|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
James Webb Space Telescope Impllication
I saw a TV show on the effects of the Hubble Space Telescope.
It revolutionized astronomy and cosmology. The galaxy field and the nebula field were born anew. The Webb telescope was said to be reaching the boundary of the age of the universe. A scientist promised the new view would startle the world. He did not clarify this comment. He did say that stars are born out of nebula. This opposes the current cosmology of stellar evolution, my comment. If the galaxies simply continue into the past before the birth time of the universe, what does this mean? Are some scientists expecting the big-bang to topple? Is the red shift the only supportive fact of the expansive origin of this universe? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
James Webb Space Telescope Impllication
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
James Webb Space Telescope Impllication
wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: I saw a TV show on the effects of the Hubble Space Telescope. It revolutionized astronomy and cosmology. The galaxy field and the nebula field were born anew. The Webb telescope was said to be reaching the boundary of the age of the universe. A scientist promised the new view would startle the world. He did not clarify this comment. He did say that stars are born out of nebula. This opposes the current cosmology of stellar evolution, my comment. Well, no, it doesn't. If the galaxies simply continue into the past before the birth time of the universe, what does this mean? It means you don't understand what 'birth time of the universe' means. Are some scientists expecting the big-bang to topple? No doubt there are some somewhere, but the evidence is pretty much all against them. Is the red shift the only supportive fact of the expansive origin of this universe? No. Are you a 'flat Earther', Dougie? Yes, I am a Flat Earther. Why am I not surprised? gibberish elided -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
James Webb Space Telescope Impllication
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
James Webb Space Telescope Impllication
On Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 9:28:23 PM UTC-4, Alain Fournier wrote:
On Nov/1/2017 at 8:56 PM, wrote : Is the red shift the only supportive fact of the expansive origin of this universe? There are several other facts supportive of the Big Bang. Here are a few: 1) Proportions of different elements. If you start with a soup of quarks extremely dense and hot, at first nucleons (protons and neutrons) can't form or more precisely if they do form they hit something at high velocity and disintegrate like they do when they collide in particle accelerators. If the quark soup is cooling by rapid expansion, you can calculate how long they will have to form nucleons, and then how long the nucleons will have to form atom nuclei. The atom nuclei will only have a very short span of time to form. It turns out that things like oxygen won't have time to form. There will be very little of anything else than hydrogen and helium. And the hydrogen should be about 90% of the outcome, helium about 10% (if I recall correctly). If you look at very old galaxies you can see that they contain hydrogen and helium about in the proportion predicted by theory. In more recent parts of the universe you have heavier elements in the proportion that one would expect from stellar nuclear synthesis. 2) Cosmic background radiation. If you had a Big Bang about 15 billion years ago, one would expect to see not the big bang itself because the universe was to dense to let light go through at the very beginning. You can evaluate quite precisely at which temperature the universe becomes transparent to light (it is at the temperature where atom nuclei can hold on to electrons). So it is at a very specific temperature that the background radiation should have been emitted. You then calculate what that should look like after the expected red-shift. It is a quite specific wave length and has a quite specific shape and observations fit perfectly well with theory on this. Alain Fournier Quantum evolution in the soup of the expanding universe is a speculative answer to the need to diagram all quantum. It is a cosmological theory. A more reasonable theory is to observe quanta as now seen. And to inter-relate effects as seen. The universe origin version is a class of quantum theory used commonly. The red shift is a question. Why? I can only answer that there is a gravitational effect. I can't do math though so don't read me to seriously. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
6 Fun Facts about the James Webb Space Telescope | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | March 16th 10 01:43 AM |
James Webb Space Telescope is a boondoggle | Andrew Nowicki | Astronomy Misc | 38 | February 24th 05 06:48 AM |
James Webb Space Telescope is a boondoggle | Andrew Nowicki | Policy | 37 | February 24th 05 06:48 AM |
James Webb Space Telescope maintenance | Andrew Nowicki | Science | 1 | June 5th 04 06:32 PM |
James Webb Space Telescope | Alan Erskine | Policy | 7 | February 9th 04 11:16 PM |