Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory

Surfer wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:34:05 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:


"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added.

This paper obtains an older age for the universe:

".....The data and theory together imply an older age for the universe
of some 14.7Gyrs...."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569

Maybe that can resolve the issue.

What % of your posts reference Cahill? Guess.

Yousuf Khan wrote:

[...]

Sounds very much like crap.

Babble about the gravitational wave background which doesn't have a hope of
being detected within the next few decades, and then more babble about how
some galaxies far out 'must be billions of years old' without a shred of
evidence.

dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Apr 5, 8:34 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what
they say makes sense, such as the fully formed
galaxies in the early universe, and their metal-
richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their
statements and a penchant towards flowery language
like crackpots usually have.

snip link now broken by Google.Groups

This is just posturing for the "camera". Have to wait for the paper
to come out to a place we can see it.

So far, observations only get us close to being a problem for the
Standard Model.

All the better for my pet theory...

Which is what?

Yousuf Khan

Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/5/10 10:34 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what they say makes
sense, such as the fully formed galaxies in the early universe, and
their metal-richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their
statements and a penchant towards flowery language like crackpots
usually have.

Yousuf Khan

***
Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory - India - The Times of
India
"He also noted that CERN scientists "are trying to jigsaw a theory which
fits the conditions of the Big Bang model".

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added.

This phrase "must have already been billions of years old" is not
a scientific one!

Exactly what my point is, there is a penchant towards flowery language here.

Yousuf Khan

Surfer wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:34:05 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added.

This paper obtains an older age for the universe:

".....The data and theory together imply an older age for the universe
of some 14.7Gyrs...."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569

Maybe that can resolve the issue.

There are a number of different measurements that result in different
ages for the universe, but I thought they were all converging around the
13.7 Gyr average. At 14.7 Gyr, that would be quite a bit higher than the
average.

Yousuf Khan

eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:

[...]

Sounds very much like crap.

Babble about the gravitational wave background which doesn't have a hope of
being detected within the next few decades, and then more babble about how
some galaxies far out 'must be billions of years old' without a shred of
evidence.

There have been a few other stories about galaxies in the early universe
appearing prematurely old and reddish. I think that's what they are
referring to, though not explicitly mentioned by them. I linked to one
of the stories below.

Yousuf Khan

***
Astronomical Surprise: Massive Old Galaxies Starve To Death In The
Infant Universe
"Astronomers have found distant red galaxies—very massive and very
old—in the universe when it was only 2.5 billion years post Big Bang."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0310102001.htm

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Apr 6, 5:54*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Apr 5, 8:34 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what
they say makes sense, such as the fully formed
galaxies in the early universe, and their metal-
richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their
statements and a penchant towards flowery language
like crackpots usually have.

snip link now broken by Google.Groups

This is just posturing for the "camera". *Have to wait
for the paper to come out to a place we can see it.

So far, observations only get us close to being a
problem for the Standard Model.

All the better for my pet theory...

Which is what?

We are inside a black hole. The "glow of the CMBR" is what the
distorted light from our container Universe looks like. Entire
galaxies could have been swallowed, whatever metalicity desired if
multiple BHs in the container Universe open up into this one, small
ones to shred atoms into subatomic particles.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html
.... when you get to the end, and you infer (as I did) that he is
describing an interior Universe *exactly* like ours, then realize that
there is a "black curtain" in our own past...

David A. Smith

On Apr 5, 8:34*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what they say makes
sense, such as the fully formed galaxies in the early universe, and
their metal-richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their
statements and a penchant towards flowery language like crackpots
usually have.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

***
Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory - India - The Times of India
"He also noted that CERN scientists "are trying to jigsaw a theory which
fits the conditions of the Big Bang model".

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added.

In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a
growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have
begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. "http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indian-US-scientists-questio...

I'll buy that it's way older than 13.75e9 years, if not more than 10
fold older.

~ BG

Yousuf Khan a écrit :
Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what they say makes
sense, such as the fully formed galaxies in the early universe, and
their metal-richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their
statements and a penchant towards flowery language like crackpots
usually have.

Yousuf Khan

***
Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory - India - The Times of India
"He also noted that CERN scientists "are trying to jigsaw a theory which
fits the conditions of the Big Bang model".

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is
evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed
distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at
the time," he added.

In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a
growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have
begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. "
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ow/5761894.cms


The article is a summary of the evidence against Big Bang theory. Well written
and clear, it is a useful for understanding why BB theory is completely wrong.

dlzc wrote:
On Apr 6, 5:54 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dlzc wrote:
All the better for my pet theory...
Which is what?

We are inside a black hole. The "glow of the CMBR" is what the
distorted light from our container Universe looks like. Entire
galaxies could have been swallowed, whatever metalicity desired if
multiple BHs in the container Universe open up into this one, small
ones to shred atoms into subatomic particles.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html
... when you get to the end, and you infer (as I did) that he is
describing an interior Universe *exactly* like ours, then realize that
there is a "black curtain" in our own past...


Interestingly, another guy, Nikodem Poplawski, is proposing the same
thing in a story appearing today.

Yousuf Khan

***
Our universe could be within a wormhole inside another universe, says
physicist
"In a paper written by an Indiana University theoretical physicist,
Nikodem Poplawski, which appears in Physics Letters B, it is suggested
that the universe was born from a wormhole that lies inside a larger
universe.

Poplawski suggests that our universe could have been born inside a
wormhole, or an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. This is a theorized phenomenon
that provides solutions in general relativity when it combines models of
black holes and white holes.

The motion of a particle falling into a black hole can only be revealed
through experimentation or observation. But Poplawski also states the
known fact that the inside of a black hole cannot be observed unless the
observer is inside.

"This condition would be satisfied if our universe were the interior of
a black hole existing in a bigger universe," The physicist said."
http://www.examiner.com/x-30007-Spac...says-physicist