What Happened?

[Phil’s Dad]

Electromagnetic background radiation – as discovered in 1964, so ably recorded by COBE in the early nineties and more recently by ESA’s Planck microwave observatory.

The stuff that gives the universe an average (though lumpy) microwave “temperature” of just under 3 Kelvin. I know how the BBT suggests it got there. How else might it have come about?

Re: BBT itself, I am still not past figuring out how particles that emerged from an exploding singularity suddenly changed direction, in unlimited empty space, to start clumping together. So I have an open mind born of a recognition of ignorance.

[pluto]

G’day Phills dad

Phill without being disrespectful, have you read some of the papers from.

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter

The BBT is very theoretical.

To undertand how matter contracts and expands you may need to read up on jet formation small and large and giant and megagiant. These jets can influence the form near and far. From star surround to clusters of stars to AGN from a few hundred light light years to thousands of light years to millions of light years affecting galaxies far far away.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/cenajet/
Centaurus A Jet:
Energetic Jet Meets Resistance In Nearby Galaxy

Jets such as the one in Centaurus A Jet are widespread phenomena in the cosmos, and represent one of the primary means for extracting energy from the vicinity of a black hole. Some jets extend over distances of a million light years. They represent a major energy source for the galaxy and are thought to affect the evolution of the host galaxy and its surroundings. The Centaurus A Jet image will help scientists to understand the effects of jets on their environment.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2001/0134/
M87 Jet:
Chandra Sheds Light on the Knotty Problem of the M87 Jet

Quasars & Active Galaxies :: Galaxies with unusually energetic activity, including high-energy jets, that is related to a central supermassive black hole.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/category/quasars.html

[Phil’s Dad]

With equal respect sir, if your answer is “go look it up”, why invite the question? :long:

[pluto]

G’day

You have read my words out of context.

I read 3 or 4 papers per day.

I do not know what you have read.

Once reading any papers and if you wish to discuss I’m all ears.

[Phil’s Dad]

Noted, with thanks.

[pluto]

G’day

If 95 % of all matter is unknown then how can the standard model be the standard?

This link is intersting reading with respect to the point of the 95% unknown matter. The pdf is about 54 pages.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4333
What kind of science is cosmology?

Authors: Hubert F. Goenner
(Submitted on 22 Oct 2009)

Abstract: In recent years, by theory and observation cosmology has advanced substantially. Parameters of the concordance or $Lambda$CDM cosmological model are given with unprecedented precision (“precision cosmology”). On the other side, 95% of the matter content of the universe are of an unknown nature. This awkward situation motivates the present attempt to find cosmology’s place among the (exact) natural sciences. Due to its epistemic and methodical particularities, e.g., as a mathematized historical science, cosmology occupies a very special place. After going through some of the highlights of cosmological modeling, the conclusion is reached that knowledge provided by cosmological modeling cannot be as explicative and secure as knowledge gained by laboratory physics.

[Phil’s Dad]

It is indeed a singular science.

[pluto]

G’day

In more ways then one.

[William]

In reply to 1st post by Dash:

From the “plasma cosmology” wikipedia page:

“…in 1991, Eric J. Lerner, an independent researcher in plasma physics and nuclear fusion, wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called The Big Bang Never Happened. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community (along with other non-standard cosmologies). This was due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richards of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the cosmic microwave background might not have a blackbody spectrum. However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of COBE satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted.”

Make of that you will. Seems to me the WMAP cold spot, the so called “Dark Flow” observations, and perhaps the recent observations from NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope showing higher than expected gamma radiation from nova events, should all rekindle interest in plasma cosmology.

edited to add: hadn’t read far into thread and hadn’t realized how old this thread was when I first posted.

[borjagb]

The Big Bang is an absurd theory I think it’s clear. Now some scientists try to explain it saying that there were infinite Big Bangs happens in a row. This still does not explain the origin of the universe but is more likely that a single Big Bang. Still, this theory is similar to the spontaneous generation that many supporters had in the past and that now seems absurd.

[Author]

Posts