended after a few *minutes*. Galaxies formed after a few hundred million *years*.

This is why the surpriced scientists frequently state that such galaxies shouldnt be there and that the idea has to be revised - but I bet they don´t do that any time soon.

Yes, our ideas about galaxy formation are in flux. Why you think that says anything about the Big Bang is still a mystery.

IMO galaxies are formed eternally without any timeline at all.

Care to elaborate? Externally? No time line? What does that mean?

So it is also incorrect what is postulated in the standard explanation of the solar system formation? Where are the general nucleosynthetic logics?

Because the solar system formed billions of years after the period of nucleosynthesis.

Are you aware that several so called Supernovae "explodes" several times in a row? Read here and get updated on your cosmological understanding.

OK, so there are one or two examples we don't understand. Are you suggesting ALL supernovas repeat? Are you suggesting they don't form the heavier elements?

gnostic said: ↑
My point, is that dust only started appearing when massive stars started dying, in supernova events, hence dust are one of the stuff produced from Supernova Nucleosynthesis.

This is inconsistent with the very BB nucleosynthesis ideas in first hand.

Why would you think that? BB nucleosynthesis happened in the first few minutes of the current expansion. It only formed the lighter elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium). Much later, stars formed from those elements. When they went supernova, they formed the heavier elements.

That *is* the standard model of nucleosynthesis.

You can say excactly the same about the consensus average little-g in gravity. It also sloshes around in different terrestrial and celestial conditions.

Yes, once again, gravity is produced by mass. More mass leads to more gravity. Less mass leads to less gravity. Gravity also decreases in strength with distance. The force is 1/4 as much if the distance is doubled.

So, if you are close to a mountain that is dense, the local force of gravity will be slightly tilted to the mountain.

Next, the motion of an object is determined by *all* the forces on it. The forces add as vectors. Each bit of mass produces gravity according to the description above. Those forces add up to give the net gravitational force on an object. If there are *other* forces (friction, air pressure, E&M) those ALSO add to give the total force on the object. That total force is what determines the acceleration of the object.

ALL the examples you gave for variances of gravity are due to slight differences in the amount of mass locally. So they are ALL consistent with the model for gravity.

But yes, little g varies because of local mass.

Because it is held in position by the Earth magnetic field, that´s why.

Try seeing how the air responds to a magnet. Go ahead: try.

The air in the atmosphere is NOT in a plasma state. It is a gas (until you get to the ionosphere--where there is a plasma). So magnetism *cannot* be what holds the atmosphere on the Earth.

 

[Native]

Because it is becoming quite apparent to me, if you understood the article, you would know the article has never intended as attempts to debunk the Big Bang theory. The discovery of GN-z11 is simply galaxy most further back in time, that was worth further exploring/ investigating.

When it is said in the article that an observation "reveal surprising new clues about the nature of the very early universe" you can make the logical conclusion yourself that something isn´t predicted and then the BB ideas don´t fit and so does its initially image of the BB timeline and then it all has to be revised and maybe even discarded.

When the latter isn´t expressed clearly in the article, it just shows that someone don´t give a daim in working strictly with the scienfic methods as intended. They just keep on dreaming the same dream.

As for the rest of your reply you "bloody well know" what you can do with your emotional outburst.

 

[Polymath257]

Because on the plasma stages ALL atoms can by affected and governed by electric currents and its magnetic fields.

(I know that Plasma Cosmology isn´t accepted in the standard cosmology society as it has it´s main focus on the one only and weakest fundamental assumed force of gravity in cosmos)

In fact 99.99 % of all atoms in cosmos are at the plasma stages.

Most of the atoms in the cosmos are in stars. And yes, stars are mostly plasma.

The air in our atmosphere is not a plasma except in the ionosphere and above. if it was, you would have a hard time breathing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When it is said in the article that an observation "reveal surprising new clues about the nature of the very early universe" you can make the logical conclusion yourself that something isn´t predicted and then the BB ideas don´t fit and so does its initially image of the BB timeline and then it all has to be revised and maybe even discarded.

When the latter isn´t expressed clearly in the article, it just shows that someone don´t give a daim in working strictly with the scienfic methods as intended. They just keep on dreaming the same dream.

As for the rest of your reply you "bloody well know" what you can do with your emotional outburst.

This is called "clutching at straws".

 

[Polymath257]

When it is said in the article that an observation "reveal surprising new clues about the nature of the very early universe" you can make the logical conclusion yourself that something isn´t predicted and then the BB ideas don´t fit and so does its initially image of the BB timeline and then it all has to be revised and maybe even discarded.

Galaxy formation and the Big Bang are not the same theory! The BB deals with large scale phenomena. Gravity formation is a (relatively) small scale event.

Out ideas about galaxy formation are in flux. There is a lot we don't understand. That is NOT the same as bringing the BB model into doubt. None of the examples concerning early galaxies have nay bearing on the BB model.

 

[Native]

We can create a container with a vacuum in it on Earth. You claimed that apples fall because of the weight of the air. If the apple is put into that vacuum container, does your explanation predict the apple with fall faster, slower, the same, or not at all? Why?

You can take off explaining which strong dwarf is sitting in the center of the Earth pulling at everything, even far out in space.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps, also some short term variations in the distance due to the conjunctions that preclude longer wavelengths from adding to the radiation pressure to the sides of Earth and Moon opposite those facing each other.

The increasing distance between the Earth and Moon is due to energy loss from tidal forces. that pumps the energy into the orbit, making it larger.

The radiation pressure on the Moon is *way* too small to have a significant effect in this regard.

 

[Polymath257]

You can take off explaining which strong dwarf is sitting in the center of the Earth pulling at everything, even far out in space.

Huh?

 

[Native]

Galaxy formation and the Big Bang are not the same theory! The BB deals with large scale phenomena. Gravity formation is a (relatively) small scale event.

Out ideas about galaxy formation are in flux. There is a lot we don't understand. That is NOT the same as bringing the BB model into doubt. None of the examples concerning early galaxies have nay bearing on the BB model.

If modern science cannot agree how atomic nucleosynthesis works in the principle all over the places, I cant take any models seriously at all.

 

[Polymath257]

If modern science cannot agree how atomic nucleosynthesis works in the principle all over the places I cant take different models seriously at all.

I told you the basics: the light elements formed in the early BB and the heavier ones formed in supernovas. Some of the really heavy ones formed in hypernovas.

The specific processes for the formation are largely understood, although there is still work being done for the heaviest elements. What you don't seem to understand is that there *is* agreement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If modern science cannot agree how atomic nucleosynthesis works in the principle all over the places, I cant take any models seriously at all.

There are different models because different events made up different elements. Hydrogen, helium, and the smallest smidge of lithium were made in the Big Bang.

Heavier elements, up to iron, were made by regular fusion in stars.

Heavier yet elements had to be made in super novas and hyper novas.

 

[gnostic]

When it is said in the article that an observation "reveal surprising new clues about the nature of the very early universe" you can make the logical conclusion yourself that something isn´t predicted and then the BB ideas don´t fit and so does its initially image of the BB timeline and then it all has to be revised and maybe even discarded.

When the latter isn´t expressed clearly in the article, it just shows that someone don´t give a daim in working strictly with the scienfic methods as intended. They just keep on dreaming the same dream.

No, Native. The image you posted up is only simplified version of the timeline, that doesn’t even where in the chart is the BBN.

It would be on the other side of the orange block, which I’d suppose represent the CMBR of the Recombination Epoch.

The BBN occurred BEFORE the Recombination Epoch/CMBR, about 379,000 years before.

And the BBN is 400 million years BEFORE the GN-z11 galaxy.

When the GN-z11 formed is not clear, but what we have the redshift measurement of the galaxy to the Earth.

What I only see is you trying to do is make a big deal out of nothing, by misinterpreting the image that you don’t even understand.

 

[Native]

The increasing distance between the Earth and Moon is due to energy loss from tidal forces. that pumps the energy into the orbit, making it larger.

Yet another spooky effect from the gravity fantasy.

The increasing distances between the Earth and it´s Moon derives all back from the formation of the Solar System where a centrifugal force divided the planets from the pre-sun when this was molten hot. The very similar process happend with the formation of the Moon directly out from the Earth when this also was molten hot. We´re talking of a general outgoing motion in these processes.

The formation of everything is governed by E&M from the start in a cosmic plasma realm which is set in a whirling motion by the electric current and when a critical amount of gas and dust is assembled into pre-stars, the whirling centrifugal force gives birth to planets of all kinds and planetary moon of all kinds according to the actual composition of gas and dust in the initial cosmic cloud.

It´s all about electromagnetic contraction and and subsequently about an centrifugal expansion, hence the constant increasing distancies between the Earth and the Moon and between the Sun and the Earth.