20 July 2004
Comets Impact Cosmology
Read as black text on white
'"Comets are important, they could be the key to the universe ...maybe."''
– Burt Lancaster, in the movie 'Local Hero.
Comets Impact Cosmology
Comet Wild 2
Immanuel Velikovsky, scientist or twit?
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
"Velikovsky was right about a few things, usually for the wrong reasons."
Dexter I believe this is a "logical fallacy of some common sort" it's opposite is, wrong for the right reasons. It's dangerously close to religious.;-)
"The fact remains though, that the earth does not show the signs it should if Velikovsky's postulated catastrophes happened." This also is unsupportable dogma easily disproved in empirical evidence accross many diverse fields of study.
"The evidence available from ancient ice cores, tree rings, sedimentology, plate tectonics, and a host of other studies, shows no signs of such massive global disturbances in historical times. They didn't happen. Velikovsky's wrong." The chronilogical relevence of all these is model dependent.
Last edited:
. The big bang and every derivitive is dead in the sky Juan. Comets aren't snowballs and the universe didn't start from nothing.
Comets are exactly snowballs, or ice balls with other gas and dust imbedded in them.
A Look at Comet Composition
The comet is made up of three parts. The nucleus is where the heart of the comet lies, the physical mass that is travelling through space. The first clues to what the nucleus might be made up from came from the other two parts, the coma and the tail. Early observers thought that perhaps the halo (coma) surrounding the comet and the tail were gasses and debris streaming off the nucleus, water vapour and rubble. The water vapour they imagined came from ice on the nucleus burning off as the comet approached the sun. So it was thought that the nucleus of the comet was mostly ice and rock, which lead to their nickname of “dirty snowballs.” Comets are seen by reflected light and have no other source.
Please show me the theory that replaces the big bang.
Comets are exactly snowballs, or ice balls with other gas and dust imbedded in them.
A Look at Comet Composition
The comet is made up of three parts. The nucleus is where the heart of the comet lies, the physical mass that is travelling through space. The first clues to what the nucleus might be made up from came from the other two parts, the coma and the tail. Early observers thought that perhaps the halo (coma) surrounding the comet and the tail were gasses and debris streaming off the nucleus, water vapour and rubble. The water vapour they imagined came from ice on the nucleus burning off as the comet approached the sun. So it was thought that the nucleus of the comet was mostly ice and rock, which lead to their nickname of “dirty snowballs.” Comets are seen by reflected light and have no other source.
Please show me the theory that replaces the big bang.
The Electric Cosmos
Comet—Asteroid Link Confirmed
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/01.1PART%20I_Ch1.pdf
The last is an introduction to the electric universe.
Comet—Asteroid Link Confirmed
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/01.1PART%20I_Ch1.pdf
The last is an introduction to the electric universe.
Last edited:
You believe incorrectly, about that and much else, and I'm beginning to see a pattern. The converse of a statement being obvious nonsense doesn't imply the statement itself must be wrong, or a fallacy, logical propositions rarely convert that way.
Velikovsky predicted Venus would be much hotter than science in the 1950s expected, and it is, but he thought it'd be hot because of a recent passage very near the sun. That's not why it's hot, and if it were, a fairly straightforward thermodynamic calculation shows it'd be a good deal cooler by now than it is.
Meanwhile, we still have evidence of the Big Bang?
Taking the Big Bang as our educated guess about the origin of the universe, we naturally ask what would such a universe look like? Can we deduce potential observations from the hypothesis of a primordial fireball? The answer is 'yes.'
Since light travels at a finite velocity, observations of distant objects are also observations of conditions in the past. In the distant past, the universe was smaller and therefore denser and hotter than it is today. In the 1940s, George Gamow and his colleagues had predicted that the heat from the Big Bang should have left a trace of itself in the form of microwave radiation spread evenly across the sky. The most convincing evidence for the Big Bang came from the accidental discovery of this radiation in 1965. Two young American astronomers, Penzias and Wilson, were attempting to pioneer astronomy in the microwave part of the spectrum. They picked up a very faint signal which seemed to be coming from every part of the sky. At first they thought it was a problem with the telescope. Only when they had thoroughly checked all their equipment did the full significance of their observation became apparent. The strength of the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson was compatible with the predictions of Big Bang cosmology.
Further evidence for the Big Bang comes from the abundance of the light elements. According to calculations, all of the deuterium (the stable heavy isotope of hydrogen) and most of the helium in the universe should have been made in the first few minutes of the Big Bang. The abundance of primordial deuterium and helium deduced from observations agrees with these predictions.
For clusters of galaxies to have formed in some places and not others, the initial distribution of matter must have been slightly lumpy, and this should have resulted in slight differences in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation in different directions. In 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite discovered tiny temperature differences that agreed with the predictions of the Big Bang theory. These discoveries were subsequently confirmed and extended by more recent experiments, and even more precise observations are in progress.
In the mid-1990s there was an "age crisis" in cosmology. It is possible to deduce the amount of time since the Big Bang by extrapolating backward from the rate of expansion today, but it appeared that the oldest stars were older than that. But better measurement of the distances to these old star clusters reduced the ages deduced for these old stars, and the recent discovery that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating, increased the estimated time since the Big Bang. As a result, there is now excellent agreement: the Big Bang occurred about 14 billion years ago.
Taking the Big Bang as our educated guess about the origin of the universe, we naturally ask what would such a universe look like? Can we deduce potential observations from the hypothesis of a primordial fireball? The answer is 'yes.'
Since light travels at a finite velocity, observations of distant objects are also observations of conditions in the past. In the distant past, the universe was smaller and therefore denser and hotter than it is today. In the 1940s, George Gamow and his colleagues had predicted that the heat from the Big Bang should have left a trace of itself in the form of microwave radiation spread evenly across the sky. The most convincing evidence for the Big Bang came from the accidental discovery of this radiation in 1965. Two young American astronomers, Penzias and Wilson, were attempting to pioneer astronomy in the microwave part of the spectrum. They picked up a very faint signal which seemed to be coming from every part of the sky. At first they thought it was a problem with the telescope. Only when they had thoroughly checked all their equipment did the full significance of their observation became apparent. The strength of the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson was compatible with the predictions of Big Bang cosmology.
Further evidence for the Big Bang comes from the abundance of the light elements. According to calculations, all of the deuterium (the stable heavy isotope of hydrogen) and most of the helium in the universe should have been made in the first few minutes of the Big Bang. The abundance of primordial deuterium and helium deduced from observations agrees with these predictions.
For clusters of galaxies to have formed in some places and not others, the initial distribution of matter must have been slightly lumpy, and this should have resulted in slight differences in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation in different directions. In 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite discovered tiny temperature differences that agreed with the predictions of the Big Bang theory. These discoveries were subsequently confirmed and extended by more recent experiments, and even more precise observations are in progress.
In the mid-1990s there was an "age crisis" in cosmology. It is possible to deduce the amount of time since the Big Bang by extrapolating backward from the rate of expansion today, but it appeared that the oldest stars were older than that. But better measurement of the distances to these old star clusters reduced the ages deduced for these old stars, and the recent discovery that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating, increased the estimated time since the Big Bang. As a result, there is now excellent agreement: the Big Bang occurred about 14 billion years ago.
Nobel Prize for Big Bang is a Fizzer
Dissenting voices
David Suzuki in a recent interview made the practical observation that ideas considered "red-hot" when he left university are now considered laughable. Science advances by incremental steps, he said. Our mistake is to place too much emphasis on those steps when they occur. By doing so we may be missing the bigger picture.
This highlights a problem faced by the Nobel Prize committee. If an award is granted too soon after one of science's incremental steps their decision may shortly prove to be an embarrassment. I predict that the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2006 will have some present committee members red-faced because the "Big Bang" theory it rewards is already dead! Technically, the Big Bang is not even a theory. It is a hypothesis that, despite the Nobel committee's imprimatur, remains devoid of real experimental and descriptive verification.
Strictly, theories are hypotheses that have been tested and found valid. The Big Bang is a highly adaptable hypothesis that has been repeatedly modified after failing tests. Some of those modifications are incredible, involving the invention of "dark" matter that responds to gravity but not to electromagnetic radiation. There is no known matter that does not involve electric charge and/or magnetism, so how is this possible? More recently, "dark energy" has been added to the Bang because it is perceived that it is accelerating. The Big Bang is, by scientific standards, an execrable hypothesis that defies the principles of physics and common sense. Future historians of science will judge this era insane.
Dennis Overbye described the situation in an essay in the NY Times, "You might wonder just exactly what kind of triumph "precision cosmology" represents when 96 percent of the universe is unknown dark stuff. Stars and people we know about. But the best guess for dark matter is that it is some kind of subatomic particle that will be discovered someday.
Dark energy was a complete surprise. How often do you toss a handful of gravel into the air and the rocks speed up as they leave your hand and disappear into the sky? The leading contender for an explanation is a fudge factor representing the repulsive force of empty space that Einstein danced in and out of his equations 75 or so years ago. But no one really knows."
The observation that saved the Big Bang theory from the trash in 1991 was the discovery honoured by this Nobel Prize. However, it remains a bold assumption that the COBE results can be interpreted as the afterglow of a Big Bang.
The truth is, as one might expect, much simpler. At the heart of the Big Bang hypothesis is the interpretation of the redshift of faint distant objects as proof that the universe is expanding. Now called the "Hubble expansion," it is an interpretation that was not supported by Hubble. History has been rewritten. As my sadly missed colleague, Amy Acheson, wrote in 2003: "The disproof of the Big Bang is already nearly 40 years old. Halton Arp's first major paper on discordant redshifts was submitted to the The Astrophysical Journal in 1966, at a time when he had just finished his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies and was listed by the Association of Astronomical Professionals as 'most outstanding young astronomer' and among the top 20 astronomers in the world. The editor, Chandrasekhar, rejected that paper because of its subject,
You seem always to begin to see patterns. I don't deny that I have some only that you are not qualified to see what my psyciatrist could not.
In any case with respect to Velikovskys brilliant guesswork, which is in effect what you're saying, and if that is the case, he becomes all the more mysterious and worthy of study, not less. Velikovsky made the predictions based on a better theroy of the solar system. To date the total correct predictions of the BB crowd add up to zero, nada, zip, none. There was no big bang there is no evidence of a big bang it is very expensive science fiction and it will remain so for all time, even if you get lucky and map out my pattern.:smile:
darkbeaver you have to show us something else to replace the big bang, Something that can explain the flight of all the galaxies in the universe away from a single point. Something that will also explain Penzias and Wilson's background radiation. The Big Bang theory did not arrive in a big bang, it evolved in support of the evidence.
Don't need to be a psychiatrist to spot patterns in peoples' behaviour. The only difficulty with you is that sometimes you're inclined to be flippant, so it's not always obvious what you're serious about. Considering what you've posted about 9/11 conspiracies, Zionist banking conspiracies, and conspiracy, ignorance, and corruption in the scientific establishment to suppress Velikovsky's catastrophism and the electric universe stuff you continue to promote, there is a pattern. It appears the world to you is run by shadowy, malevolent forces bent on harming and/or deceiving most of us, for some purpose that isn't really clear.
Not at all, I'm saying it was a lucky guess.
And that's typical of your pattern: you baldly state things that simply aren't true.
Do a little reading here , it might help correct some of your misunderstandings of what science is and how it works, and pay particular attention to this page.
You have a pattern of avoiding the subject matter. The truth allows anyone to baldly state the obvious. I have no misunderstanding of what science is or what it does. Velikovsky had a pattern of lucky guesses by the way.
"One geologist's surprising observation started science on an unexpected journey of discovery toward solving the mystery of the dinosaur extinction. Learn more about how science works as you follow the twists and turns of this scientific adventure."
Here's an example of the tripe offered by the first site you recommeded. What solution?
In what sense is it tripe? The evidence seems pretty clear that the big extinction event that ended the Cretaceous was due to an asteroid impact. Or is it the plate tectonics stuff you object to?
You have a massive, probably irredeemable, misunderstanding of what science is and how it works if you can call that stuff tripe.
You have a massive, probably irredeemable, misunderstanding of what science is and how it works if you can call that stuff tripe.
The tripe was the "solution" for the extinction event , the asteroid is a theroy , a possible solution. A possibility only. It was a misrepresentation of facts on the first page at the top. How sloppy would the rest of it have been?
Here's where you're demonstratably stuck by your own submissions. Assembling the Solar System
Confirmatory Bias in Science
"This refers to the tendency for humans to seek out, attend to, and sometimes embellish experiences that support or ‘confirm’ their beliefs. Confirmatory experiences are selectively welcomed and granted easy credibility. Disconfirmatory experiences, on the other hand, are often ignored, discredited, or treated with obvious defensiveness... the most costly expression of this tendency may well be among scientists themselves…
One study found that the vast majority of scientists drawn from a national sample showed a strong preference for “confirmatory” experiments. Over half of these scientists did not even recognize disconfirmation (modus tollens) as a valid reasoning form! In another study the logical reasoning skills of 30 scientists were compared to those of 15 relatively uneducated Protestant ministers. Where there were performance differences, they tended to favor the ministers. Confirmatory bias was prevalent in both groups, but the ministers used disconfirmatory logic almost twice as often as the scientists did. The costs of this cognitive bias are perhaps nowhere as serious as in the area of scientific publication.” — Michael J. Mahoney, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1977, pp. 161-175.
Here's where you're demonstratably stuck by your own submissions. Assembling the Solar System
Confirmatory Bias in Science
"This refers to the tendency for humans to seek out, attend to, and sometimes embellish experiences that support or ‘confirm’ their beliefs. Confirmatory experiences are selectively welcomed and granted easy credibility. Disconfirmatory experiences, on the other hand, are often ignored, discredited, or treated with obvious defensiveness... the most costly expression of this tendency may well be among scientists themselves…
One study found that the vast majority of scientists drawn from a national sample showed a strong preference for “confirmatory” experiments. Over half of these scientists did not even recognize disconfirmation (modus tollens) as a valid reasoning form! In another study the logical reasoning skills of 30 scientists were compared to those of 15 relatively uneducated Protestant ministers. Where there were performance differences, they tended to favor the ministers. Confirmatory bias was prevalent in both groups, but the ministers used disconfirmatory logic almost twice as often as the scientists did. The costs of this cognitive bias are perhaps nowhere as serious as in the area of scientific publication.” — Michael J. Mahoney, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1977, pp. 161-175.
Has this ''single point'' been localized? Does this ''single point'' exist theoretically? From my limited and probably naive understanding of cosmology, it would seem that there should be some point in the universe that could technically be called the center of the universe...
Can anyone illuminate me?
I gather there isn't. Have a gander at the electric model, you'll be to the other side of the universe in a week. You'll get nowhere like I did if you get sucked into a nonexistant blackhole. Hawkings is full of ****. Because of redshift misunderstanding that's recently been fixed we know now that we ain't expanding anywhere, we have no idea how old the universe is or where it's extents are or what they might even be. The big bang theroy has been dead for thirty years it just isn't allowed to tip over and blow away.
Here at least is some readin on the subject:
[SIZE=+4]The Big Bang Theory[/SIZE]
"The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended; some few red wisps, ashes and smoke. Standing on a cooled cinder, we see the slow fading of the suns, and we try to recall the vanishing brilliance of the origin of the worlds."LemaitreAn overwhelming weight of evidence has convinced cosmologists that the universe came into existence at a definite moment in time, some 13 billion years ago, in the form of a superhot, superdense fireball of energetic radiation. This is known as the Big Bang theory. Until the arrival of the Big Bang theory the universe was believed to be essentially eternal and unchanging, represented by the Steady State model. The first clear hint that the universe might change as time passes came in 1917 when Albert Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein realised that his equations said that the universe must be either expanding or contracting, but it could not be standing still, because if it were then gravity would attract all the galaxies towards one another. This was, at the time, a revolutionary concept, so revolutionary that Einstein refused to believe it and introduced his infamous 'cosmological constant' into the equations so that the sums agreed that the universe could be static. He later claimed it was the biggest blunder of his career. It was in 1920 that Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding by measuring the light from distant galaxies. This discovery was followed in 1927 by Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian astronomer, who was the first person to produce a version of what is now known as the Big Bang model.
It is necessary to understand that the Big Bang did not begin as a huge explosion within the universe, the Big Bang created the universe. A popular misconception is that it happened within the universe and that it is expanding through it. This causes people to wonder where in the universe it started, as if by running the clock backwards we would reach the point where all the galaxies come together in the centre of the universe. The universe does not have a centre, any more than the surface of a sphere has a centre, there is no preferred place that could be termed the centre. I know this sounds odd, it must have a centre, mustn't it? The problem we have here is we are trying to visualise the universe in the standard 3 dimensions that we are familiar with and therefore expect to find a centre to an expanding sphere. The universe, however, is not an expanding 3 dimensional sphere, it contains also the dimension of time (see 'What is Time?') and many other dimensions as well. By way of an illustration imagine a balloon with dots painted on the surface to represent the galaxies. If the balloon is now inflated we can see that all the dots are moving away from one another, just as the galaxies are in the real universe, and we can also see that on the surface of the balloon there is no centre point from which all the galaxies are moving away from. I am not suggesting that we are existing on the 'outside' of an expanding bubble, only that we cannot visualise the entire expanding universe.
Let's begin with a brief look at how the Big Bang describes the creation and evolution of the universe before moving on to some of the evidence to support the theory and the problems associated with the theory.
The Big Bang theory
The standard model of the Big Bang theory proposes that the universe emerged from a singularity, at time zero, and describes all that has happened since 0.0001 (10-4) of a second after this moment of creation. The temperature of the universe at that time was 1,000 billion degrees Kelvin (1012) and had a density that of nuclear matter, 1014 grams per cubic centimetre (the density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimetre). Under these extreme conditions, the photons of the 'background' radiation carry so much energy that they are interchangeable with particles. Photons create pairs of particles and antiparticles which annihilate one another to make energetic photons in a constant interchange of energy in line with Einstein's equation E = mc2. Because of a small asymmetry in the way the fundamental interactions work, slightly more particles were produced than antiparticles - about one in a billion more particles than antiparticles.
When the universe had cooled to the point that photons no longer had the energy required to make particles, all the paired particles and antiparticles annihilated, and the one in a billion particles left over settled down to become stable matter.
One-hundredth of a second after time zero the temperature had fallen 90% to 100 billion K. By one-tenth of a second after time zero the temperature was down to 30 billion K. The temperature after 13.8 seconds was down to 3 billion K, and by three minutes and two seconds had cooled to 1 billion K, only 70 times hotter than the centre of the Sun today. At this temperature nuclei of deuterium and helium could be formed and stick together despite collisions with other particles.
During the fourth minute after time zero reactions took place that locked up the remaining neutrons in helium nuclei, as described by Gammow et al in 1940 and Fred Hoyle and others in the 1960's. This epoch ended with just under 25% of the nuclear material converted into helium, and the rest left behind as lone protons - hydrogen nuclei.
By just over 30 minutes after time zero, all of the positrons had annihilated with almost all of the electrons - with again one in a billion left over - to produce the background radiation proper, and the temperature had dropped to 300 million K, and the density was only 10% of that of water. At this temperature stable atoms were still not able to form.
The interactions between electrons and photons continued for 300,000 years, until the universe had cooled to 6000 K, roughly the temperature of the surface of the Sun, and the photons were becoming too weak to knock electrons off atoms.
Over the next 500,000 years the background radiation decoupled, and had no more significant interaction with matter. The Big Bang was in effect over, and the universe left to expand and cool. About 1 million years after time zero, stars and galaxies could begin to form. Nucleosynthesis inside stars convert hydrogen and helium to make heavier elements, eventually giving rise to our Sun, the Earth and ourselves.
This is only a very brief overview of the main points describing the evolution of the universe, a number of books have been published that describe just the first four minutes or less!
So how does it all stack up? How much evidence do we actually have to support the Big Bang model of the universe?
Einstein's Theory of Relativity. This is a theory of spacetime, offering a complete mathematical description of the universe. Relativity, along with Quantum Mechanics, (see "What is Quantum Mechanics?") is considered to be the most complete and accurate theory ever devised, mathematically describing such diverse phenomenon as the constant speed of light and the formation of black holes. Einstein's equations tell us - apart from many other things - that the universe is expanding, and that by going back in time there must have been a time when all the galaxies were very close together. And further back when all the stars must have been touching each another, merging to make one great fireball as hot as the inside of a star at 15 million degrees Kelvin (Kelvin is absolute zero temperature). Einstein's equations actually go further back than that, to a time when all the matter and energy of the universe emerged from a single point of zero size, a singularity. This is how the Big Bang theory describes the birth of the universe.
Expansion of the universe. One of the reasons the universe is believed to be expanding is because of the phenomenon known as 'red shift'. Light, or other electromagnetic radiation from an astronomical object may be stretched, (due to a number of reasons) making its wavelength longer. Because red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, the effect of this stretching on features in the optical spectrum is to move them towards the red end of the spectrum. If then the optical spectrum of a distant galaxy shows features that are shifted towards the red end of the spectrum (red shifted), it can be due to one or more of the following three reasons:
1) Motion. The galaxy is moving away from us, this is known as the Doppler effect. The same effect can be detected in sound. When a police car is speeding towards us the sound waves made by its siren are 'squashed' and the pitch sounds higher. As it passes us and starts to move away the sound waves are 'stretched' and the pitch sounds lower. In the 1920's Edwin Hubble observed that all galaxies (apart from a few local ones attracted towards our own and showing blueshift) show red shift. This indicates that the galaxies are all flying away from us, as in a Big Bang explosion.
2) Expansion of the universe. Einstein's famous equations show that the universe should be expanding, not because the galaxies were moving through space, but because the 'empty' space between them (spacetime) is expanding. This cosmological redshift results because the light from the distant galaxies is stretched by the amount that space expands while the light is en route to us. This also reveals that the Earth is not at the centre of the universe with all the galaxies moving away from us, but that due to the expansion of the universe, all the galaxies are moving away from each other, like painted dots on a balloon moving apart as it is inflated.
3) Gravity. This is also explained by Einstein's general theory. Light moving outwards from a star is moving 'uphill' in the star's gravitational field, and loses energy as a result. Because light cannot slow down - it always travels at the same speed - when it loses energy its wavelength increases, in other words, it is redshifted. It does however, require a very powerful gravitational field for this effect to be measurable, such as created by a white dwarf star.
All three kinds of redshift can be at work at the same time. If we had telescopes sensitive enough to see light from a white dwarf star in a distant galaxy, the overall redshift in that light would be due to a combination of Doppler, cosmological and gravitational redshifts.
The fact that we can measure redshift in the light from distant galaxies tells us that the galaxies are receding from us, and from each other. It only takes a little logical deduction to conclude that as they are now all receding from one another, then at some finite point in the past (believed to be around 13 billion years or so) they must have all been at the same point.
Microwave Background Radiation. The universe is filled with a sea of radiation at a temperature of just over 2.7 degrees Kelvin, detectable at microwave radio frequencies both by Earth based radio telescopes and by instruments onboard artificial satellites. This is interpreted as direct evidence of the Big Bang fireball in which the universe was born, being the remnant of the superhot radiation from the fireball that has cooled down as the universe expanded. The discovery of the background radiation is therefore the most important observation made in cosmology since the discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe was expanding. The existence of the background radiation, and its temperature, was accurately predicted by the Big Bang theory. When it was later discovered, by chance as it happens, this was yet another confirmation of the theory.
Nucleosynthesis of the light elements.
As the universe expanded and cooled, so the process of matter building began that led to the formation of stars, planets, galaxies etc. The process began with the simplest element, hydrogen, then helium, and then eventually onto more complex elements. The observed abundance of hydrogen, the simplest element and the most common in the universe, followed by helium, is yet further confirmation of the Big Bang theory.
The study of stars reveals how their internal nuclear interactions cause simple atoms, such as hydrogen and helium, to create more complex elements. Stars are in fact gigantic matter producing factories, converting hydrogen and helium into carbon and heavier elements by the process of nucleosynthesis deep within their interiors. If stars did not exist, we would not be here, our own atoms that make us, were formed by the stars, and by the supernovas at the death of certain size stars. All as described by the Big Bang theory.
Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure
the Big Bang model provides a framework in which to understand the collapse of matter to form galaxies and other large-scale structures observed in the universe today. At about 10,000 years after the Big Bang, the temperature had fallen to such an extent that the average density of the universe began to be dominated by massive particles, rather than by light and other radiation. This change meant that the gravitational forces between the particles could begin to take effect, so that any small perturbations in their density would grow. These small perturbations led to the formation of galaxies.
These are the principle observed phenomenon that go to support the Big Bang theory. Is it proof enough? Do we have a universe that was born out of a singularity, that is expanding and cooling, and is therefore finite in both age and size? See Can anything 'real' be infinite? for an explanation of a finite universe.
[SIZE=+2]What do I think?[/SIZE]
The Big Bang theory clearly still has a long way to go in order to be able to explain the origin of the universe. That is not to say that the theory as it stands is in any way wrong.
The staggering amount of evidence in support of the Big Bang theory is simply overwhelming. So much so that the theory simply cannot now be overturned. What is known to agree with the theory today cannot be changed tomorrow, by any theory, to make it disagree.
The situation is such that any new theory, far from displacing the Big Bang, would have to incorporate it. In other words, it can only be improved upon in much the same way that Einstein incorporated Newton's theory of gravity into his own theory of relativity. Relativity did not overthrow Newton's theory, it incorporated and developed it.
I realise that some people do not support the Big Bang theory, and a few have contacted me to inform me of this. Okay, agreed, it is 'only a theory.' It is also 'only a theory' that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way around. But eventually, the mass of accumulated evidence for 'only a theory' becomes so powerful and persuasive it becomes impossible to ignore, whether or not you happen to like it.
For more information on the Big Bang and related topics, the following is an excellent site: In the Beginning
The entire edifice of einstiens theroy rested on the incorrect assumption of space being a vaccumm, this has been proven inncorect, it's full of plasma. In his own words he said his theroy would fall like a house of cards if space were not empty.
There is not one supporting fact about the big bang that I have been able to find and page after page of facts predictions and discoveries in the electric model.
The electric model discounts the big bang in it's entirety and the weight of steadily increaseing evidence supports it's complete irrelevancey except to invested interests, like Hawkings who continues to peddle hyped up fiction delivered in the usual manner. The jump from Newton to the electric universe can be made without consideration of black holes, dark matter, dark energy or big bangs, there is no beginning and there is no end and there is no middle, just get used to it being that way. There is literally a better chance of a fully formed sun emerging from my ass than there is of gravity pulling one into the middle of an accreation disc that couldn't exist in the first place.
There is not one supporting fact about the big bang that I have been able to find and page after page of facts predictions and discoveries in the electric model.
The electric model discounts the big bang in it's entirety and the weight of steadily increaseing evidence supports it's complete irrelevancey except to invested interests, like Hawkings who continues to peddle hyped up fiction delivered in the usual manner. The jump from Newton to the electric universe can be made without consideration of black holes, dark matter, dark energy or big bangs, there is no beginning and there is no end and there is no middle, just get used to it being that way. There is literally a better chance of a fully formed sun emerging from my ass than there is of gravity pulling one into the middle of an accreation disc that couldn't exist in the first place.
Aaaahhh you're all nuts. God did it. Just ask eannasir.
Why does everyone always ASSume with so much certainty there has to be a beginning and an ending to the universe (something we know relatively very little about)?
Why does everyone always ASSume with so much certainty there has to be a beginning and an ending to the universe (something we know relatively very little about)?