Some galaxies or some stars?

Yes, the further away the objects the older it is. So, yes the galaxies you speak of formed a long time ago when the Universe was much younger.

Two points of clarification

1. The Big Bang was not an explosion. The theory describes how a small hot dense universe expanded to create what we see today. I will say that all the evidence points to Big Bang cosmologies being good models. The Lambda CDM model in particular.

2. We cannot optically see back to the very early Universe. The furthest back we can go (in principle) is to the recombination epoch which is where the CMBR comes from. Before that the Universe was opaque. No telescope detecting photons can probe to earlier times. Anyway, careful study of the CMBR tells us a lot about the early Universe.

Now, it maybe possible to go further back by using gravitational wave astronomy. But this is really in its infancy.

Dear Anirudh Kumar Satsangi ,

Really, You can check these farthest objects in the link I have also attached in the question.

Galaxies have stars.

Thanks and Regards,

Vinay Trivedi

IIT Patna

INDIA

Dear Andrew James Bruce ,

Thank you for your response.

1. According to you, before big bang it was small, dense and hot but Is it universe before Big bang ?

I thought we best describe Big bang as the genesis of universe. Or as you said Big Bang is the most favorable cosmological event to describe the birth of universe. Its all came into existence after big bang, I wonder if we call universe before big bang. ?

If I can define explosion it is a rapid increase (or expansion as you called) in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner. Please correct me if I am wrong about calling big bang as an explosion.

2. Yes we cannot see optically very far and indeed the galaxies and quasars that I am talking about in my question (those about 13 billion years far) cannot be detected optically because of dust and others. Even we are not able to see optically the galactic center of our own milky way galaxy. I think we are using infrared or other XYZ technology to detect those objects. My question was are we not able to detect or point out to big bang with the same XYZ technology. Or we only have CMRR as the proof of big bang and other farthest galaxies we observe.

I really appreciate your response.

Thanks and Regards,

Vinay Trivedi

IIT Patna

INDIA

• Dear Andrew James Bruce ,
• you wrote "The theory describes how a small hot dense universe expanded to create what we see today"
• "Before that the Universe was opaque"
• Do you have any credible evidence? You are a scientist, and you must believe in solid unambiguous evidence... Don't tell fairy tale...
• If you think that you have evidence, then can you please explain why planets orbits are elliptical and not circular? . Why Venus , Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and Iris rotating clockwise whereas other rotates in anti clockwise?

Vinay K. Trivedi

>I thought we best describe Big bang as the genesis of universe.

It does not really describe the genesis as such. The problem is that classically the equations tell us we reach a singularity, which is a point where the laws of physics as we know them break down. Big Bang cosmologies really describe the expansion and evolution a short while after the "genesis" (whatever that turns out to mean).

>If I can define explosion it is a rapid increase (or expansion as you called) in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner.

The Universe is expanding meaning that its (three dimensional) volume is increasing with time.

>My question was are we not able to detect or point out to big bang with the same XYZ technology.

I am no expert in observational cosmology, but for sure using photons only gets us so far back. Probing earlier needs something else.

----------------------------------

Gokaran Shukla

Two minutes on wikipedia will give you an outline of the evidence. I suggest you give that a look and come back with questions.

Your second question is off-topic. But elliptical orbits are part of Newtonian gravity. As for the rotation of the planets, you need to speak to someone who is an expert in planet formation - or try "googleing" first.

Either way, get educated before posting here, please.

Dear Andrew James Bruce ,

If you don't know the subject then I can educate you.... Wikipedia require to propagandist who have absolutely no knowledge of any "WHY" but trying to explain every "HOW" by any-way either by hook or by crook .. Now let me educate you .... why planets orbit are elliptical?... Here are the reason..

(1) Planets as well as Sun revolves around the common center of mass of the entire solar system... This cause each stationary orbit of planets as well as Sun to precess...Sun revolves with massive orbital speed nearly 220KM/Second, whereas Planets revolves around sun and the common center of mass with slower speed...... This is the precise reason why orbit are elliptical... In two binary system, orbit remain circular.... Both revolves around the common center of mass...Got it ? Or still have doubt?

Second question is not off-topic... You don't know anything... Reason that Venus , Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and Iris rotates clockwise are due to pure QUANTUM MECHANICAL EFFECTS... Better you take proper education on any atomic configuration that why stationary orbit exist and how they generates... "Origin of mass and unified theory of four fundamental forces in nature" which available on my time line could be good starting points for you.. Seems you are another "Crackpot" trying to explain every "HOW" without knowing any "WHY"...

Gokaran Shukla I would be very surprised if you could link quantum mechanics to the rotation of the planets.

>Seems you are another "Crackpot"

To be honest, I was thinking exactly the same about you.

So I suggest we don't derail Vinay's questions, which seem honest if not well informed.

Dear Andrew James Bruce ,

Everything that happens in nature has quantum mechanical origin ... I am not surprised that you don't know this.. Your thinking has been hijacked by others.. You have become mental slaves... But sooner or later you are bound to accept .... Till then live in your foolish world...

Gokaran Shukla Please just stop now.

Dear Andrew James Bruce ,

Yes I am stopping so that you can propagate your unfounded, non-scientific, fairly tale comics story without any hindrance... Carry on . All the best .

Gokaran Shukla I am restricting this answer to that of planetary rotation, which is off-topic, but seemingly puzzling. First, why is rotation usually prograde? In my ebook "Planetary Formation and Biogenesis" I outline a mechanism that involves essentially monarchic growth for the giants, and probably for other planets. The mechanism avoids the plethora of planetesimals because over 80 years nobody has a clue how they could form - I proposed that the initiation is chemical, and bodies have special zones that favour very rapid growth. In the absence of major collisions, what happens is the biggest body moves towards Keplerian velocity, which is faster than the gas stream. That leads to a greater pressure on the leading face, and as the gas is also falling starwards it applies a torque to the leading face that provides prograde spin. (What happens next also gives the body an increase in angular momentum, and hence lift.)

Uranus and Neptune are problems because they effectively state on their side and somewhat retrograde. Pluto's rotation is almost certainly affected by whatever formed its moon system - presumably a collision - and I assume something like that must have happened for the Ice Giants. The planets Mercury and Venus originated in zones where there would be more rocky bodies formed, and thy would be bombarded randomly so there would be little rotation. Mercury seems to have got itself into some sort of resonance with the sun. Venus has a retrograde rotation, and the most interesting explanation I have seen for that is that thermal tides in the atmosphere lead to that in planets inside the so-called habitable zone. What happens is the hottest part of the atmosphere is about 3 pm, and that leads to atmospheric currents that apply the retrograde torque. Venus is actually limited here because it has so much atmosphere and therefore so much thermal inertia. If it had a bit less it would rotate faster retrogradely - if that theory is correct.

Dear Ian Miller,

Thank you very much for your answer.... Let discuss this important question on other thread... Andrew restricting to discuss here.. He has also complained to RG . Ian, may be you start this important question and invite your friend...

Dear Gokaren,

I have started said thread.

Dear Ian,

Please share the link ...

Thanks

Gokaran Shukla

Dear Gokaren

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Planetary_rotation-why_do_planets_rotate_in_a_prograde_fashion_except_for_a_few_exceptions

Dear Vinay,

You have already had an excellent answer from Andrew Bruce but I thught a couple of amplifications of what he said might be useful.

AJB: 1. The Big Bang was not an explosion. The theory describes how a small hot dense universe expanded to create what we see today.

What we see today is sometimes described as the "observable universe" because the entirety of the universe is much larger than the portion we can see. The assumption is that we do not live in any privileged location, also called the "Copernican Principle", and that together with the observation that the universe appears the same in all direction in terms of the average density on large scales leads to the "Cosmological Principle", that the universe is everywhere homogeneous and isotropic. The "small hot dense" patch that expanded to become our observable universe was just a region like any other in a vast universe that was equally hot and dense everywhere.

VKT: How these objects (like galaxies) existed in such early universes made up of only primary elements.

Even now most stars are predominantly the same mix of hydrogen and helium, the lack of heavier elements means the first stars were much larger and live a shorter time. The reason why they were able to form very early is because dark matter had been coalescing into halos since the first seconds of the universe. Normal matter was held apart by radiation pressure prior to the release of the CMB but dark matter isn't affected by radiation.

Another confusion that comes to my mind is: If we are able to look objects those 13.39 billion light years from us and the universe is 13.82 light years old, why cant we observe the big bang going on very far (It must be the most brightest and strongest explosion ever and it must be just beside that farthest galaxy we are currently observing).

AJB: 2. We cannot optically see back to the very early Universe. The furthest back we can go (in principle) is to the recombination epoch which is where the CMBR comes from. Before that the Universe was opaque.

On that point, Gokaran Shukla asked:

GS: Do you have any credible evidence?

The evidence came from the FIRAS instrument on the COBE satellite which measured the intensity of the CMB and found it was exactly equal to the Planck black body. That means the material that emitted it had 100% emissivity and hence by Kirchoff's Law was 100% opaque. This is exactly the same as the reason why we cannot see the light from the core of the Sun, the lower layers of the photosphere becoming increasingly opaque with density.

We cannot "see" the big bang because it did not emit light. Light was not generated until fundamental particles formed entities with discrete energy levels. We can't really see that either until everything cooled sufficiently that the Universe became transparent, at which point photons could travel.

Dear George,

Planck Black body theory only relates energy spectrum (as a function of wavelength or frequency) with temperature in Kelvin ... When it start telling you about the age of the universe? CMB is very disputed theory ... The same energy which FIRAS has measured and attributed it to the CMB could have been come from other star with suitable temperature ...A theory is called successful theory, if it is able to explain the current existence data, and should also predict something which can be tested in near future.. CMB is more like an ad-hoc theory which keep evolving..Theory which is based on solid reasoning will be a perfectly rigid theory. It will not bend to accommodate the new data....

Opacity of any material depends on the absorbity and reflectivity.... Kirchoff law is fine... In-fact Kirchoff law, Weins law, Stefan Boltzmann law, All has been derived later by Max Planck black body theory..

"How these objects (like galaxies) existed in such early universes made up of only primary elements.

Another confusion that comes to my mind is: If we are able to look objects those 13.39 billion light years from us and the universe is 13.82 light years old, why cant we observe the big bang going on very far (It must be the most brightest and strongest explosion ever and it must be just beside that farthest galaxy we are currently observing)."

If one believes in the Big Bang model there still is 600 million years time separation between 13.2 billion years distant, and 13.8 billion years. According to the prevailing interpretation there would be nothing to see looking back 13.8 billion years since that would have been near the beginning of the Inflation era. According to the prevailing Inflation hypothesis, the Inflation event happened very quickly, then stopped.

As to your other question,

"How these objects (like galaxies) existed in such early universes made up of only primary elements."

That's a question many ask. How can large fully formed galaxies appear at the dawn of time. The "common answer" is that galaxies at that time were able to evolve very quickly compared to today's galaxies.

The correct answer IMO is that the present Big Bang model is wrong. The universe is much older than the Big Bang model could allow. Also IMO Big Bang cosmology is entirely wrong in almost every respect.

Forest Nobel,

>It must be the most brightest and strongest explosion ever and it must be just beside that farthest galaxy we are currently observing

This is a common misconception (and one I am not sure why people on Researchgate are asking).

I answered this earlier in this thread and even then suggest you at least take a look at Wikipedia.

Dear Andrew James Bruce,

I think I understood your answer, but then again as I said, I believe based upon my interpretations of the evidence, that nearly nothing is correct about the Big Bang model.

Especially the farthest objects vs the age of the universe, since through research and a related paper, I and an associate concluded about 4 years ago that the Hubble distance formula overestimates distances by a factor of about 8% at a redshift where z=.6, and underestimates distances roughly by a factor of 10 at a redshift where z=10.

An Alternative Universe-Scale Analytic Metrology and Related..

If interested one can see what we believe to be the correct galactic distance redshift formula and brightness adjustment formula here:

http://www.pantheory.org/HF.htm

Dear Forrest,

>...that nearly nothing is correct about the Big Bang model.

The truth is that we have a model, the Lambda CDM model, also known as the standard model of cosmology, which is a particular family of big bang cosmologies. This model has a large enough parameter space to allow a good fit with what we observe. It is a very good model and so far nothing in the mainstream comes close to being a good.

Of course it is not perfect and it would be nice to really narrow own the parameters allowed and even go beyond our current understanding and say something about the "beginning" of the Universe - what ever beginning means in this context. The question of what is dark matter, dark energy and the asymmetry between the abundance of matter and antimatter are also aspects that are not properly understood. (These are tightly related to high energy physics.)

Evidence for a big bang cosmology is over whelming. We have the relative abundances of the light elements, the CMBR, Hubble's law and galactic evolution and distribution. And I am sure there are other evidences. You will not find many cosmologists that dismiss this model.

Okay, so if you have a different model you need to show how it matches the observations just as well as, or better than the Lambda CDM model. This is what you need to do if you really want to over throw the standard accepted understanding of cosmology.

Dear Andrew,

I realize and understand your respect for the ΛCDM model. Many are attached to the standard model of cosmology, but in my opinion it will become very questionable within maybe 5 years after the James Webb is successfully operating. This IMO will happen because:

The James Webb will take a far more distant picture of the cosmos than the Hubble Deep Field, but this picture will look very similar to the Hubble Deep Field in almost every respect, as well as the same as more local inclusive pictures of the same magnitude. Also because the Hubble distance formula is wrong, dark energy does not exist, dark matter does not exist, the Inflation hypothesis in all of its forms is imaginary. Additionally IMO and research the universe is not expanding and is far older than the BB model could allow. This directly relates to this topic, Farthest Objects vs Age of Universe ?

I believe enough evidence will be available from the James Webb and large Baseline radio scopes etc. to eventually undermine nearly every aspect of the ΛCDM model and begin the process of its replacement.

regards, Forrest

>...it will become very questionable within maybe 5 years after the James Webb is successfully operating.

We will have to wait and see. However, given how good the model has been so far, I expect that further details will be uncovered rather than the model just being discarded. It is generally accepted now that any further models of cosmology would be equivalent to the standard model in some limits.

>Also because the Hubble distance formula is wrong, dark energy does not exist, dark matter does not exist, the Inflation hypothesis in all of its forms is imaginary.

Because you say it does not make it so. You need to write a paper explaining all this and get it past experts in the field.

>I believe enough evidence will be available from the James Webb and large Baseline radio scopes etc. to eventually undermine nearly every aspect of the ΛCDM model and begin the process of its replacement.

Like I said, as it works so well right now, it is unlikely to get completely thrown out. But who knows?

The signals we observe from "the edge of the Universe" are the (currently the the GN-z11 proto-Galaxy) took at least 13.37 billion years to reach us. If you presume that the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago, that means that the GN-z11 object moved 13.37 Billion light years in 430 million years. That works out to an average velocity of more than 31 times the speed of light. It was part of a "Local Universe" (we shouldn't assume that what we can see is all of reality) that expanded from an infinite density (the "Singularity") to the average density now (presuming a Universe mass of 1.10E53kg) of about 1.30E-26 kg/m^3. I admit all of those numbers are estimates, but they are still valid estimates. Under current presumptions, those are the numbers you will get. Try thinking about an alternate: the redshift we see is because it is a signal moving through a not-quite-Planck-level vacuum and shifts red because of that. Because the signal is moving through a transparent hydrogen medium, it does not change Spectral signature of the element emitting it. We know this because the signal is travelling through light years of interstellar||interplanetary gas, atmospheric gas and the lenses of the device used to observe that signal. It does change the overall place of that signal on the Universal Spectrum light waves/EM. We can be fairly sure that gas is there because there is a EM wave that is there - the CMB - that would be generated by Hydrogen gas at about 2.725K. So you decide what is the more reasonable hypothesis:

a)a Singularity that we have no theory or evidence on its formation spontaneously explodes with an average expansion velocity of 31 times the speed of light spread a homogeneous signal that remained that way for 13.8 billion years. And it slowed down to 2.8479831684E8m/s - that's redshift of the GNz-11 we observe now.

- or -

b)there is is a Universal cloud of almost pure Hydrogen at 2.275K that redshifts any signal going through it. The Hydrogen comes from higher atoms that fall into the Schwarzschild Objects that are throughout our reality. Relativistic distortion slows both the Gluons that hold those atoms together and the Gravitons so that the escape velocity so that it never goes above the speed of light. The distortion slows ALL Bosons, and conservation of energy||matter means that all matter particles move faster. The object that captured and compressed these atoms will also have sufficient force to combine all the matter into neutrons. Neutrons move faster at any temperature than any element (except maybe Hydrogen) so they are the first to escape. The uncertainty about hydrogen and neutrons doesn't matter, because free neutrons decay almost instantly into Hydrogen.

That Universal Cloud of Hydrogen very infrequently spontaneously forms into an object large enough to become a Star. Much more infrequently, the gravity on that Star is so great that it attracts enough matter for other Stars to form. It forms into a star cluster, with a Schwarzschild object at the centre. It continues for Billions, Trillions of years until it is a Local Universe. An intelligent species arises on one of the spontaneously formed Stellar systems. The species develops eventually to the point that they can see objects that are 13.38 billion ly's away. They presume this determines how old their reality is. The object (they call it GNz-11) is presumed to be the absolute border of their reality. Though some presume their Local Universe has expanded to 30 - 40 billion light years. This would make the spontaneous formation of their "Singularity" even more unlikely.

You decide what is more likely.

- a singularity appears from nowhere and explodes at a hyper-relativistic velocity in a way that ensures it will never happen again

- a much, much smaller Schwarzschild Object forms spontaneously, in a way that encourages the creation of the Local Universe we observe today, whose dimensions we cannot be certain of, because the greater the distance of any object distorts it image more and more.

I know I do this too much, but you can see the professional papers I have published

|A Relativistic Escape Velocity Maximum of Light Speed| [http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=68063]

&

|Frequency Decay through Electromagnetic Radiation Absorption and Re-Emission by Inter-Galactic Dark Matter as an Alternate Explanation for the Hubble Constant [http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=67680]

They are both quite short and it shouldn't take you more than a hour to read them. The math is also quite fundamental - it never goes above the Special Relativity level. That means it is MORE valid not less. In the end, you can prove anything mathematically if you make the argument long enough - it's even worse if your presumptions are invalid. My math never goes above the Relativity level - and my presumptions are that Einstein was right. They also ADD arguments to his logic.

Dear Andrew,

Yes, we will have to see how the info from the James Webb turns out and how it will be interpreted.

" Also because the Hubble distance formula is wrong, dark energy does not exist, dark matter does not exist, the Inflation hypothesis in all of its forms is imaginary. "

True, stating something does not make it so, but I prefaced this statement be IMO. My opinion is based upon more than 50 years of research in cosmology and related papers, interpreting observations, theorizing explanations that best explain reality.

"Like I said, as it works so well right now, it is unlikely to get completely thrown out. But who knows?"

Yes, of course, we will have to see how future observations are interpreted and how they match ΛCDM predictions. Five years after the James Webb is properly functioning, according to this prediction, the beginnings of questioning of mainstream cosmology will begin. I expect it will take maybe another 5-10 years after that before alternative models will compete to become serious contenders in cosmology

best regards, Forrest