December 2010 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
by erikhansen＠thebluezone.net 23 Dec '10

23 Dec '10

>I think so..... the HR Diagram, life and death of stars are not things astronomers seem to disagree about. Are they able to determine reasonably precisely when the red dwarfs in our > galaxy were born? > > Spencer Ball > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com > [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of > erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:20 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang > >>I believe they only study stars in our galaxy (except Cephid variables), > the HST has allowed more precise spectral analysis of fainter stars. The > recent discovery of more red dwarfs than thought seems to point some > problems with this. IE stars may behave some what differently in > elliptical galaxies than in a spiral galaxy, this was explained as the > reason for larger number of red dwarfs. > > BTW, I was doing some internet searching and found that Dr. Alan Sandage > passed away Nov 17th. > As many may recall he and Hubble derived the Hubble Constant used to > determine the age of the universe. > > > > How can astronomers detect such dim stars in galaxies so far away? Any >> red >> spectrum stars might be supergiants, wouldn't they be? Has anyone >> measured >> anything smaller than an entire galaxy that far away? >> >> Spencer Ball >> Attorney at Law >> 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd # 101 >> Salt Lake City, UT 84121 >> (801) 453-2000 >> spencer(a)spencerball.com >> >> This law firm collects debts. This communication may be an attempt to >> collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. >> >> >> Confidentiality Notice: >> This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail >> messages attached to it, are confidential and are protected by the >> attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not >> the >> intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the >> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, >> copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information >> contained in, or attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY >> PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please >> delete >> this message and its attachments from your computer. Thank you. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com >> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of >> erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net >> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:33 PM >> To: Utah Astronomy >> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang >> >>>Kim, It appears you have asked the question cosmologists are divided on, >> and your 1st thought may be correct. IE, only high mass stars made up >> Pop >> 3 stars. >> >> from Wiki, on metallicity. >> >> "Current theory is divided on whether the first stars were very massive >> or >> not. One theory, which seems to be borne out by computer models of star >> formation, is that with no heavy elements from the Big Bang, it was easy >> to form stars with much more total mass than the ones visible today. >> Typical masses for Population III stars would be expected to be about >> several hundred solar masses, which is much larger than the current >> stars. >> Analysis of data on extremely low-metallicity Population II stars such >> as >> HE0107-5240, which are thought to contain the metals produced by >> Population III stars, suggest that these metal-free stars had masses of >> 20 >> to 130 solar masses instead. On the other hand, analysis of globular >> clusters associated with elliptical galaxies suggests pair-instability >> supernovae were responsible for their metallic composition. This also >> explains why there have been no low-mass stars with zero metallicity >> observed, although models have been constructed for smaller Pop III >> stars. >> Clusters containing zero-metallicity red dwarfs or brown dwarfs >> (possibly >> created by pair-instability supernovae have been proposed as dark matter >> candidates, but there is disagreement on this theory" >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, that is a good question. Does anyone know if cosmologists have >>> estimated what the ratio of low- or zero-metal red dwarfs should be? >>> And, >>> can we observe enough of them in near space to have a representative >>> picture >>> of what might have occurred shortly after the big bang? Would the >>> density >>> of >>> the early universe have limited the formation of red dwarfs? >>> >>> Kim >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com >>> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don >>> J. >>> Colton >>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 1:37 PM >>> To: 'Utah Astronomy' >>> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang >>> >>> Good point Eric. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com(a)mailman.xmission.com >>> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] >>> On >>> Behalf Of erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net >>> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:13 AM >>> To: Utah Astronomy >>> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang >>> >>>> >>> Well, the Red Dwarfs observed today do have metals and none have been >>> observed that contain only hydrogen and helium. There should be Red >>> Dwarfs >>> with no metals if some formed during the Big Bang (in theory at least), >>> since the are believed to have a longer life than current estimates of >>> the >>> age of the universe. Would only the massive stars, needed to create the >>> metals, have formed initially? >>> >>> I guess it is possible metals were created during Big Bang, but I am >>> not >>> a >>> physicist. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Erik, As I understand it, there was plenty of time in the early >>> universe >>>> (800 million years or so) for super massive Population III stars to >>>> form, >>>> and due to their accelerated evolution they provided the metals found >>>> in >>>> the >>>> red dwarfs and globular clusters observed in the deep field objects. >>>> There >>>> is no need to invoke a time interval greater than that between the big >>>> bang >>>> and the formation of the red dwarfs, etc. to account for their advent. >>>> I >>>> don't understand the assertion that 100 billion years are required for >>>> the >>>> formation of galactic clusters. >>>> >>>> Kim >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of >>>> erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net >>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:47 AM >>>> To: Utah Astronomy >>>> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang >>>> >>>>>Kim, >>>> >>>> As for Red Dwarfs and Globular Clusters (made largely of red giants), >>>> yes, >>>> they are about the age of what we consider the age of the universe. >>>> The >>>> problem is where did the material they formed from come from. There >>>> must >>>> have been stars before that the material came from, 1st generation >>>> stars >>>> or Population 3 stars. >>>> So by default the universe must be older because our oldest stars >>>> formed >>>> from older stars still. >>>> >>>> At least thats how I understand it, but I would agree Don is more >>>> informed >>>> about this and I. >>>> >>>> Erik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Somehow this thread began as a discussion about space exploration... >>>>> >>>>> Don, I'm sure that I haven't read as much as you or others about >>>>> cosmology >>>>> and the big bang theory, but I'm wondering about some of the comments >>>>> that >>>>> you made. I truly am not criticizing or mocking - I really do have >>>>> questions. And I promise not to mention God. Here are my questions, >>>>> numbered >>>>> according to your post from yesterday: >>>>> >>>>> 1 and 2. I don't believe that an object moving through space is >>>>> comparable >>>>> to the expansion of space itself; hence the limitation of the speed >>>>> of >>>>> light >>>>> wouldn't apply. What other laws of physics would have to have been >>>>> different >>>>> or not exist? >>>>> 3. Does it matter whether or not the theory is predictive (unless >>>>> they >>>>> really do succeed in creating a singularity at CERN)? Discoveries of >>>>> things >>>>> such as dark matter, dark energy, etc. haven't invalidated the >>>>> theory, >>>>> but >>>>> yes, these nasty surprises have certainly given the theorists more to >>>>> ponder. Perhaps they will eventually have to discard the big bang, >>>>> but >>>>> from >>>>> everything with which I'm familiar I don't see that happening. >>>>> 4. I know that Wikipedia isn't 100 percent reliable, but under the >>>>> article >>>>> "Cosmic microwave background radiation" I read that a 1948 estimate >>>>> by >>>>> Gamow >>>>> and others of the CMBR was 5K, later re-estimated at 28K. The higher >>>>> estimate was based on someone's mis-estimate of the Hubble constant >>>>> and >>>>> was >>>>> soon abandoned in favor of the original, lower estimate. I also >>>>> understand >>>>> that the suggestion that the CMBR is background stellar radiation >>>>> cannot >>>>> account for the black body nature of the CMBR. From what I read in >>>>> Wikipedia, numerous lines of observations and experiment all support >>>>> the >>>>> hypothesis that the CMBR is a remnant of the big bang. >>>>> 5. I wish I could remember where I read about it, but I think this >>>>> "problem" >>>>> was put to bed some time ago. Does anyone else have information about >>>>> this, >>>>> one way or the other? >>>>> 6. Again, I'm probably not as knowledgeable, but I've never read >>>>> anything >>>>> about observations of red dwarfs, globular clusters, or other objects >>>>> that >>>>> indicate greater age than the accepted age of the universe, 13.75+/- >>>>> billion >>>>> years, or that galaxy clusters would take 100 billion years to form. >>>>> What >>>>> have I missed? >>>>> 7. Is the Texas A&M paper online, and if so can you share the link? >>>>> I'm >>>>> really interested in reading this. >>>>> 8. I'm not sure what you're saying here relative to Michelson, Morley >>>>> and >>>>> Einstein. I admit to not being able to wrap my mind around a lot of >>>>> scientific thought, especially in relation to cosmology. Can anyone >>>>> truly >>>>> imagine what a singularity looks like (or tastes, smells, feels, >>>>> sounds >>>>> like) or how the universe as we see it came from such a thing? I have >>>>> a >>>>> difficult time imagining a neutron star, or why my son just left for >>>>> school >>>>> with a light jacket when the temperature outside is only about 15 >>>>> degrees. >>>>> Still, I've not read any credible science that supports a steady >>>>> state >>>>> universe or any other alternative to the big bang. A steady state >>>>> universe, >>>>> for example, is just as hard for me to fathom as a universe that >>>>> began >>>>> as >>>>> an >>>>> infinitesimally small point. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Don for your willingness to share your opinion, even when you >>>>> know >>>>> many of us believe something different. >>>>> >>>>> A general question for everyone: Besides steady state, what alternate >>>>> theories exist? >>>>> >>>>> Kim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>>> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don >>>>> J. >>>>> Colton >>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:28 PM >>>>> To: 'Utah Astronomy' >>>>> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? >>>>> Payload) >>>>> >>>>> The Big Bang Theory is the most generally accepted theory but it has >>>>> many >>>>> problems. Unfortunately consensus science seems to be more important >>>>> than >>>>> really questioning the current paradigm. >>>>> >>>>> Significant Problems with the Big Bang are as follows: >>>>> >>>>> 1. You have to suppose that the current laws of physics did not exist >>>>> originally. >>>>> 2. Inflation dramatically violates the speed of light (see one >>>>> above). >>>>> 3. Big Bang Theory is not a predictive theory like Einstein's Theory >>>>> of >>>>> Relativity. Astrophysicists continually have to patch it together >>>>> when >>>>> such >>>>> things as acceleration of the universe, dark matter, dark energy and >>>>> other >>>>> nasty surprises occur. >>>>> 4. The original prediction of microwave background radiation by Gamow >>>>> was >>>>> 50 >>>>> deg. Kelvin - 17 times greater than measured. The 3 deg Kelvin >>>>> microwave >>>>> background radiation is explained well by Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar >>>>> and >>>>> Ratcliffe as background stellar radiation (not remnant big bang >>>>> radiation). >>>>> 5. The problem with the proper motion of quasars, some of which show >>>>> proper >>>>> motions similar to the Helix Nebula. There are various strained >>>>> explanations >>>>> of this phenomenon. >>>>> 6. The age problem. Red Dwarfs, many globular clusters, large galaxy >>>>> clusters all appear to be much older than 13 billion years. You have >>>>> to >>>>> invent ad hoc assumptions about early clumping etc. in the Big Bang >>>>> to >>>>> account for the large galaxy clusters, which under normal gravitation >>>>> interactions must be at least 100 billion years old. >>>>> 7. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field shows galaxies from about 13.3 billion >>>>> years >>>>> ago that appear very similar to nearby galaxies. The Texas A&M team >>>>> that >>>>> studied the Hubble Deep field concluded "After comparing them with >>>>> the >>>>> bluest nearby galaxies, the team concluded that, while their galaxies >>>>> were >>>>> fairly primitive in composition, they did not have zero metallicity, >>>>> meaning >>>>> that these galaxies contain stars not unlike those we see today, even >>>>> though >>>>> the Universe was only five percent of its current age of 13.7 billion >>>>> years. >>>>> This implies that they are not the first-ever galaxies formed after >>>>> the >>>>> Big >>>>> Bang as other international teams of astronomers analyzing the same >>>>> data >>>>> have implied." The Hubble Ultra Deep Field also shows many large >>>>> spirals >>>>> and >>>>> elliptical galaxies which take on the order of 10 billion years to >>>>> form. >>>>> Could such galaxies and stars have formed in 500 million years? >>>>> Considering >>>>> that large spiral galaxies take 300 million years to rotate also >>>>> argues >>>>> against an age of only 500 million years. >>>>> 8. The idea that the whole universe was created from nothing also >>>>> appears >>>>> to >>>>> be the kind of nonsense results Michelson and Morley got when their >>>>> experiments along with Einstein overturned classical physics. >>>>> >>>>> As the history of science has shown, each new generation thinks they >>>>> know >>>>> it >>>>> all. >>>>> >>>>> Clear Skies, >>>>> >>>>> Don >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>>> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of >>>>> daniel >>>>> turner >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:49 PM >>>>> To: Utah Astronomy >>>>> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? >>>>> Payload) >>>>> >>>>> --- On Wed, 12/15/10, erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net >>>>> <erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It does seem the U of U Physics agrees with the >>>>>> Big Bang Theory, >>>>>> at least thats my memory when we have had some of the >>>>>> Faculty speak. >>>>>> The grand Unified Theory has gained some ground but not >>>>>> enough, resolving >>>>>> those issue seems key to a better understanding of the >>>>>> Universe. >>>>> >>>>> Eric: >>>>> >>>>> It's entirely possible that these faculty people actually know >>>>> something >>>>> about the subject matter. They have access to the observational data. >>>>> They >>>>> can't all be deluded or lying to advance an agenda. Perhaps the >>>>> debate >>>>> is >>>>> over among the people who know the most about it. >>>>> >>>>> DT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>>>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>>>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>>>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>>>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>>>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>>>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> No virus found in this message. >>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3319 - Release Date: >>>>> 12/16/10 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>>>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>>>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>>>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3321 - Release Date: >>>> 12/17/10 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3327 - Release Date: 12/20/10 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
by erikhansen＠thebluezone.net 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

>I believe they only study stars in our galaxy (except Cephid variables), the HST has allowed more precise spectral analysis of fainter stars. The recent discovery of more red dwarfs than thought seems to point some problems with this. IE stars may behave some what differently in elliptical galaxies than in a spiral galaxy, this was explained as the reason for larger number of red dwarfs. BTW, I was doing some internet searching and found that Dr. Alan Sandage passed away Nov 17th. As many may recall he and Hubble derived the Hubble Constant used to determine the age of the universe. How can astronomers detect such dim stars in galaxies so far away? Any > red > spectrum stars might be supergiants, wouldn't they be? Has anyone measured > anything smaller than an entire galaxy that far away? > > Spencer Ball > Attorney at Law > 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd # 101 > Salt Lake City, UT 84121 > (801) 453-2000 > spencer(a)spencerball.com > > This law firm collects debts. This communication may be an attempt to > collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. > > Confidentiality Notice: > This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail > messages attached to it, are confidential and are protected by the > attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the > intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, > copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information > contained in, or attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY > PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete > this message and its attachments from your computer. Thank you. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com > [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of > erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:33 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang > >>Kim, It appears you have asked the question cosmologists are divided on, > and your 1st thought may be correct. IE, only high mass stars made up Pop > 3 stars. > > from Wiki, on metallicity. > > "Current theory is divided on whether the first stars were very massive or > not. One theory, which seems to be borne out by computer models of star > formation, is that with no heavy elements from the Big Bang, it was easy > to form stars with much more total mass than the ones visible today. > Typical masses for Population III stars would be expected to be about > several hundred solar masses, which is much larger than the current stars. > Analysis of data on extremely low-metallicity Population II stars such as > HE0107-5240, which are thought to contain the metals produced by > Population III stars, suggest that these metal-free stars had masses of 20 > to 130 solar masses instead. On the other hand, analysis of globular > clusters associated with elliptical galaxies suggests pair-instability > supernovae were responsible for their metallic composition. This also > explains why there have been no low-mass stars with zero metallicity > observed, although models have been constructed for smaller Pop III stars. > Clusters containing zero-metallicity red dwarfs or brown dwarfs (possibly > created by pair-instability supernovae have been proposed as dark matter > candidates, but there is disagreement on this theory" > > > > > > Yes, that is a good question. Does anyone know if cosmologists have >> estimated what the ratio of low- or zero-metal red dwarfs should be? >> And, >> can we observe enough of them in near space to have a representative >> picture >> of what might have occurred shortly after the big bang? Would the >> density >> of >> the early universe have limited the formation of red dwarfs? >> >> Kim >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com >> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. >> Colton >> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 1:37 PM >> To: 'Utah Astronomy' >> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang >> >> Good point Eric. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com(a)mailman.xmission.com >> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] >> On >> Behalf Of erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net >> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:13 AM >> To: Utah Astronomy >> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang >> >>> >> Well, the Red Dwarfs observed today do have metals and none have been >> observed that contain only hydrogen and helium. There should be Red >> Dwarfs >> with no metals if some formed during the Big Bang (in theory at least), >> since the are believed to have a longer life than current estimates of >> the >> age of the universe. Would only the massive stars, needed to create the >> metals, have formed initially? >> >> I guess it is possible metals were created during Big Bang, but I am not >> a >> physicist. >> >> >> >> >> >> Erik, As I understand it, there was plenty of time in the early >> universe >>> (800 million years or so) for super massive Population III stars to >>> form, >>> and due to their accelerated evolution they provided the metals found >>> in >>> the >>> red dwarfs and globular clusters observed in the deep field objects. >>> There >>> is no need to invoke a time interval greater than that between the big >>> bang >>> and the formation of the red dwarfs, etc. to account for their advent. >>> I >>> don't understand the assertion that 100 billion years are required for >>> the >>> formation of galactic clusters. >>> >>> Kim >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com >>> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of >>> erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net >>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:47 AM >>> To: Utah Astronomy >>> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang >>> >>>>Kim, >>> >>> As for Red Dwarfs and Globular Clusters (made largely of red giants), >>> yes, >>> they are about the age of what we consider the age of the universe. The >>> problem is where did the material they formed from come from. There >>> must >>> have been stars before that the material came from, 1st generation >>> stars >>> or Population 3 stars. >>> So by default the universe must be older because our oldest stars >>> formed >>> from older stars still. >>> >>> At least thats how I understand it, but I would agree Don is more >>> informed >>> about this and I. >>> >>> Erik >>> >>> >>> >>> Somehow this thread began as a discussion about space exploration... >>>> >>>> Don, I'm sure that I haven't read as much as you or others about >>>> cosmology >>>> and the big bang theory, but I'm wondering about some of the comments >>>> that >>>> you made. I truly am not criticizing or mocking - I really do have >>>> questions. And I promise not to mention God. Here are my questions, >>>> numbered >>>> according to your post from yesterday: >>>> >>>> 1 and 2. I don't believe that an object moving through space is >>>> comparable >>>> to the expansion of space itself; hence the limitation of the speed of >>>> light >>>> wouldn't apply. What other laws of physics would have to have been >>>> different >>>> or not exist? >>>> 3. Does it matter whether or not the theory is predictive (unless they >>>> really do succeed in creating a singularity at CERN)? Discoveries of >>>> things >>>> such as dark matter, dark energy, etc. haven't invalidated the theory, >>>> but >>>> yes, these nasty surprises have certainly given the theorists more to >>>> ponder. Perhaps they will eventually have to discard the big bang, but >>>> from >>>> everything with which I'm familiar I don't see that happening. >>>> 4. I know that Wikipedia isn't 100 percent reliable, but under the >>>> article >>>> "Cosmic microwave background radiation" I read that a 1948 estimate by >>>> Gamow >>>> and others of the CMBR was 5K, later re-estimated at 28K. The higher >>>> estimate was based on someone's mis-estimate of the Hubble constant >>>> and >>>> was >>>> soon abandoned in favor of the original, lower estimate. I also >>>> understand >>>> that the suggestion that the CMBR is background stellar radiation >>>> cannot >>>> account for the black body nature of the CMBR. From what I read in >>>> Wikipedia, numerous lines of observations and experiment all support >>>> the >>>> hypothesis that the CMBR is a remnant of the big bang. >>>> 5. I wish I could remember where I read about it, but I think this >>>> "problem" >>>> was put to bed some time ago. Does anyone else have information about >>>> this, >>>> one way or the other? >>>> 6. Again, I'm probably not as knowledgeable, but I've never read >>>> anything >>>> about observations of red dwarfs, globular clusters, or other objects >>>> that >>>> indicate greater age than the accepted age of the universe, 13.75+/- >>>> billion >>>> years, or that galaxy clusters would take 100 billion years to form. >>>> What >>>> have I missed? >>>> 7. Is the Texas A&M paper online, and if so can you share the link? >>>> I'm >>>> really interested in reading this. >>>> 8. I'm not sure what you're saying here relative to Michelson, Morley >>>> and >>>> Einstein. I admit to not being able to wrap my mind around a lot of >>>> scientific thought, especially in relation to cosmology. Can anyone >>>> truly >>>> imagine what a singularity looks like (or tastes, smells, feels, >>>> sounds >>>> like) or how the universe as we see it came from such a thing? I have >>>> a >>>> difficult time imagining a neutron star, or why my son just left for >>>> school >>>> with a light jacket when the temperature outside is only about 15 >>>> degrees. >>>> Still, I've not read any credible science that supports a steady state >>>> universe or any other alternative to the big bang. A steady state >>>> universe, >>>> for example, is just as hard for me to fathom as a universe that began >>>> as >>>> an >>>> infinitesimally small point. >>>> >>>> Thanks, Don for your willingness to share your opinion, even when you >>>> know >>>> many of us believe something different. >>>> >>>> A general question for everyone: Besides steady state, what alternate >>>> theories exist? >>>> >>>> Kim >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don >>>> J. >>>> Colton >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:28 PM >>>> To: 'Utah Astronomy' >>>> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? >>>> Payload) >>>> >>>> The Big Bang Theory is the most generally accepted theory but it has >>>> many >>>> problems. Unfortunately consensus science seems to be more important >>>> than >>>> really questioning the current paradigm. >>>> >>>> Significant Problems with the Big Bang are as follows: >>>> >>>> 1. You have to suppose that the current laws of physics did not exist >>>> originally. >>>> 2. Inflation dramatically violates the speed of light (see one above). >>>> 3. Big Bang Theory is not a predictive theory like Einstein's Theory >>>> of >>>> Relativity. Astrophysicists continually have to patch it together >>>> when >>>> such >>>> things as acceleration of the universe, dark matter, dark energy and >>>> other >>>> nasty surprises occur. >>>> 4. The original prediction of microwave background radiation by Gamow >>>> was >>>> 50 >>>> deg. Kelvin - 17 times greater than measured. The 3 deg Kelvin >>>> microwave >>>> background radiation is explained well by Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar >>>> and >>>> Ratcliffe as background stellar radiation (not remnant big bang >>>> radiation). >>>> 5. The problem with the proper motion of quasars, some of which show >>>> proper >>>> motions similar to the Helix Nebula. There are various strained >>>> explanations >>>> of this phenomenon. >>>> 6. The age problem. Red Dwarfs, many globular clusters, large galaxy >>>> clusters all appear to be much older than 13 billion years. You have >>>> to >>>> invent ad hoc assumptions about early clumping etc. in the Big Bang to >>>> account for the large galaxy clusters, which under normal gravitation >>>> interactions must be at least 100 billion years old. >>>> 7. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field shows galaxies from about 13.3 billion >>>> years >>>> ago that appear very similar to nearby galaxies. The Texas A&M team >>>> that >>>> studied the Hubble Deep field concluded "After comparing them with the >>>> bluest nearby galaxies, the team concluded that, while their galaxies >>>> were >>>> fairly primitive in composition, they did not have zero metallicity, >>>> meaning >>>> that these galaxies contain stars not unlike those we see today, even >>>> though >>>> the Universe was only five percent of its current age of 13.7 billion >>>> years. >>>> This implies that they are not the first-ever galaxies formed after >>>> the >>>> Big >>>> Bang as other international teams of astronomers analyzing the same >>>> data >>>> have implied." The Hubble Ultra Deep Field also shows many large >>>> spirals >>>> and >>>> elliptical galaxies which take on the order of 10 billion years to >>>> form. >>>> Could such galaxies and stars have formed in 500 million years? >>>> Considering >>>> that large spiral galaxies take 300 million years to rotate also >>>> argues >>>> against an age of only 500 million years. >>>> 8. The idea that the whole universe was created from nothing also >>>> appears >>>> to >>>> be the kind of nonsense results Michelson and Morley got when their >>>> experiments along with Einstein overturned classical physics. >>>> >>>> As the history of science has shown, each new generation thinks they >>>> know >>>> it >>>> all. >>>> >>>> Clear Skies, >>>> >>>> Don >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: utah-astronomy-bounces(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>> [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of >>>> daniel >>>> turner >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:49 PM >>>> To: Utah Astronomy >>>> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? >>>> Payload) >>>> >>>> --- On Wed, 12/15/10, erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net >>>> <erikhansen(a)thebluezone.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> It does seem the U of U Physics agrees with the >>>>> Big Bang Theory, >>>>> at least thats my memory when we have had some of the >>>>> Faculty speak. >>>>> The grand Unified Theory has gained some ground but not >>>>> enough, resolving >>>>> those issue seems key to a better understanding of the >>>>> Universe. >>>> >>>> Eric: >>>> >>>> It's entirely possible that these faculty people actually know >>>> something >>>> about the subject matter. They have access to the observational data. >>>> They >>>> can't all be deluded or lying to advance an agenda. Perhaps the >>>> debate >>>> is >>>> over among the people who know the most about it. >>>> >>>> DT >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3319 - Release Date: 12/16/10 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3321 - Release Date: 12/17/10 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >>> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >>> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >>> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >>> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3327 - Release Date: 12/20/10 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Utah-Astronomy mailing list >> Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com >> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy >> Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php >> Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com >

2 1

Eclipse pictures
by Patrick Wiggins 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

The first of no doubt many images of this week's eclipse to show up on the web: http://www.mikesastrophotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/eclipse-phases-d… patrick

1 0

Any ideas? (OT)
by Patrick Wiggins 21 Dec '10

21 Dec '10

With the clouded out eclipse winding down I find myself with a totally non-astronomical mystery. I mixed up a batch of cherry Kool-Aid and put it in an ice cube tray and popped it in the freezer. I've been doing that forever and I always get the usual unremarkable flat topped red ice cubes. But look at this: http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/icecube.jpg What the heck?! At first I thought something had dripped down from above but I checked and found there was nothing above that could have dripped. Could the solution have somehow "erupted" upwards? Weird. Any ideas how the "stalagmite" grew? patrick

5 5

Ah, the media
by Patrick Wiggins 21 Dec '10

21 Dec '10

Best if I not divulge the media outlet in question, but would anyone care to guess where they got this news report a wee bit wrong? +++++ While a noteworthy event will occur for astronomy enthusiasts Monday evening, Utahns may miss the fun. The lunar eclipse, expected to occur at 11:30 p.m. Monday will be hidden from Utah unless a hole develops in cloud cover enshrouding the state, said Utah’s NASA/JPL solar system ambassador Patrick Wiggins. Wiggins said that if the weather clears sufficiently for the eclipse, one of the signs will be a golden ring of sun hanging low in the sky at Kanarraville. +++++ Sigh... patrick :)

2 1

Eclipse
by Patrick Wiggins 21 Dec '10

21 Dec '10

54,000 on the NASA Marshall site and they are clouded. Great imagery coming from the Columbus State University site but it's very slow. Popping out to watch the eclipse peeking through the clouds every now and then. Personally I'm ok with losing this one to clouds if the weather Goddess will just give us good weather for the May 2012 eclipse. :) patrick

3 5

Live eclipse webcam
by Patrick Wiggins 20 Dec '10

20 Dec '10

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-msfc Hopefully they wont be clouded out too. patrick

3 2

More places to watch the eclipse
by Patrick Wiggins 20 Dec '10

20 Dec '10

http://www.astronomerswithoutborders.org/projects/13/521.html patrick

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
by Gary Vardon 20 Dec '10

20 Dec '10

In spite of some evidence for the big bang I do not think that it has been conclusively proven. Other theories should be considered. Electromagnetic forces are ignored in the big bang theory among many other flaws of the theory. Sincerely, Gary Vardon The book DO It Right will help you understand vital ideas leading to your greater success. GO to PublishAmerica.com Consulting For Profit is also available. Learn how to make money as a consultant.

8 28

Weather gods and the eclipse
by Canopus56 20 Dec '10

20 Dec '10

D*mn the weather gods. Best eclipse in years and a cloud out so large you cannot even drive out from underneath it.

6 5