fact 10
Created Montag 09 Mai 2016
We refer loosely to the 10 Facts of the big bang theory given by ...
fact 10
Created Montag 09 Mai 2016
We refer loosely to the 10 Facts of the big bang theory given by Ethan Siegel, and shared here.
The author Wulff was educated by Unsöld and thus perpetually interessted in the astrophysical discoveries.
You can read this nice article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/05/top-10-facts-about-the-big-bang-theory/#3c869599bdc7
or https://plus.google.com/106562040211983246504/posts/N7KN1inVfmF
Carefully we throw some so-called classic reasons in the argumentation.
1. Einstein's dismission of the big bang idea and Mercury motion. Well Einstein made suggestive and reasonable considerations about fundamental issues and a static universe, or stationary universe as not proposed here, may be unstable. Thats plausible, but the Law of conservation of energy is empirical at all.
2. Hubble’s expanding Universe : Well we do not know.
Smallest insertion : We repeat ourselves. It is physics, simple and allways the same. It is not physics over physics, it is not Meta = physics.
3. The idea was dismissed since 1922: Expansion of space should explain what? Missing matter?
Insertion one (sorry) : What does the red shift mean? In our book, we have a little extension to the calcultaion of the stellar structure of the so-called degenerate stars: " The characteristics of the quasars including the #redshift observed on them come out if in the hydrostatic pressure function for a Hydrogen plasma the mass off a proton is replaced by that of a positron. Thus quasars would be in their interior, electron-positron stars." German : "Die Charakteristka der Quasare einschließlich der an ihnen beobachteten Rotverschiebungen ergeben sich, wenn in der hydrostatischen Druckgleichung für ein Wasserstoffplasma die Masse eines Protons durch die eines Positrons ersetzt wird. Quasare wären danach in ihrem Inneren Elektron-Positron Sterne." The original work was written shortly after the discovery of the pulsars in 1967.
Insertion two: We have to report something about red shift. A Quasar is a Quasi Stellar Object (QSO, since 1960) with strong Radiation. (They have mainly two symmetrical radiative sources around the optical source, strange, isn't it? In our book 3 "types": Seyfert galaxy, N- galaxy, QSO). Radiogalaxies known since 1946, 1952. The redshift occurs by the Doppler effect or in Pulsars and collapsing objects by the photons loosing energy in a gravitational field surrounding the source. At least an alternative.
a. The cosmological hypothesis : The luminosity (of a QSO) must be very strong, the dimensions must be very small, because of time constants and variability. This is not compatible
b. The local hypothesis : The QSO are nearby but the energy transfer in the explosion is improbable, and if there should be such explosions elsewhere there should be also a blue shift.
c. Gravitational hypothesis : This demands special models for the explanation of the uniformity of the red shift from different areas of the source, and that spectral lines do not merge. (somewhat partly Wulff)
4. The theory rose and gave predictions since the 1940 : The universe was cooling. Not knowing a zero point energy? "... just a few degrees above absolute zero." is discussed here too.
5. The name came from Fred Hoyle, a detractor: So it is.
6. The leftover glow: More facts, still problematic today to be eliminated from faint observations
7. The confirmation gives us history: So so.
8. The fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background tell us how close-to-perfectly uniform the Universe was at the start of the Big Bang? With presumptions.
9. Not the beginning anymore? This could not be expected.
10. And the way the Universe began doesn’t tell us the way it will end. That will the virial theorem neither. Be so free to propose an open system.
fact 10
Created Montag 09 Mai 2016
We refer loosely to the 10 Facts of the big bang theory given by Ethan Siegel, and shared here.
The author Wulff was educated by Unsöld and thus perpetually interessted in the astrophysical discoveries.
You can read this nice article here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/05/top-10-facts-about-the-big-bang-theory/#3c869599bdc7or
https://plus.google.com/106562040211983246504/posts/N7KN1inVfmFCarefully we throw some so-called classic reasons in the argumentation.
1. Einstein's dismission of the big bang idea and Mercury motion. Well Einstein made suggestive and reasonable considerations about fundamental issues and a static universe, or stationary universe as not proposed here, may be unstable. Thats plausible, but the Law of conservation of energy is empirical at all.
2. Hubble’s expanding Universe : Well we do not know.
Smallest insertion : We repeat ourselves. It is physics, simple and allways the same. It is not physics over physics, it is not Meta = physics.
3. The idea was dismissed since 1922: Expansion of space should explain what? Missing matter?
Insertion one (sorry) : What does the red shift mean? In our book, we have a little extension to the calcultaion of the stellar structure of the so-called degenerate stars: " The characteristics of the quasars including the
#redshift observed on them come out if in the hydrostatic pressure function for a Hydrogen plasma the mass off a proton is replaced by that of a positron. Thus quasars would be in their interior, electron-positron stars." German : "Die Charakteristka der Quasare einschließlich der an ihnen beobachteten Rotverschiebungen ergeben sich, wenn in der hydrostatischen Druckgleichung für ein Wasserstoffplasma die Masse eines Protons durch die eines Positrons ersetzt wird. Quasare wären danach in ihrem Inneren Elektron-Positron Sterne." The original work was written shortly after the discovery of the pulsars in 1967.
Insertion two: We have to report something about red shift. A Quasar is a Quasi Stellar Object (QSO, since 1960) with strong Radiation. (They have mainly two symmetrical radiative sources around the optical source, strange, isn't it? In our book 3 "types": Seyfert galaxy, N- galaxy, QSO). Radiogalaxies known since 1946, 1952. The redshift occurs by the Doppler effect or in Pulsars and collapsing objects by the photons loosing energy in a gravitational field surrounding the source. At least an alternative.
a. The cosmological hypothesis : The luminosity (of a QSO) must be very strong, the dimensions must be very small, because of time constants and variability. This is not compatible
b. The local hypothesis : The QSO are nearby but the energy transfer in the explosion is improbable, and if there should be such explosions elsewhere there should be also a blue shift.
c. Gravitational hypothesis : This demands special models for the explanation of the uniformity of the red shift from different areas of the source, and that spectral lines do not merge. (somewhat partly Wulff)
4. The theory rose and gave predictions since the 1940 : The universe was cooling. Not knowing a zero point energy? "... just a few degrees above absolute zero." is discussed here too.
5. The name came from Fred Hoyle, a detractor: So it is.
6. The leftover glow: More facts, still problematic today to be eliminated from faint observations
7. The confirmation gives us history: So so.
8. The fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background tell us how close-to-perfectly uniform the Universe was at the start of the Big Bang? With presumptions.
9. Not the beginning anymore? This could not be expected.
10. And the way the Universe began doesn’t tell us the way it will end. That will the virial theorem neither. Be so free to propose an open system.