Prev: An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
Next: Choosing time dimension in FT with symmetric energy density causes Lorentz invariance
From: Morpheal on 29 Oct 2009 08:50
In http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm BBC news: in
the journal Nature, two teams of astronomers report their observations
of a gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion light-years
away. The massive star died about 630 million years after the Big
Bang.
UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation as "a step back in
cosmic time".

I suggest that the giant star must be older than the "Big Bang" and
that it does not violate existing models of such objects burning out
as they age... as the BBC writer describes.....

"Models assume GRBs arise when giant stars burn out and collapse
During collapse, super-fast jets of matter burst out from the stars
Collisions occur with gas already shed by the dying behemoths
The interaction generates the energetic signals detected by Swift
Remnants of the huge stars end their days as black holes."

What is significant is that either the existing model concerning such
events must be discarded as wrong, or it must be accepted, and if so
either the Big Bang pushed back and redefined or acceptance given that
stars and other matter do pre-exist the Big Bang that gave rise to the
largest portion of what we see in our portion of the universe. There
is too much evidence against pushing back the Big Bang to accommodate
such anomalous events so we are left with the theory that some things
that we see in the distant universe did in fact pre-exist the Big
Bang.





From: Androcles on 29 Oct 2009 09:08

"Morpheal" <bobezergailis(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4a0355b5-0d09-4f18-81b0-e5cd9d0415bf(a)f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> In http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm BBC news: in
> the journal Nature, two teams of astronomers report their observations
> of a gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion light-years
> away. The massive star died about 630 million years after the Big
> Bang.
> UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation as "a step back in
> cosmic time".
>
> I suggest that the giant star must be older than the "Big Bang" and
> that it does not violate existing models of such objects burning out
> as they age... as the BBC writer describes.....
>
> "Models assume GRBs arise when giant stars burn out and collapse
> During collapse, super-fast jets of matter burst out from the stars
> Collisions occur with gas already shed by the dying behemoths
> The interaction generates the energetic signals detected by Swift
> Remnants of the huge stars end their days as black holes."
>
> What is significant is that either the existing model concerning such
> events must be discarded as wrong, or it must be accepted, and if so
> either the Big Bang pushed back and redefined or acceptance given that
> stars and other matter do pre-exist the Big Bang that gave rise to the
> largest portion of what we see in our portion of the universe. There
> is too much evidence against pushing back the Big Bang to accommodate
> such anomalous events so we are left with the theory that some things
> that we see in the distant universe did in fact pre-exist the Big
> Bang.
>

I suggest the Big Bonk model was created by dorks who cannot grasp
the concept of infinity and "a step back to Neanderthal intelligence".
You've managed to say "Big Bang" four times in nine lines. Pretty soon
you'll believe it, along with dork holes, dork matter and black energy.


From: glird on 29 Oct 2009 19:01
On Oct 29, 8:50 am, Morpheal wrote:
> Inhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stmBBC news: in
the journal Nature, two teams of astronomers report their observations
of a gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion light-years
away. The massive star died about 630 million years after the Big
Bang.>

Present theory says that nothing can go faster than the speed of
light in vacuo. A "light-year" is the distance light can travel in one
year. If the universe began 13.73 billion years ago and expanded at
maximum possible speed ever since, it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYTHING to
have been 13.1 billion light-years from Earth in 630 million years!

> UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation as "a step back in cosmic time".>

It's more like a backward step in human reason.

glird
From: Gordon Stangler on 30 Oct 2009 01:41
On Oct 29, 6:01 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:

[snip]

>   Present theory says that nothing can go faster than the speed of
> light in vacuo. A "light-year" is the distance light can travel in one
> year.  If the universe began 13.73 billion years ago and expanded at
> maximum possible speed ever since, it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYTHING to
> have been 13.1 billion light-years from Earth in 630 million years!

[snip]

> glird

Wait, what?

He is saying that the star lived and died 630 million years after the
big bang. Thus, that is 13.1 billion years ago, since the BB was 13.7
billion years ago.
From: glird on 30 Oct 2009 16:42
On Oct 30, 1:41 am, Gordon Stangler wrote:
> On Oct 29, 6:01 pm, glird wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > <  Present theory says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light in vacuo. A "light-year" is the distance light can travel in one year.  If the universe began 13.73 billion years ago and expanded at maximum possible speed ever since, it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYTHING to have been 13.1 billion light-years from Earth in 630 million years!
> [snip]
> > glird

> Wait, what?
He is saying that the star lived and died 630 million years after the
big bang.  Thus, that is 13.1 billion years ago, since the BB was 13.7
billion years ago. >

If a star died 63 years ago and we saw it die when its light reached
us 13 million years later, then it had to be at least 13 million times
c away from us when it died.
As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing
happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-
years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even if the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded.

glird
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
Next: Choosing time dimension in FT with symmetric energy density causes Lorentz invariance