Steady state theory

[David Levy]

To:alpha2cen

 

My main goal is to highlight the feasibility of the steady state theory.

 

The science had discovered that the galaxies are moving away. Based on that, the idea of the big bang came out. Why the science doesn't care about the shifting direction of the stars in an active galaxy? As I have already highlighted, if the science will verify that the stars are shifting outwards, then it should be a full proof for the steady state theory? Do you agree?

 

 

To:ACG52

 

It's clear that you come with negative approach. You do not refer at all to the main subject!!!

 

Your main goal is to show that my message is irrelevant while you do not even try to understand the main thought.

 

If you do not refer to the main point, then please don't reply anymore!

 

Edited July 24, 2012 by David Levy

[alpha2cen]

To:alpha2cen

 

My main goal is to highlight the feasibility of the steady state theory.

 

The science had discovered that the galaxies are moving away. Based on that, the idea of the big bang came out. Why the science doesn't care about the shifting direction of the stars in an active galaxy? As I have already highlighted, if the science will verify that the stars are shifting outwards, then it should be a full proof for the steady state theory? Do you agree?

 

Is there any evidence that steady state theory is true? For example, far away galaxies are not so red shifted, etc.. Observed results or experiment results are important to say that. To make the theory into main stream, all observed data must fit that theory.

[ACG52]

As I have already highlighted, if the science will verify that the stars are shifting outwards, then it should be a full proof for the steady state theory? Do you agree?

 

 

Again, you make a statement with no basis behind it and refuse, or are unable to provide any explanation.

 

Your main goal is to show that my message is irrelevant while you do not even try to understand the main thought.

 

 

You don't have a message.

[MigL]

David Levy do you know the difference in meaning between causality and co-relation ?

 

The fact that stars are moving outward ( or not ) does not provide 'a full proof for the steady state theory'. You have not shown that the creation of new matter in the galactic centre would cause the outward shifting of stars in the spiral arms, tens of thousands of light years away. What is the mechanism by which this happens ? Is the galactic core also getting larger ? Is this new matter created inside or outside the central black hole, as this would result in very different effects ? And all sorts of other questions you just ignore.

 

If ACG52 is asking 'difficult' questions, maybe he is not nit-picking or being closed minded, but maybe you haven't thought out your idea fully. He sees the 'holes' in it, you don't seem to. And by trying to exclude his criticism, you are being close minded.

 

 

[David Levy]

To: MigL

 

" The fact that stars are moving outward ( or not ) does not provide 'a full proof for the steady state theory"

 

Yes it is!!!

 

If the stars are moving outwards, then eventually, they will be emitted from the galaxy. So, if the galaxy will not generate a new matter, then after some time, the galaxy should be empty from matter. Hence, in order to compensate the mass of the stars which had been emitted from the galaxy, there must be a mechanism in the galaxy which generate this missing mass (or matter).

 

Don't you agree for this logical concept?

 

Edited July 25, 2012 by David Levy

[ACG52]

Don't you agree for this logical concept?

 

 

What logic?

 

Do you know anything about cosmology, astrophysics or astronomy?

[Airbrush]

If the stars are moving outwards, then eventually, they will be emitted from the galaxy. So, if the galaxy will not generate a new matter, then after some time, the galaxy should be empty from matter. Hence, in order to compensate the mass of the stars which had been emitted from the galaxy, there must be a mechanism in the galaxy which generate this missing mass....

 

But the stars are NOT moving outwards in galaxies. They are gravitationally bound, and only dark matter explains why. Have you ever thought of that?

 

You logic goes like this: "IF water flowed up hill, that would mean there is no gravity. So, there must be no gravity."

Edited July 26, 2012 by Airbrush

[MigL]

David, the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. You can look this fact up.

 

Does that prove that new matter is being created in the centre of the earth ?

 

Or is the simpler explanation due to tidal forces the cause ?

[somecallmegenius]

David Levy,

 

Even though your arguments (if I could call them that) are being destroyed by MigL and a bit too aggressively by ACG52, there is one thing that vouches for Steady-State Theory (SST) which it seems you are trying to prove, is that it is still called a theory. See definition of a scientific theory here:

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

 

However, more than any other cosmological theory, evidence is piling up against SST, hence it is unlikely for it to remain considered a scientific theory for much longer; excepting some miraculous new observations somehow prove it.

 

A piece of advice:

Do not try to prove a theory which even its creators are currently failing to prove. With all due respects, your attempts do seem a bit futile and pointless...

 

I hope this puts your mind to rest, if only temporarily...

Edited August 1, 2012 by somecallmegenius

[David Levy]

Thanks MigL

 

I like your approach. That's show that you give some thought about this possibility.

 

Yes, you could be even correct if… if new stars would be created as the moon is moving away from earth. But, there is no new birth star activity or even any new matter…

 

In the Milky Way, there is high activity of new stars birth and the galactic center is full of mass… this is the main different.

 

 

 

 

 

To somecallmegenius

 

Thanks for your sympathy.

 

The science takes it for granted that the solar system is located in the same distance from the day that that it had been created. Is it possible???

 

How come that the sun is moving at ultra high speed around the galactic center, and it didn't drift even one centimeter inwards or outwards. This is absolutely illogical!!! Some time ago, the science believed that the moon was always inthe same distance from the earth. Just lately, we had discovered that the moon is moving outwards. Based on that the science understood that in the past, the moon was very close to the earth. Therefore, they came with new theory about the moon creation…

 

The big bang theory is a direct outcome to the evidence that the galaxies are moving outwards!!!

 

So, why the science do not check the drifting movement direction of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy??? What could be the outcome if they will verify that the stars are moving outwards (or even inwards)???

 

Just think what we could understand if we knew that sometime in the past, the solar system was located at the galactic center…

 

Therefore, assuming that the stars in the Milky Way are moving outwards from the galactic center which is full of mass and there is an activity of new star birth – then –this should be the smoking gun for the steady state theory!!!

 

 

 

With regards to A…2. He had already got a Moderator Note as follow:

"ACG52 - Please stop attacking the person in your posts and concentrate on criticisingthe argument or on answering questions raised. Implications of personaldishonesty are to be avoided if at all possible."

 

His main task is to attack me personally, without giving any real thought to the theory itself. Therefore, I have already informed him that I will not reply to his attack & nasty messages.

Edited August 2, 2012 by David Levy

[ACG52]

You've never answered any questions, just repeated your same assertions.

 

What is the mechanism which would cause star formation in the center of the galaxy to effect stars in the spiral arms.

 

Are you aware that most star formation takes place in the spiral arms?

 

Do you know that the reason the moon has moved away from the earth is due to tidal effects?

 

Do you know that the reason the solar system does not move towards or away from the galactic center is because it is orbiting it?

 

Until these questions are answered, there's no reason to believe that your 'theory' has any validity.

[Airbrush]

So, why the science do not check the drifting movement direction of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy??? What could be the outcome if they will verify that the stars are moving outwards (or even inwards)?

 

I assure you, if the stars in our galaxy (or any galaxy) were moving outward, scientists would know it. It would be VERY noticeable. Over time, stars would be scattered much farther out than they are. That would also be seen in all other galaxies. That is not seen. The puzzle is why do stars not drift outward? The best answer they have is dark matter holds galaxies together.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Airbrush

[alpha2cen]

I assure you, if the stars in our galaxy (or any galaxy) were moving outward, scientists would know it. It would be VERY noticeable. Over time, stars would be scattered much farther out than they are. That would also be seen in all other galaxies. That is not seen. The puzzle is why do stars not drift outward? The best answer they have is dark matter holds galaxies together.

 

Is it easy to observe entire star movement in the Galaxy? Galaxy is very thin plate, and half of the season we can not see it very well , because solar ray interference with seeing it. And the movement is changed very slow. Almost recent date we can see it more better by using infrared telescope without star dust interference. Do we have star movement data about the Galaxy?

Edited August 3, 2012 by alpha2cen

[somecallmegenius]

Is it easy to observe entire star movement in the Galaxy? Galaxy is very thin plate, and half of the season we can not see it very well , because solar ray interference with seeing it. And the movement is changed very slow. Almost recent date we can see it more better by using infrared telescope without star dust interference. Do we have star movement data about the Galaxy?

 

Even though alpha2cen usually hits the language barrier, or he trolls, I can't possibly know... I can discern a valid point in his reply, how accurate would our observations of star movement towards or away from the galactic center really be. Also, since the theory David Levy is defending claims that all stars "made" at the galactic are moving away from the galactic center. It would be difficult to use them as reference points. Therefore, how would we go about measuring our separation from the center of our galaxy? I want to know?

 

Hopefully, an expert can reply to this and let us know.

[alpha2cen]

Even though alpha2cen usually hits the language barrier, or he trolls, I can't possibly know... I can discern a valid point in his reply, how accurate would our observations of star movement towards or away from the galactic center really be. Also, since the theory David Levy is defending claims that all stars "made" at the galactic are moving away from the galactic center. It would be difficult to use them as reference points. Therefore, how would we go about measuring our separation from the center of our galaxy? I want to know?

 

Hopefully, an expert can reply to this and let us know.

 

The known Galaxy shape is not perfect, because we can not see it directly. It contains some imagination. We suppose our Galaxy from other galaxy shape and observed data. To say the stars moving outward, at least the star movement direction of the Orion's Arm might be given. Does such data exist?

Edited August 3, 2012 by alpha2cen

[David Levy]

Thank you all

 

At last, there is a real request to verify the star movement in a spiral galaxy.

 

If it is difficult to verify it in our Milky Way galaxy why can't we verify it in Andromeda galaxy (Or any Spiral galaxy)?

 

There is no direct info at Wikipedia about the star movement. I only found the following data at Wikipedia:

 

"The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age… older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun".

 

"Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic centre and decreases as one moves outwards".

 

"Population I or metal-rich stars are those young stars whose metallicity is highest. The Earth's Sun is an example of ametal-rich star. These are common in the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy".

 

Does it mean that the stars are getting older as move outwards from the galaxy center? Therefore, the stars are moving outwards?

 

I assume that NASA has all the data which is needed to verify this critical info. Why they do not share it with us???

Edited August 3, 2012 by David Levy

[Airbrush]

The known Galaxy shape is not perfect, because we can not see it directly. It contains some imagination. We suppose our Galaxy from other galaxy shape and observed data. To say the stars moving outward, at least the star movement direction of the Orion's Arm might be given. Does such data exist?

 

Telescopes today can see clear enough to determine star distance from us for the stars of OUR galaxy on OUR side of the galaxy. You are correct that we cannot see thru the dust to the other side. But we can infer that the other side is nearly the same. The stars on OUR side of our galaxy are not seen drifting into intergalactic space (as they should given their high velocity). They are bound, and always have been bound, within the current circle with a diameter of roughly 100,000 light years across for Billions of year. If they were not, the stars would be seen diffused out much further from us, and the Andromeda galaxy would not have a clear size, but be more of a blur around the perimeter. All stars in all galaxies are all moving around their galactic centers at a speed too great to explain without adding 6 times more matter in the form of dark matter.

 

Andromeda, and all other galaxies that we can see, are contained within a FIXED size that is not expanding. Stars are generally not drifting into intergalactic space, except for occasional hypervelocity stars sling shot out of binary systems of 2 or more stars.

 

I'm not an expert, and I would appreciate an expert's opinion.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Airbrush

[ACG52]

Still the questions are not addressed, and we are simply asked to assume that the OP is correct.

 

 

 

 

 

There is no direct info at Wikipedia about the star movement. I only found the following data at Wikipedia:

 

 

This is your data source?

 

This thread really belongs in Speculations.

Edited August 4, 2012 by ACG52

[David Levy]

For more info please see:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

 

In astronomy and physical cosmology, the metallicity (also called Z^[1]) of an object is the proportion of its matter made up of chemical elements other than hydrogen and helium. Since stars, which comprise most of the visible matter in the universe, are composed mostly of hydrogen and helium, astronomers use for convenience the blanket term "metal" to describe all other elements collectively.^[2] Thus, a nebula rich in carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon would be "metal-rich" in astrophysical terms even though those elements are non-metals in chemistry. This term should not be confused with the usual definition of "metal"; metallic bonds are impossible within stars, and the very strongest chemical bonds are only possible in the outer layers of cool K and M stars. Normal chemistry therefore has little or no relevance in stellar interiors.

 

 

The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age.

 

When the universe first formed, according to the Big Bang theory, it consisted almost entirely of hydrogen which, through primordial nucleosynthesis, created a sizeable proportion of helium and only trace amounts of lithium and beryllium and no heavier elements.

 

Therefore, older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun.

 

Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic centre and decreases as one moves outwards.

 

 

[David Levy]

Let's summarize the evidences as it is at Wikipedia:

 

Metallicity – Provide an indication for star age

 

"The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age"

 

"older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun".

 

"Population I or metal-rich stars are those young stars whose metallicity is highest".

 

Stars age across the Milky Way – Get older as move outwards

 

"Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic centre and decreases as one moves outwards".

 

Stars age in the center of the Milky Way, near the BAR– Very young stars

 

"The region where the Scutum–Centaurus Arm are connects to the bar of the galaxy isrich in star-forming regions".

 

Stars age in the spiral arms– Middle age stars

 

"The Earth's Sun is an example of a metal-rich star. These are common in the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy".

 

"The globular star clusters in the Milky Way are the most prominent representatives of Population II".

 

Stars age in galaxies that orbits the Milky Way – Very Old Stars

 

"two small irregular galaxies orbiting the Milky Way, the Large Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity about forty per cent that of the Milky Way, while the Small Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity about ten per cent that of the Milky Way". (Very low metalicity = Very Old age)

So, what could be the outcome of those evidences???

Edited August 5, 2012 by David Levy

[Airbrush]

Let's summarize the evidences as it is at Wikipedia:

 

Metallicity – Provide an indication for star age

 

"The metallicity of an astronomical object may provide an indication of its age"

 

"older stars have lower metallicities than younger stars such as our Sun".

 

"Population I or metal-rich stars are those young stars whose metallicity is highest".

 

Stars age across the Milky Way – Get older as move outwards

 

"Across the Milky Way, metallicity is higher in the galactic centre and decreases as one moves outwards".

 

Stars age in the center of the Milky Way, near the BAR– Very young stars

 

"The region where the Scutum–Centaurus Arm are connects to the bar of the galaxy isrich in star-forming regions".

 

Stars age in the spiral arms– Middle age stars

 

"The Earth's Sun is an example of a metal-rich star. These are common in the spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy".

 

"The globular star clusters in the Milky Way are the most prominent representatives of Population II".

 

Stars age in galaxies that orbits the Milky Way – Very Old Stars

 

"two small irregular galaxies orbiting the Milky Way, the Large Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity about forty per cent that of the Milky Way, while the Small Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity about ten per cent that of the Milky Way". (Very low metalicity = Very Old age)

So, what could be the outcome of those evidences???

 

What this tells us is that older stars, with lower matallicity, are found around the outer galaxy, while younger, higher metallicity stars are found closer to the center of the galaxy. That does not mean stars are moving from the center outward. It means closer to the center of the galaxy the stars are more densely packed and are formed from supernovas that create metals when they explode. The older stars are lower metalicty because the are not formed from supernova remnants.

[EMField]

And yet so called galaxies at extreme distances from us, yet vastly younger according to theory, have the same composition of elements you see in stars that are close and vastly older. This does not support the idea of an expanding universe from a beginning, but an infinite steady state universe that has always been and will always be. If the universe began 14 billion years ago and the light I receive from a galaxy 13 billion year ago is composed of the same elements in existence in galaxies today, then the theory of stellar evolution can not be correct.

Edited August 5, 2012 by EMField

[MigL]

The 'metallicity' does not indicate age in the simplistic manner you describe.

 

Slow burning red giants with lifetimes much higher than our sun ( about 10 billion yrs ), were formed of the primordial 75% hydrogen / 25% Helium.

Blue stars burn much hotter and faster, in the hundreds of millions of yrs. The first generation has already formed and died by the violent process which creates the heavier elements, novas and supernovas. These violent events trigger compression waves in surrounding gas clouds and 'seed' new stars which have a higher metallicity.

 

How does that fit into your theory ???

[EMField]

And yet observations show those so called older galaxies are exactly the same as galaxies today. Theory only fits if you ignore half the evidence.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A%26A...289..121R

http://www.astro.uu.se/vinter/bwd1_eng.html

The same stars in older galaxies are found in younger galaxies. Theory does not meet observations.

[MigL]

Really ? Far away 'young' galaxies are the same as nearby "older' galaxies ???

 

So show me a nearby quasar, just one, that's all.

 

Or were younger galaxies more active than they are today ??

 

By the way I didn't want to read your first link and the second concerned the distribution of red giants in our galaxy, no comparison was made to other galaxies.

Edited August 5, 2012 by MigL