[[Mod. note -- Or, our theoretical models of star formation aren't
that good. Seriously, modelling star formation is *hard* -- there
is turbulence, turbulent magnetic fields, gas and dust, maybe some
ambient ultraviolet light from earlier "population III" stars, and
likely a bunch of other stuff as well.
-- jt]]
Our sun is 5Gy old. The chemical composition of the cloud that
formed the sun was the chemical composition at 13.7 - 5Gyr =3D 8.7Gyr.
It took then more than 8Gyr to our galaxy to accumulate "metals"
to build the sun. The fact that a galaxy appears that is chemically equivalent implies that it also needed 8Gyr to accumulate metals,
but it is only 1.4 Gyrs from the Big Bang. That doesn't fit, so
something must be wrong. Then, we start putting into question the
star formation theories and NOT the Big Bang, of course.
The fact that the old galaxies that we are seeing just 0.6Gyr after
the supposed bang are impossible
unless... we say that the galaxy
formation theories are wrong without advancing anything to explain
how and old galaxy can happen in just 0.6 Gyr. If you say that star
formation theory is wrong, you must come with ANOTHER star formation
theory to explain the facts.
Obviously the Big Bang theory has a lot of momentum and will try
to save something for some time. But it is a LOST fight... and
everyone sees it now. It would be more productive if we try to see
what stands after this earthquake.
The assumption that the red shift is due to a Doppler effect is
proved wrong. What are the alternatives? That is the scientific
question now.
jacob
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:54:17=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Jacob Navia wrote:
[]
Our sun is 5Gy old. The chemical composition of the cloud thatThis is an assumption that a galaxy needs 8Gyr to reach the metallicity
formed the sun was the chemical composition at 13.7 - 5Gyr =3D 8.7Gyr.
It took then more than 8Gyr to our galaxy to accumulate "metals"
to build the sun. The fact that a galaxy appears that is chemically equivalent implies that it also needed 8Gyr to accumulate metals,
of the Milky Way.
but it is only 1.4 Gyrs from the Big Bang. That doesn't fit, so
something must be wrong. Then, we start putting into question the
star formation theories and NOT the Big Bang, of course.
The fact that the old galaxies that we are seeing just 0.6Gyr afterNot impossible, just not yet understood.
the supposed bang are impossible
unless... we say that the galaxyPrecisely. This is how we learn and REFINE the models and theories
formation theories are wrong without advancing anything to explain
how and old galaxy can happen in just 0.6 Gyr. If you say that star formation theory is wrong, you must come with ANOTHER star formation
theory to explain the facts.
we use to explain the universe.
Obviously the Big Bang theory has a lot of momentum and will tryI don't think the Big Bang is in much of a fight. There isn't any
to save something for some time. But it is a LOST fight... and
everyone sees it now. It would be more productive if we try to see
what stands after this earthquake.
strong contender around.
The assumption that the red shift is due to a Doppler effect is
proved wrong. What are the alternatives? That is the scientific
question now.
jacobBut red shift is NOT just due to Doppler. It is also due to cosmic
expansion.
This is not the knockout discovery for the Big Bang that you claim.
Ed
Le mardi 7 mars 2023 =C3=A0 23:18:50 UTC+1, edpr...@gmail.com a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:54:17=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Jacob Navia wrote: >> []
Our sun is 5Gy old. The chemical composition of the cloud thatThis is an assumption that a galaxy needs 8Gyr to reach the metallicity
formed the sun was the chemical composition at 13.7 - 5Gyr =3D 8.7Gyr.
It took then more than 8Gyr to our galaxy to accumulate "metals"
to build the sun. The fact that a galaxy appears that is chemically
equivalent implies that it also needed 8Gyr to accumulate metals,
of the Milky Way.
but it is only 1.4 Gyrs from the Big Bang. That doesn't fit, soNot impossible, just not yet understood.
something must be wrong. Then, we start putting into question the
star formation theories and NOT the Big Bang, of course.
The fact that the old galaxies that we are seeing just 0.6Gyr after
the supposed bang are impossible
Excuse me, but you are proposing a new theory of metallicity formation
in galaxies: a FAST one, that arrives at the same metallicity of
the Mily Way in just 1,400 million years. Without providing ANY
justification for it. Metals are built by stars in a long process
in their cores. Then, when the supernovas explode, they disseminate
their metals into the void, where they will be used by the new stars
that start with more metals, etc etc. That is a VERY slow process.
And why are you proposing this "fast track" metallicity process?
Have you any REAL DATA behind your new theory?
No, you just want to save the big bang theory.
unless... we say that the galaxyPrecisely. This is how we learn and REFINE the models and theories
formation theories are wrong without advancing anything to explain
how and old galaxy can happen in just 0.6 Gyr. If you say that star
formation theory is wrong, you must come with ANOTHER star formation
theory to explain the facts.
we use to explain the universe.
No
There is another process. When a theory acquires too many problems
it must be discarded entirely. That is why we do not add more
epicycles to theories that put the earth at the center of the
Universe. We DISCARDED the whole theory and built a new, better
one.
Problem: there isn't now any theory to replace the big bang theory.
So, you, and many astronomers also, try to save the big bang theory
against all evidence.
[[Mod. note --
1. That "1,400 million years" is calculated assuming a big-bang cosmology.
2. > Metals are built by stars in a long process
> in their cores. Then, when the supernovas explode, they disseminate
> their metals into the void, where they will be used by the new stars
> that start with more metals, etc etc. That is a VERY slow process.
This whole process depends STRONGLY on the mass of the star.
Relatively low-mass stars (e.g., solar-mass or below) have lifespans
of 10 billion years or more, and never do supernova. Very high-mass
stars do indeed end their lives in a supernova, but this happens very
fast (well under 10 million years). So the timescale on which metals
build up in a galaxy depends STRONGLY on the distribution of stellar
masses.
We think that "population III" stars (those forming from essentially
hydrogen/helium only, as would be the case for the first stars formed
after the big bang) will tend to be highly massive. But we have
zero direct observational data for this, so there's some uncertainty
about the details.
So, there's substantial uncertainty about just what metal abundance
a galaxy developes at a a given (young) age. And given that, maybe
it's not quite so surprising that our first observations probing
this are not quite what we expected?
-- jt]]
Le mardi 7 mars 2023 =C3=A0 23:18:50 UTC+1, edpr...@gmail.com a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:54:17=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Jacob Navia wrote: []
Our sun is 5Gy old. The chemical composition of the cloud thatThis is an assumption that a galaxy needs 8Gyr to reach the metallicity
formed the sun was the chemical composition at 13.7 - 5Gyr =3D 8.7Gyr.
It took then more than 8Gyr to our galaxy to accumulate "metals"
to build the sun. The fact that a galaxy appears that is chemically equivalent implies that it also needed 8Gyr to accumulate metals,
of the Milky Way.
but it is only 1.4 Gyrs from the Big Bang. That doesn't fit, so
something must be wrong. Then, we start putting into question the
star formation theories and NOT the Big Bang, of course.
Excuse me, but you are proposing a new theory of metallicity formationThe fact that the old galaxies that we are seeing just 0.6Gyr afterNot impossible, just not yet understood.
the supposed bang are impossible
in galaxies: a FAST one, that arrives at the same metallicity of
the Mily Way in just 1,400 million years. Without providing ANY
justification for it. Metals are built by stars in a long process
in their cores. Then, when the supernovas explode, they disseminate
their metals into the void, where they will be used by the new stars
that start with more metals, etc etc. That is a VERY slow process.
And why are you proposing this "fast track" metallicity process?
Have you any REAL DATA behind your new theory?
No, you just want to save the big bang theory.
Nounless... we say that the galaxyPrecisely. This is how we learn and REFINE the models and theories
formation theories are wrong without advancing anything to explain
how and old galaxy can happen in just 0.6 Gyr. If you say that star formation theory is wrong, you must come with ANOTHER star formation theory to explain the facts.
we use to explain the universe.
There is another process. When a theory acquires too many problems
it must be discarded entirely. That is why we do not add more
epicycles to theories that put the earth at the center of the
Universe. We DISCARDED the whole theory and built a new, better
one.
Problem: there isn't now any theory to replace the big bang theory.
So, you, and many astronomers also, try to save the big bang theory
against all evidence.
Agreement. Yeah!You are right. There is no alternative theory right now.Obviously the Big Bang theory has a lot of momentum and will tryI don't think the Big Bang is in much of a fight. There isn't any
to save something for some time. But it is a LOST fight... and
everyone sees it now. It would be more productive if we try to see
what stands after this earthquake.
strong contender around.
The assumption that the red shift is due to a Doppler effect is
proved wrong. What are the alternatives? That is the scientific
question now.
We assume that the red-shift is caused by cosmic expansion, i.e. ajacobBut red shift is NOT just due to Doppler. It is also due to cosmic expansion.
Doppler effect. Then, we need an origin because if space is expanding,
in the past it was just a point with infinite density at 13,700
million years ago.
This is not what is observed. There is no hint to a big bang in the photographs of the JWST. Just more galaxies like our own.
Yeah! You are in the same position as every astrophysicist.This is not the knockout discovery for the Big Bang that you claim.I have been arguing against that theory since quite a number of
years in this group. The "impossible galaxy" problem was there
already BEFORE the JWST was started. A few days before JWST took
off from Kouru I posted a message here predicting that the JWST
will see more galaxies without end without any trace of a big bang.
This has been confirmed.
But I haven't any new theory of the Universe in my suitcase. I just
see that the big bang theory is wrong, without being able to explain
to you anything. I do not even know what the red-shift is. OK. It
is not a Doppler effect, space is not expanding. But then... what
is it?
I DO NOT KNOW.
Acknowledging your ignorance is the first step in the way of
knowledge. You try to understand what is there ONLY when you see
that you do not know what it is.When you see that your theories are
wrong you try to see reality as it is.
What is the red-shift? It is the red-shift that was discovered
by Hubble that gave impetus to a theory of the "Big Bang" that
"created" the Universe 13,700 Million years ago. And now we have
to return to the start: What is the red-shift?
That is the scientific question to ask now.
jacob
[[Mod. note --
1. That "1,400 million years" is calculated assuming a big-bang cosmology.
2. > Metals are built by stars in a long process
in their cores. Then, when the supernovas explode, they disseminateThis whole process depends STRONGLY on the mass of the star.
their metals into the void, where they will be used by the new stars
that start with more metals, etc etc. That is a VERY slow process.
Relatively low-mass stars (e.g., solar-mass or below) have lifespans
of 10 billion years or more, and never do supernova. Very high-mass
stars do indeed end their lives in a supernova, but this happens very
fast (well under 10 million years). So the timescale on which metals
build up in a galaxy depends STRONGLY on the distribution of stellar
masses.
We think that "population III" stars (those forming from essentially hydrogen/helium only, as would be the case for the first stars formed
after the big bang) will tend to be highly massive. But we have
zero direct observational data for this, so there's some uncertainty
about the details.
So, there's substantial uncertainty about just what metal abundance
a galaxy developes at a a given (young) age. And given that, maybe
it's not quite so surprising that our first observations probing
this are not quite what we expected?
-- jt]]
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 379 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 39:25:11 |
Calls: | 8,141 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 13,085 |
Messages: | 5,857,558 |