Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How come Hubble can look back 13bny?
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Giga2
Jan 29, 2012, 4:09:25 AM1/29/12
to
If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years ago
then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light. Light
would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot travel
at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel half
the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should be
7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
gone way past the telescope?
--
Please support my philosophy book project
http://www.indiegogo.com/Philosophical-Revolution
then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light. Light
would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot travel
at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel half
the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should be
7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
gone way past the telescope?
--
Please support my philosophy book project
http://www.indiegogo.com/Philosophical-Revolution
CWatters
Jan 29, 2012, 5:51:29 AM1/29/12
to
On 29/01/2012 09:09, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years ago
> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light. Light
> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot travel
> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel half
> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should be
> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
> gone way past the telescope?
>
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN
> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years ago
> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light. Light
> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot travel
> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel half
> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should be
> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
> gone way past the telescope?
>
If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, how can we see objects
that are now 47 billion light years away?
When talking about the distance of a moving object, we mean the spatial
separation NOW, with the positions of both objects specified at the
current time. In an expanding Universe this distance NOW is larger than
the speed of light times the light travel time due to the increase of
separations between objects as the Universe expands. This is not due to
any change in the units of space and time, but just caused by things
being farther apart now than they used to be.
What is the distance NOW to the most distant thing we can see? Let's
take the age of the Universe to be 14 billion years. In that time light
travels 14 billion light years, and some people stop here. But the
distance has grown since the light traveled. The average time when the
light was traveling was 7 billion years ago. For the critical density
case, the scale factor for the Universe goes like the 2/3 power of the
time since the Big Bang, so the Universe has grown by a factor of 22/3 =
1.59 since the midpoint of the light's trip. But the size of the
Universe changes continuously, so we should divide the light's trip into
short intervals. First take two intervals: 7 billion years at an average
time 10.5 billion years after the Big Bang, which gives 7 billion light
years that have grown by a factor of 1/(0.75)2/3 = 1.21, plus another 7
billion light years at an average time 3.5 billion years after the Big
Bang, which has grown by a factor of 42/3 = 2.52. Thus with 1 interval
we got 1.59*14 = 22.3 billion light years, while with two intervals we
get 7*(1.21+2.52) = 26.1 billion light years. With 8192 intervals we get
41 billion light years. In the limit of very many time intervals we get
42 billion light years. With calculus this whole paragraph reduces to this.
Another way of seeing this is to consider a photon and a galaxy 42
billion light years away from us now, 14 billion years after the Big
Bang. The distance of this photon satisfies D = 3ct. If we wait for 0.1
billion years, the Universe will grow by a factor of (14.1/14)2/3 =
1.0048, so the galaxy will be 1.0048*42 = 42.2 billion light years away.
But the light will have traveled 0.1 billion light years further than
the galaxy because it moves at the speed of light relative to the matter
in its vicinity and will thus be at D = 42.3 billion light years, so D =
3ct is still satisfied.
If the Universe does not have the critical density then the distance is
different, and for the low densities that are more likely the distance
NOW to the most distant object we can see is bigger than 3 times the
speed of light times the age of the Universe. The current best fit model
which has an accelerating expansion gives a maximum distance we can see
of 47 billion light years.
Zerkon
Jan 29, 2012, 7:44:13 AM1/29/12
to
In article <jg32c4$ocq$1...@news.albasani.net>, "Giga2" says...
First there is a question of 'year' which is taken to be fixed. Given
any, lets say, 'real' year when broken down into months, days etc result
in a numerical error and so clocks (time) need to be leap adjusted, do
these minute leaps indicate some accumulative quality/quantity which
would influence the meaning of 'year' as a measurement on this scale?
> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years ago
> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light. Light
> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot travel
> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel half
> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should be
> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
> gone way past the telescope?
>
Tricky.
> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light. Light
> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot travel
> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel half
> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should be
> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
> gone way past the telescope?
>
First there is a question of 'year' which is taken to be fixed. Given
any, lets say, 'real' year when broken down into months, days etc result
in a numerical error and so clocks (time) need to be leap adjusted, do
these minute leaps indicate some accumulative quality/quantity which
would influence the meaning of 'year' as a measurement on this scale?
Jonathan
Jan 29, 2012, 9:12:41 AM1/29/12
to
"Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
message news:jg32c4$ocq$1...@news.albasani.net...
> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years ago
> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light. Light
> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot travel
> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel half
> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should
> be
> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
> gone way past the telescope?
cosmology, from Cambridge and Princeton Universities, proposes the
universe is cyclic and is just one in an unknowably long
sequence of ...evolving universes, one after the other.
This doesn't replace the Big-Bang theory at all, it's consistent
with it, however the cyclic model is much more complete
as it explains what came....before the Big-Bang, it's source, and
also explains aspects the Big-Bang theory hasn't been able
to solve.
In the new cyclic view, Big-Bangs are local events, such as a
portion of an ocean boiling up and reorganizing. And Dark Energy
plays a primary role in driving the cyclic behavior. Which is that
Dark Energy increases just as the universe first becomes
dominated by ordinary matter, or just after galaxies
become dominant....now.
The recent emergence of Dark energy created a second, but slower
period, of universal inflation giving the energy needed to open
the universe. But then as ordinary matter dissipates so does
Dark Energy and the universe then begins collapsing as if
it were a closed universe.
The 'evolving' relationship between matter density and
Dark Energy produces the cyclic behavior. A self-perpetuating
attractor solution as used in the Chaos and Complexity Sciences.
And there are many incredible implications of this new
cyclic cosmology.
For starters the universe no longer requires a very finely
tuned set of initial conditions to begin evolving.
Self-organizing systems can begin with a very broad
range of initial conditions. Solving the monstrous
contradiction that our current universe could only
form under a remarkable coincidence of very narrow
conditions. The so-called 'Cosmic Coincidence Problem.'
And information is passed along from the death of
one universe, to the birth of another. Or, each
successive universe ...evolves from the previous.
And also the second period of universal inflation
happened only recently, just about the same time
the Earth cooled enough for life to form. Implying
the entire universe became best suited for life
at around the same time it did for us. Which is
kind of a scary thought.
It means the current epoch is quite special, and that
the entire universe evolves simultaneously, what happens
...elsewhere in the distant universe....effects us locally.
Gulp!
There's only one logical direction these new
concepts are heading. Which is that the universe
isn't just some happenstance of mostly random
collisions. But the universe evolves in much the
same way life evolves on Earth. Or, the Darwinian
evolution we all know and love shows us how
the physical universe evolves, or self-organizes.
A great paper introducing these ideas
is here...
A Quintessential Intro into Dark Energy
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf
The entire site is here...
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/
Jonathan
Calresco Themes (*in essay form)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm
Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
s
Giga2
Jan 29, 2012, 10:01:11 AM1/29/12
to
"Zerkon" <Z...@z.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.298f0915c...@news.eternal-september.org...
G=EMC^2
Jan 29, 2012, 10:13:59 AM1/29/12
to
On Jan 29, 10:01 am, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
Big Bang took place 22 billion years ago. As we use larger radio
telly's the universe gets larger and older. TreBert
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "Zerkon" <Z...@z.net> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.298f0915c...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <jg32c4$oc...@news.albasani.net>, "Giga2" says...
> "Zerkon" <Z...@z.net> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.298f0915c...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
telly's the universe gets larger and older. TreBert
Sam Wormley
Jan 29, 2012, 1:15:35 PM1/29/12
to
On 1/29/12 3:09 AM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years ago
> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point...
> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years ago
No, no, no... your concepts are all wrong.
No Center (no point)
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
OG
Jan 29, 2012, 4:56:03 PM1/29/12
to
On 29/01/2012 09:09, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years ago
> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light. Light
> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot travel
> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel half
> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should be
> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
> gone way past the telescope?
>
If you're thinking of the BB as being like a firework in the middle of a
> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light. Light
> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot travel
> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel half
> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should be
> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
> gone way past the telescope?
>
concert hall, you've got the wrong idea.
Instead, think of the whole concert hall as starting as infinitely
small, but expanding with time.
All the galaxies and clusters of galaxies have (more or less) stayed in
the same position relative to each other, but the distances between them
have increased.
As to why we're able to see the light from 13 Bly ago, when that light
was emitted, the universe was much smaller then - but it was also
expanding, so even though we were only a few hundred million light years
apart, the light has taken 13 billion light years to catch us up.
If you want a formal explanation of the cause, follow the links in Sam's
post.
Hope this helps
Giga2
Jan 30, 2012, 5:17:09 AM1/30/12
to
"CWatters" <colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:PZCdnfFMm9cvubjS...@brightview.co.uk...
look back at structures that were formed in the early universe, how is that
possible?
Giga2
Jan 30, 2012, 5:17:56 AM1/30/12
to
"G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:155c2944-ac87-4574...@l16g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Giga2
Jan 30, 2012, 5:18:37 AM1/30/12
to
"Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ToGdnfbi94R-zrjS...@giganews.com...
Giga2
Jan 30, 2012, 5:22:01 AM1/30/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QsidnVYMouRaEbjS...@mchsi.com...
> On 1/29/12 3:09 AM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years
>> ago
>> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point...
>
> No, no, no... your concepts are all wrong.
>
> No Center (no point)
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
A singularity is a point. The universe has expanded in all directions, like
>> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years
>> ago
>> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point...
>
> No, no, no... your concepts are all wrong.
>
> No Center (no point)
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
a baloon being blown up but how come the light from the early universe is
still falling on the telescope. In fact if the early universe was right
where we are now then that just makes the issue even more strange that we
can still observe it surely?
Giga2
Jan 30, 2012, 5:27:38 AM1/30/12
to
"OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:9oltk9...@mid.individual.net...
> On 29/01/2012 09:09, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
>> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years
>> ago
>> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light.
>> Light
>> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
>> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot
>> travel
>> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel
>> half
>> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
>> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should
>> be
>> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
>> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
>> gone way past the telescope?
>>
>
> If you're thinking of the BB as being like a firework in the middle of a
> concert hall, you've got the wrong idea.
>
No.
>> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years
>> ago
>> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light.
>> Light
>> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
>> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot
>> travel
>> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel
>> half
>> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
>> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should
>> be
>> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
>> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
>> gone way past the telescope?
>>
>
> If you're thinking of the BB as being like a firework in the middle of a
> concert hall, you've got the wrong idea.
>
> Instead, think of the whole concert hall as starting as infinitely small,
> but expanding with time.
>
> All the galaxies and clusters of galaxies have (more or less) stayed in
> the same position relative to each other, but the distances between them
> have increased.
>
> As to why we're able to see the light from 13 Bly ago, when that light was
> emitted, the universe was much smaller then - but it was also expanding,
> so even though we were only a few hundred million light years apart, the
> light has taken 13 billion light years to catch us up.
coincidence then that we just happen to be around at the time when the light
from the early universe is catching us up?
>
> If you want a formal explanation of the cause, follow the links in Sam's
> post.
>
is some specific answer!? If people just say the equivalent of 'do a degree
in cosmology' it makes me very suspicious that there isn't any real answer.
> Hope this helps
A little if you believe in massive coincidences.
dlzc
Jan 30, 2012, 8:59:48 AM1/30/12
to
Dear Giga2:
On Jan 30, 3:22 am, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> The universe has expanded in all directions, like
> a baloon being blown up
That is the model.
> but how come the light from the early universe is
> still falling on the telescope.
Imagine a surface located some distance c / Ho from us, the Rindler
horizon. Imagine some light located right next to that surface, aimed
at us. That light will pass our location shortly before the "end of
time". But it is there *right now*. If the light is located somewhat
closer to us, the it will get here sooner (and with less red shift).
And so on. The light is "recorded" in the heavens, and it swims
towards us... sort of like how salmon swim upstream just barely faster
than the downstream current speed.
> In fact if the early universe was right where we are
> now
Pretty close. At ~300 km/sec, in 13Bly, we should be able to clearly
see where we started out.
> then that just makes the issue even more strange
> that we can still observe it surely?
Nope. The light we are seeing, is trapped inside our region of the
"balloon's skin", and did not originate from anything *we can ever
encounter* in forward time, if it appears to be from beyond the
Rindler horizon.
David A. Smith
On Jan 30, 3:22 am, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:QsidnVYMouRaEbjS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > On 1/29/12 3:09 AM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
> >> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big
> >> Bang 14bn years ago then we have had 14bn years to
> >> travel from that point...
>
> > No, no, no... your concepts are all wrong.
>
> > No Center (no point)
> > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>
> A singularity is a point.
A singularity is any "infinity", large or small.
> news:QsidnVYMouRaEbjS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > On 1/29/12 3:09 AM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
> >> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big
> >> Bang 14bn years ago then we have had 14bn years to
> >> travel from that point...
>
> > No, no, no... your concepts are all wrong.
>
> > No Center (no point)
> > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>
> A singularity is a point.
> The universe has expanded in all directions, like
> a baloon being blown up
> but how come the light from the early universe is
> still falling on the telescope.
horizon. Imagine some light located right next to that surface, aimed
at us. That light will pass our location shortly before the "end of
time". But it is there *right now*. If the light is located somewhat
closer to us, the it will get here sooner (and with less red shift).
And so on. The light is "recorded" in the heavens, and it swims
towards us... sort of like how salmon swim upstream just barely faster
than the downstream current speed.
> In fact if the early universe was right where we are
> now
see where we started out.
> then that just makes the issue even more strange
> that we can still observe it surely?
"balloon's skin", and did not originate from anything *we can ever
encounter* in forward time, if it appears to be from beyond the
Rindler horizon.
David A. Smith
TruthSlave
Jan 30, 2012, 10:44:06 AM1/30/12
to
ck
Jan 30, 2012, 10:52:37 AM1/30/12
to
origins of the universe can be observed by the likes of Hubble,
would this mean the universe is/was expanding faster than the
speed of light?
tooly
Jan 30, 2012, 11:57:57 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 29, 4:09 am, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
I found this thread very interesting. It also illustrates, at least
for me, how all bets are still off; we don't KNOW much. I understand
'rational'...but I also 'think' I understand when we are bullshitting
too. Science KNOWS a lot...but still, 'not much'. It simply leaves a
'door' open. 'To what', I'm not sure; but perhaps just about
'anything'. Is there a god, God? A higher existence? Even a supreme
existence? I'm suspicous that we have it all wrong. That 'things'
are simply beyond our capacity to understand all that well. I'm all
for humility. And I WANT this thing we call LOVE to mean something
more than just 'brain chemistry'.
for me, how all bets are still off; we don't KNOW much. I understand
'rational'...but I also 'think' I understand when we are bullshitting
too. Science KNOWS a lot...but still, 'not much'. It simply leaves a
'door' open. 'To what', I'm not sure; but perhaps just about
'anything'. Is there a god, God? A higher existence? Even a supreme
existence? I'm suspicous that we have it all wrong. That 'things'
are simply beyond our capacity to understand all that well. I'm all
for humility. And I WANT this thing we call LOVE to mean something
more than just 'brain chemistry'.
OG
Jan 30, 2012, 1:57:19 PM1/30/12
to
just as it reaches us. If you think about it, it's a rather stupid
question. Tomorrow we'll see other light, and in another billion years
we'll see other light still.
>>
>> If you want a formal explanation of the cause, follow the links in Sam's
>> post.
>>
>
> That is a whole tutorial. Surely this question has arisen before and there
> is some specific answer!? If people just say the equivalent of 'do a degree
> in cosmology' it makes me very suspicious that there isn't any real answer.
>
>> Hope this helps
>
> A little if you believe in massive coincidences.
Do you want to understand or not?
dlzc
Jan 30, 2012, 2:32:09 PM1/30/12
to
Dear ck:
On Jan 30, 8:52 am, ck <ck_NoS...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
...
> Or to put the original question another way, if light from
CMBR. This is about 300,000 after the Big Bang.
> by the likes of Hubble, would this mean the universe
> is/was expanding faster than the speed of light?
No correlation. The red shift as a function of distance would show
the expansion and continuity-of-expansion thing.
David A. Smith
On Jan 30, 8:52 am, ck <ck_NoS...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
...
> Or to put the original question another way, if light from
> the origins of the universe can be observed
The oldest light we can see, is from the material that produced the
CMBR. This is about 300,000 after the Big Bang.
> by the likes of Hubble, would this mean the universe
> is/was expanding faster than the speed of light?
the expansion and continuity-of-expansion thing.
David A. Smith
dlzc
Jan 30, 2012, 2:38:32 PM1/30/12
to
Dear tooly:
On Jan 30, 9:57 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
...
Universe, we know quite a lot.
> I understand 'rational'...but I also 'think' I understand
> when we are bullshitting too.
Clearly you do not.
> Science KNOWS a lot...but still, 'not much'.
Job security for future generations then.
> It simply leaves a 'door' open. 'To what', I'm not sure;
Further observation and thought. To getting our butts off the planet
to "go and see".,
> but perhaps just about 'anything'. Is there a god, God?
Why should She care? Science cannot answer theological questions. A
God cannot be disproved, and so is not the domain of Science.
> A higher existence? Even a supreme existence?
Same question, same answer.
> I'm suspicious that we have it all wrong.
Skepticism is *required*. But be equally skeptical of your own
conclusions.
> That 'things' are simply beyond our capacity to
> understand all that well.
You never know until you try.
> I'm all for humility. And I WANT this thing we call
> LOVE to mean something more than just 'brain
> chemistry'.
I want to believe there will be a life where something does not have
to die, for me to live. But that is not part of Science. Can love be
disproved? No.
David A. Smith
On Jan 30, 9:57 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
...
> I found this thread very interesting. It also illustrates,
> at least for me, how all bets are still off; we don't
> KNOW much.
*If* physics does not change over the displayed history of the
> at least for me, how all bets are still off; we don't
> KNOW much.
Universe, we know quite a lot.
> I understand 'rational'...but I also 'think' I understand
> when we are bullshitting too.
> Science KNOWS a lot...but still, 'not much'.
> It simply leaves a 'door' open. 'To what', I'm not sure;
to "go and see".,
> but perhaps just about 'anything'. Is there a god, God?
God cannot be disproved, and so is not the domain of Science.
> A higher existence? Even a supreme existence?
> I'm suspicious that we have it all wrong.
Skepticism is *required*. But be equally skeptical of your own
conclusions.
> That 'things' are simply beyond our capacity to
> understand all that well.
> I'm all for humility. And I WANT this thing we call
> LOVE to mean something more than just 'brain
> chemistry'.
to die, for me to live. But that is not part of Science. Can love be
disproved? No.
David A. Smith
Sam Wormley
Jan 30, 2012, 3:10:57 PM1/30/12
to
On 1/30/12 9:52 AM, ck wrote:
> Or to put the orginal questions another way, if light from the
> origins of the universe can be observed by the likes of Hubble,
> would this mean the universe is/was expanding faster than the
> speed of light?
The CMB is red-shifted a factor of 1089. Further back in time
> Or to put the orginal questions another way, if light from the
> origins of the universe can be observed by the likes of Hubble,
> would this mean the universe is/was expanding faster than the
> speed of light?
would be red-shifted more and would become infinite at a recession
velocity of c.
Here is a reasonably accurate timeline for the big bang model
of the universe and other excellent resources:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060323.html
No Center
Sam Wormley
Jan 30, 2012, 3:13:17 PM1/30/12
to
On 1/30/12 10:57 AM, tooly wrote:
> I'm suspicous that we have it all wrong. That 'things'
> are simply beyond our capacity to understand all that well. I'm all
> for humility. And I WANT this thing we call LOVE to mean something
> more than just 'brain chemistry'.
This is a good an answer as any:
> I'm suspicous that we have it all wrong. That 'things'
> are simply beyond our capacity to understand all that well. I'm all
> for humility. And I WANT this thing we call LOVE to mean something
> more than just 'brain chemistry'.
> Interview with Physicist Steven Weinberg
> http://www.meta-library.net/transcript/wein-body.html
>
> QUESTION: You have written that the more comprehensible the universe becomes the more pointless it seems. Could you explain what you mean by that?
>
> DR. WEINBERG: Years ago I wrote a book about cosmology, and near the end I tried to summarize the view of the expanding universe and the laws of nature. And I made the remark - I guess I was foolish enough to make the remark - that the more the universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless. And that remark has been quoted more than anything else I've ever said. It's even in Bartlett's Quotations. I think it's been the truth in the past that it was widely hoped that by studying nature we will find the sign of a grand plan, in which human beings play a particularly distinguished starring role. And that has not happened. I think that more and more the picture of nature, the outside world, has been one of an impersonal world governed by mathematical laws that are not particularly concerned with human beings, in which human beings appear as a chance phenomenon, not the goal toward which the universe is directed. And for some this has no effect on their religion. Thei
r religion never looked for any kind of point in nature. For others this is appalling, the idea that all of the stars and galaxies and atoms are going about their business, and it's just by accident that here on this solar system the peculiar chemical properties of DNA acting over billions of years have produced these people who have been able to talk and look around and enjoy life. For some people that picture is antithetical to the view of nature and the world that their religion had given them.
>
> QUESTION: Do you believe then there is no overall point to the universe?
>
> DR. WEINBERG: I believe that there is no point in the universe that can be discovered by the methods of science. I believe that what we have found so far, an impersonal universe in which it is not particularly directed toward human beings is what we are going to continue to find. And that when we find the ultimate laws of nature they will have a chilling, cold impersonal quality about them.
>
> I don't think this means [however] there's no point to life. Usually the remark is quoted just as it stands. But if anyone read the next paragraph, they would see that I went on to say that if there is no point in the universe that we discover by the methods of science, there is a point that we can give the universe by the way we live, by loving each other, by discovering things about nature, by creating works of art. And that -- in a way, although we are not the stars in a cosmic drama, if the only drama we're starring in is one that we are making up as we go along, it is not entirely ignoble that faced with this unloving, impersonal universe we make a little island of warmth and love and science and art for ourselves. That's not an entirely despicable role for us to play.
>
Giga2
Jan 30, 2012, 3:20:51 PM1/30/12
to
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:b8a8708f-faa1-48ee...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
beginning?
Giga2
Jan 30, 2012, 3:22:02 PM1/30/12
to
"ck" <ck_N...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jg6ec8$dsv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
the universe to the size of a grapefruit IIRC.
Giga2
Jan 30, 2012, 3:24:13 PM1/30/12
to
news:9oo7gc...@mid.individual.net...
That would be a stupid question, but it wasn't mine.
>Tomorrow we'll see other light, and in another billion years we'll see
>other light still.
>
>>>
>>> If you want a formal explanation of the cause, follow the links in Sam's
>>> post.
>>>
>>
>> That is a whole tutorial. Surely this question has arisen before and
>> there
>> is some specific answer!? If people just say the equivalent of 'do a
>> degree
>> in cosmology' it makes me very suspicious that there isn't any real
>> answer.
>>
>>> Hope this helps
>>
>> A little if you believe in massive coincidences.
>
> Unless you're prepared to do some work, you'll get nowhere.
>
> Do you want to understand or not?
>
Sure.
>Tomorrow we'll see other light, and in another billion years we'll see
>other light still.
>
>>>
>>> If you want a formal explanation of the cause, follow the links in Sam's
>>> post.
>>>
>>
>> That is a whole tutorial. Surely this question has arisen before and
>> there
>> is some specific answer!? If people just say the equivalent of 'do a
>> degree
>> in cosmology' it makes me very suspicious that there isn't any real
>> answer.
>>
>>> Hope this helps
>>
>> A little if you believe in massive coincidences.
>
> Unless you're prepared to do some work, you'll get nowhere.
>
> Do you want to understand or not?
>
Giga2
Jan 30, 2012, 3:29:32 PM1/30/12
to
news:UvidnVysfJZAZLvS...@mchsi.com...
No the really important things for approaching spiritual questions are
inside us IMO.
inside us IMO.
dlzc
Jan 30, 2012, 5:25:00 PM1/30/12
to
Dear Giga2:
On Jan 30, 1:22 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
...
Universe at the age of the quench of the CMBR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
David A. Smith
On Jan 30, 1:22 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
...
> I understand 'Inflation' was quicker than the speed of light
> but only took the universe to the size of a grapefruit IIRC.
*From* the size of a grapefruit, to something around the size of the
> but only took the universe to the size of a grapefruit IIRC.
Universe at the age of the quench of the CMBR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
David A. Smith
Jonathan
Jan 30, 2012, 6:54:57 PM1/30/12
to
"Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in
message news:jg6uj9$gb7$1...@news.albasani.net...
> No the really important things for approaching spiritual questions are
> inside us IMO.
down, so wrong as to define the notion of backwards. In my previous
reply I was trying to get across the point that the assumption /has been/
universal laws are found by looking at the /simplest/ things the universe
has to offer. Whether it's the ultimate particle or force, or ultimate
starting point, this...assumption...to start from simplicity is entirely
mistaken
when it comes to questions of meaning.
Universal law is found from the most ...complex...the universe has to offer.
Just as the larger statistical sample best shows the underlying patterns.
Which is life and intelligence. So, self-organizing systems (Darwinian
evolution
in abstract form) shows how the universe goes.
Which means we've been searching for the grand answers with the
wrong kind of lens, from quarks to quasars so to speak. We should've
been looking into....a mirror. Looking within is where complexity
is best displayed and understood.
"O Nature, and O soul of man! how far beyond all utterance
are your linked analogies! not the smallest atom stirs or lives
on matter, but has its cunning duplicate in mind."
~Herman Melville, from Moby Dick
It's very difficult for the classically trained to inverse this
ultimate of all frames of references, since objective science
has given us so many shiny things. But with universal law, objective
or reductionist methods keep running into one brick wall
after another. They can't find the ultimate particle or the
ultimate initial condition without running up against some wall
or the limitations of the Uncertainty Principle. As my mentor said
so well long ago, railing against the new-fangled objective
science which was sweeping the great naturalists aside....
Their Height in Heaven comforts not
Their Glory nought to me
'Twas best imperfect as it was
I'm finite I can't see
The House of Supposition
The Glimmering Frontier that
Skirts the Acres of Perhaps
To Me shows insecure
The Wealth I had contented me
If 'twas a meaner size
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow Eyes
Better than larger values
However true their show
This timid 'Life of Evidence'
Keeps pleading "I don't know."
By E Dickinson (1830-1886)
s
Giga2
Jan 31, 2012, 12:38:17 AM1/31/12
to
news:1f152de2-3c1e-4b80...@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
??
"Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which
involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion, blowing
the size of what is now the observable Universe up from a region far smaller
than a proton to about the size of a grapefruit (or even bigger) in a small
fraction of a second."
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm
It really does sound very unlikely on the face of it, inflation that is. It
does just stink of fudge factors and finding some way to shoe-horn an old
paradigm into contradictory evidence. Don't you think?
"Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which
involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion, blowing
the size of what is now the observable Universe up from a region far smaller
than a proton to about the size of a grapefruit (or even bigger) in a small
fraction of a second."
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm
It really does sound very unlikely on the face of it, inflation that is. It
does just stink of fudge factors and finding some way to shoe-horn an old
paradigm into contradictory evidence. Don't you think?
Giga2
Jan 31, 2012, 12:39:31 AM1/31/12
to
"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:65f03e6d-3140-4cc6...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
science understood about 10% of the world. I would say he could be right.
Giga2
Jan 31, 2012, 12:42:45 AM1/31/12
to
news:d5-dnUAQ75BEsLrS...@giganews.com...
Certainly been my experience that the really important truths for spiritual
ideas come from inside or relationships rather than observing the material
world.
ideas come from inside or relationships rather than observing the material
world.
dlzc
Jan 31, 2012, 9:16:59 AM1/31/12
to
Dear Giga2:
On Jan 30, 10:38 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
...
triggering a new pogrom. I do not see "contradictory evidence", but I
do not like extrapolation into a solution-space that can never be
tested.
> Don't you think?
Extrapolation to anything before the quench of the CMBR medium, is
very much like a religious discussion in a barber shop. Bound to have
differences of opinion.
Are you square on how Hubble can image light from objects on "this
side" of the CMBR now?
David A. Smith
On Jan 30, 10:38 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
...
> It really does sound very unlikely on the face of it,
> inflation that is. It does just stink of fudge factors and
> finding some way to shoe-horn an old paradigm into
> contradictory evidence.
Well, if we don't make it sound like biblical creation, we risk
> inflation that is. It does just stink of fudge factors and
> finding some way to shoe-horn an old paradigm into
> contradictory evidence.
triggering a new pogrom. I do not see "contradictory evidence", but I
do not like extrapolation into a solution-space that can never be
tested.
> Don't you think?
Extrapolation to anything before the quench of the CMBR medium, is
very much like a religious discussion in a barber shop. Bound to have
differences of opinion.
Are you square on how Hubble can image light from objects on "this
side" of the CMBR now?
David A. Smith
John Polasek
Jan 31, 2012, 10:58:16 AM1/31/12
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:57:57 -0800 (PST), tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
It is a sad fact that big science does not have a lucid picture of the
structure of the universe. Otherwise it would be able to draw an
illuminating diagram from which your argument could be made more
meaningful. As it is, it would consist of a a line segment marked off
in ages (or something).
In the Big Bang scenario there would be a point of origin which would
also be the center of mass for the universe and equations would be
written describing the radius from the center versus time. But now we
have come to concede that our viewpoint, where everything is receding
from us, cannot be tolerated. Therefore big science has defaulted to a
dust model and the variable R has given way to a size factor "a" with
the current value now being a0 = 1 and distant stars have a = a0/1+z.
Now it becomes even more difficult to draw a diagram from which your
problem could be figured out. It seems clear somebody should come
forward with such a model. (I have a model that works, but I'm working
it into a large theory.) I will say this though: you can't look back
or forward in time for even a second; you're seeing something else.
John Polasek
wrote:
structure of the universe. Otherwise it would be able to draw an
illuminating diagram from which your argument could be made more
meaningful. As it is, it would consist of a a line segment marked off
in ages (or something).
In the Big Bang scenario there would be a point of origin which would
also be the center of mass for the universe and equations would be
written describing the radius from the center versus time. But now we
have come to concede that our viewpoint, where everything is receding
from us, cannot be tolerated. Therefore big science has defaulted to a
dust model and the variable R has given way to a size factor "a" with
the current value now being a0 = 1 and distant stars have a = a0/1+z.
Now it becomes even more difficult to draw a diagram from which your
problem could be figured out. It seems clear somebody should come
forward with such a model. (I have a model that works, but I'm working
it into a large theory.) I will say this though: you can't look back
or forward in time for even a second; you're seeing something else.
John Polasek
John J Stafford
Jan 31, 2012, 12:17:23 PM1/31/12
to
In article <jg6u58$fgh$1...@news.albasani.net>,
gradually intersecting to resolve (or arbitrate) into our evolving
universe.
> I understand 'Inflation' was quicker than the speed of light but only took
> the universe to the size of a grapefruit IIRC.
Recently I've perceived inflation as that part of two universes that are
> the universe to the size of a grapefruit IIRC.
gradually intersecting to resolve (or arbitrate) into our evolving
universe.
OG
Jan 31, 2012, 1:57:37 PM1/31/12
to
around at the time when the light from the early universe is catching us
up?" what exactly did you mean?
Where's the coincidence?
Giga2
Jan 31, 2012, 2:08:11 PM1/31/12
to
news:afbed312-f75f-485b...@c13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Don't you think?
Extrapolation to anything before the quench of the CMBR medium, is
very much like a religious discussion in a barber shop. Bound to have
differences of opinion.
=So Inflation Theory is currently (and probably always will be)
non-verifiable?
Are you square on how Hubble can image light from objects on "this
side" of the CMBR now?
=Not really. I come across quite educated but can be pretty slow sometimes!
Is it simply that the universe expanded almost as fast as light travels so
the earliest light hasn't outrun the telescope?
Dear Giga2:
On Jan 30, 10:38 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
...
> It really does sound very unlikely on the face of it,
> inflation that is. It does just stink of fudge factors and
> finding some way to shoe-horn an old paradigm into
> contradictory evidence.
Well, if we don't make it sound like biblical creation, we risk
triggering a new pogrom. I do not see "contradictory evidence", but I
do not like extrapolation into a solution-space that can never be
tested.
=So how big was the universe after inflation, a basketball?
On Jan 30, 10:38 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
...
> It really does sound very unlikely on the face of it,
> inflation that is. It does just stink of fudge factors and
> finding some way to shoe-horn an old paradigm into
> contradictory evidence.
Well, if we don't make it sound like biblical creation, we risk
triggering a new pogrom. I do not see "contradictory evidence", but I
do not like extrapolation into a solution-space that can never be
tested.
> Don't you think?
Extrapolation to anything before the quench of the CMBR medium, is
very much like a religious discussion in a barber shop. Bound to have
differences of opinion.
non-verifiable?
Are you square on how Hubble can image light from objects on "this
side" of the CMBR now?
Is it simply that the universe expanded almost as fast as light travels so
the earliest light hasn't outrun the telescope?
Giga2
Jan 31, 2012, 2:09:26 PM1/31/12
to
"John J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.invalid> wrote in message
news:john-76F154.1...@news.supernews.com...
something colliding (M Theory IIRC).
Giga2
Jan 31, 2012, 3:47:21 PM1/31/12
to
news:9oqrsv...@mid.individual.net...
That the light from the early universe has just caught up now when we happen
to be around and have a space telescope handy!
to be around and have a space telescope handy!
dlzc
Jan 31, 2012, 4:11:47 PM1/31/12
to
Dear Giga2:
On Jan 31, 12:08 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
>> > Don't you think?
>
>> Extrapolation to anything before the quench of the CMBR
>> medium, is very much like a religious discussion in a
>> barber shop. Bound to have differences of opinion.
>
> =So Inflation Theory is currently (and probably always will
> be) non-verifiable?
We have what came out of the "black box" that is on the other side of
the CMBR. If what comes out makes more sense with one "cosmology"
over another, we got a better guess with the one that fits better. As
to "non-verifiable", if civilization lasts long enough that we can
(eventually) image with low energy neutrinos, then it could be
verifiable. As it stands right now though... the barber shop is open.
>> Are you square on how Hubble can image light from
>> objects on "this side" of the CMBR now?
>
> =Not really. I come across quite educated but can be
> pretty slow sometimes!
Always good to chew on it till you like the flavor. Nature is
patient, most times.
> Is it simply that the universe expanded almost as
> fast as light travels so the earliest light hasn't outrun
> the telescope?
If you add "really large" and "expanding at some finite rate"
together, you get essentially an identical effect to what you
describe. There is always a surface that is "departing at c" and
light on the "inside" of that surface will get to us in some very long
time. It doesn't require inflation or even acceleration-of-expansion
to work.
David A. Smith
On Jan 31, 12:08 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:afbed312-f75f-485b...@c13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:afbed312-f75f-485b...@c13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 10:38 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmattheend)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> > It really does sound very unlikely on the face of it,
>> > inflation that is. It does just stink of fudge factors and
>> > finding some way to shoe-horn an old paradigm into
>> > contradictory evidence.
>
>> Well, if we don't make it sound like biblical creation, we
>> risk triggering a new pogrom. I do not see
>> "contradictory evidence", but I do not like extrapolation
>> into a solution-space that can never be tested.
>
> =So how big was the universe after inflation, a basketball?
If you followed the link, it was larger than a supercluster is today.
>
> ...
>
>> > It really does sound very unlikely on the face of it,
>> > inflation that is. It does just stink of fudge factors and
>> > finding some way to shoe-horn an old paradigm into
>> > contradictory evidence.
>
>> Well, if we don't make it sound like biblical creation, we
>> risk triggering a new pogrom. I do not see
>> "contradictory evidence", but I do not like extrapolation
>> into a solution-space that can never be tested.
>
> =So how big was the universe after inflation, a basketball?
>> > Don't you think?
>
>> Extrapolation to anything before the quench of the CMBR
>> medium, is very much like a religious discussion in a
>> barber shop. Bound to have differences of opinion.
>
> =So Inflation Theory is currently (and probably always will
> be) non-verifiable?
the CMBR. If what comes out makes more sense with one "cosmology"
over another, we got a better guess with the one that fits better. As
to "non-verifiable", if civilization lasts long enough that we can
(eventually) image with low energy neutrinos, then it could be
verifiable. As it stands right now though... the barber shop is open.
>> Are you square on how Hubble can image light from
>> objects on "this side" of the CMBR now?
>
> =Not really. I come across quite educated but can be
> pretty slow sometimes!
patient, most times.
> Is it simply that the universe expanded almost as
> fast as light travels so the earliest light hasn't outrun
> the telescope?
together, you get essentially an identical effect to what you
describe. There is always a surface that is "departing at c" and
light on the "inside" of that surface will get to us in some very long
time. It doesn't require inflation or even acceleration-of-expansion
to work.
David A. Smith
OG
Jan 31, 2012, 5:00:56 PM1/31/12
to
caught up with us' - remember I said that when the light was originally
emitted, we were only a few hundred million light years apart, but
because of the speed of expansion it's actually taken 13+ billion light
years to reach us.
Obviously, a billion years ago the equivalent light that was 'just
catching up' with us was emitted closer to us; and in another billion
years time we'll be 'caught up' by light that was emitted at the same
time, but from a slightly further distance (possibly about 7% further
away, but I've not done the maths)
At any time that sentient beings may have developed a 'space telescope',
they would have been able to see light from the first aeons of galaxy
formation. It just wouldn't have been the same parts of the early
universe that we're seeing now in our Hubble Ultra Deep Field photos for
example.
John J Stafford
Jan 31, 2012, 8:51:11 PM1/31/12
to
In article <jg9e97$19p$1...@news.albasani.net>,
.
"Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co>
wrote:
> "John J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.invalid> wrote in message
> news:john-76F154.1...@news.supernews.com...
> > In article <jg6u58$fgh$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I understand 'Inflation' was quicker than the speed of light but only
> >> took
> >> the universe to the size of a grapefruit IIRC.
> >
> > Recently I've perceived inflation as that part of two universes that are
> > gradually intersecting to resolve (or arbitrate) into our evolving
> > universe.
>
> Isn't that one theory of how the big bang got started. Like Branes or
> something colliding (M Theory IIRC).
Yes, it is.
wrote:
> "John J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.invalid> wrote in message
> news:john-76F154.1...@news.supernews.com...
> > In article <jg6u58$fgh$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I understand 'Inflation' was quicker than the speed of light but only
> >> took
> >> the universe to the size of a grapefruit IIRC.
> >
> > Recently I've perceived inflation as that part of two universes that are
> > gradually intersecting to resolve (or arbitrate) into our evolving
> > universe.
>
> Isn't that one theory of how the big bang got started. Like Branes or
> something colliding (M Theory IIRC).
.
Jonathan
Jan 31, 2012, 9:21:42 PM1/31/12
to
"John Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1j2gi75eotf4t2vh9...@4ax.com...
> It is a sad fact that big science does not have a lucid picture of the
> structure of the universe. Otherwise it would be able to draw an
> illuminating diagram from which your argument could be made more
> meaningful. As it is, it would consist of a a line segment marked off
> in ages (or something).
below and run with it to it's logical conclusion.
The current sciences reduces to simplicity to derive
fundamental laws, whether it's the ultimate particle
or force, or ultimate initial condition.
The proposal is that fundamental laws are best derived
in just the opposite way, from the most....complex
the universe has to offer, from the output side of the
equation. Just as the larger statistical sample best
shows underlying patterns.
What if in fact that proposal is true?
Well, life and intelligence is the most ...complex in the
known universe. This would mean we already
have the universal concept of life, the universe
and everything....Darwinian evolution...we just
don't realize it.
But how could we possibly apply biology to the
physical universe, might be your first question?
Easy!
By placing Darwin in abstract mathematical terms
so that the underlying concepts apply to physical
systems, any system in fact. And when you see how easy
this is to accomplish, you'll wonder why no one thought
of it a long long time ago. (They did)
This reversal of our primary frame of references with
observing reality takes this form. Instead of reducing
to part details, we expand to system...behavior.
Instead of comparing one thing to another, we
compare something to...itself. Comparisons are
between actual system behavior, and it's...possible
extremes in system behavior.
solid > liquid < gas
Liquid is the system, and it's opposing possibilities
are of course solid or gas.
By comparing something to /it's own/ possibilities
...entirely removes... the specific system component
details from the mathematics. It no longer matters
if your talking about biological evolution, politics, religion
or particle physics. This math is about how things are
connected to each other NOT about the things
themselves.
If that's not enough, guess what happens next?
When you can analyze every single type of complex
dynamic system with a ...single model or lens.
For the first time you can easily see what's COMMON
among.....THEM ALL!!! All the systems under the sun.
And it's wonderful, beyond words.
"To tell the beauty would decrease,
To state the Spell demean,
There is a syllableless sea
Of which it is the sign."
Definition of Complexity Theory;
"The main current scientific theory related to self-organization
is Complexity Theory, which states:"
"Critically interacting components self-organize to form
potentially evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy
of emergent system properties."
Or, the critical interaction between system-specific
static and chaotic attractor behavior produces
dynamic or emergent, evolving systems.
subcritical behavior (like a ball spinning inside a bowl)
supercritical behavior ( like a dissipating gas)
dynamic or emergent ( like a fluid, critically interacting)
solid > liquid < gas
subcritical > critical < supercritical
static > dynamic < chaotic
A very simple and obvious paradigm.
So now what about life, the universe and everything
modeled by a single mathematical concept?
subcritical > emergent/evolving < supercritical
The Universe
gravity > space-time < cosmic expansion
matter > light < energy
Life
genetics > natural-selection < mutation
facts > ideas < imagination
Society
rule of law > democracy < freedom
producer > market forces < consumer
Everything
science > wisdom < philosophy
TRUTH > BEAUTY < LOVE
subcritical > emergent < supercritical
static > dynamic < chaotic
You see, when the opposite extremes in possibility
for any given real system are critically interacting, so that
one can't tell which-is-which, then the system begins
hill-climbing and evolving. It become more than the
sum of it's parts. It self-organizes or springs to life.
This is as true for the duality of light, as it is for
male and female.
When opposites become one. (critically interact)
Creation occurs.
The math is clear....in the most abstract mathematical
form possible....Love is the answer. To all questions
of meaning up to and including life, the universe and
everything.
AT LAST...pure abstract mathematical thought finds
common ground with spiritual beliefs.
And the Universe never looks the same again.
"Beauty crowds me till I die,
Beauty, mercy have on me!"
Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
Calresco Themes (*in essay form)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm
"I Died for beauty, but was scarce
Adjusted in the tomb,
When one who died for truth was lain
In an adjoining room.
He questioned softly why I failed?
"For beauty," I replied.
"And I for truth,-the two are one;
We brethren are," he said."
Poems by E Dickinson
s
Jonathan
Jan 31, 2012, 9:58:54 PM1/31/12
to
And just as a tease, I claim this math allows any
system at all to be analyzed easily by one idea.
So what about the stock market?
A nice real world test, with 10,000
complex dynamic systems running
each day, and already charted out
and for free.
When the system-specific opposite extremes
are critically interacting, then universal behavior
emerges which is not dependent on the system
component details.
The opposite extremes in volatility are when?
Flat line or straight down. So, the critical value
would be a scale-independent slope of negative one
or a 45 degree slope.
The opposite extremes in price change would
be no change and complete loss. So the
critical value would be a 50% loss.
These theoretical values would be adjusted
somewhat to account for real world practice.
So, observation would show that the market
anticipates well, so the critical price change
is upped a bit to 40%.
And when you find that combination of...complexity
the pattern behaves much in the same way almost
every single time....for instance. BUY when a slope
of minus one falls to 40%, in this current chart below, and
see the easy profit. Without even knowing the name of
the stock...independent of system part details.
It's already bounced
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=meg&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=23
This one should soon...
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=enmd&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=24
A couple every week in general. Like storms passing through.
And why look for this pattern in ten day charts?
One extreme in trading is the day-traders, which operate
in minutes or hours. And the opposite extreme in possibility
is the longs, which operate in months and years.
So the complex or critical value would be of course
...days and weeks. Five and ten day pattern lengths.
Easy as 1,2 3
s
Jonathan
s
Giga2
Feb 1, 2012, 2:33:07 PM2/1/12
to
news:cb095c42-e4db-486f...@c13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
and what I had heard. Is this quite a new idea (to take account of more
difficult data!)?
>> > Don't you think?
>
>> Extrapolation to anything before the quench of the CMBR
>> medium, is very much like a religious discussion in a
>> barber shop. Bound to have differences of opinion.
>
> =So Inflation Theory is currently (and probably always will
> be) non-verifiable?
We have what came out of the "black box" that is on the other side of
the CMBR. If what comes out makes more sense with one "cosmology"
over another, we got a better guess with the one that fits better.
=Guess. That's what I thought.
As
to "non-verifiable", if civilization lasts long enough that we can
(eventually) image with low energy neutrinos, then it could be
verifiable. As it stands right now though... the barber shop is open.
=Unverifiable for the foreseeable future=non-science according to Popper
IIRC.
>> Are you square on how Hubble can image light from
>> objects on "this side" of the CMBR now?
>
> =Not really. I come across quite educated but can be
> pretty slow sometimes!
Always good to chew on it till you like the flavor. Nature is
patient, most times.
> Is it simply that the universe expanded almost as
> fast as light travels so the earliest light hasn't outrun
> the telescope?
If you add "really large" and "expanding at some finite rate"
together, you get essentially an identical effect to what you
describe.
=So this universe was say 500mly across after 'inflation'. This is really
large for these purposes I presume? The stuff that was going to become our
part of the whole was somewhere in there and the stuff that Hubble sees now
(13bnly+ away) was shining at that time. Because it has been moving away,
and so have 'we', some of the light is still on the way? Does this mean at
almost any time in the last say 10bny if we had built hubble it would see
this early universe, and if we build another in 10bny time it could still
see it?
There is always a surface that is "departing at c" and
light on the "inside" of that surface will get to us in some very long
time. It doesn't require inflation or even acceleration-of-expansion
to work.
=Surface? As in the surface of a star?
Dear Giga2:
On Jan 31, 12:08 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:afbed312-f75f-485b...@c13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 10:38 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2"
> <just(removetheseandaddmattheend)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> > It really does sound very unlikely on the face of it,
>> > inflation that is. It does just stink of fudge factors and
>> > finding some way to shoe-horn an old paradigm into
>> > contradictory evidence.
>
>> Well, if we don't make it sound like biblical creation, we
>> risk triggering a new pogrom. I do not see
>> "contradictory evidence", but I do not like extrapolation
>> into a solution-space that can never be tested.
>
> =So how big was the universe after inflation, a basketball?
If you followed the link, it was larger than a supercluster is today.
=That is quite different from what they were claiming on the site I linked,
On Jan 31, 12:08 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:afbed312-f75f-485b...@c13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 10:38 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2"
> <just(removetheseandaddmattheend)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> > It really does sound very unlikely on the face of it,
>> > inflation that is. It does just stink of fudge factors and
>> > finding some way to shoe-horn an old paradigm into
>> > contradictory evidence.
>
>> Well, if we don't make it sound like biblical creation, we
>> risk triggering a new pogrom. I do not see
>> "contradictory evidence", but I do not like extrapolation
>> into a solution-space that can never be tested.
>
> =So how big was the universe after inflation, a basketball?
If you followed the link, it was larger than a supercluster is today.
and what I had heard. Is this quite a new idea (to take account of more
difficult data!)?
>> > Don't you think?
>
>> Extrapolation to anything before the quench of the CMBR
>> medium, is very much like a religious discussion in a
>> barber shop. Bound to have differences of opinion.
>
> =So Inflation Theory is currently (and probably always will
> be) non-verifiable?
We have what came out of the "black box" that is on the other side of
the CMBR. If what comes out makes more sense with one "cosmology"
over another, we got a better guess with the one that fits better.
As
to "non-verifiable", if civilization lasts long enough that we can
(eventually) image with low energy neutrinos, then it could be
verifiable. As it stands right now though... the barber shop is open.
IIRC.
>> Are you square on how Hubble can image light from
>> objects on "this side" of the CMBR now?
>
> =Not really. I come across quite educated but can be
> pretty slow sometimes!
Always good to chew on it till you like the flavor. Nature is
patient, most times.
> Is it simply that the universe expanded almost as
> fast as light travels so the earliest light hasn't outrun
> the telescope?
If you add "really large" and "expanding at some finite rate"
together, you get essentially an identical effect to what you
describe.
large for these purposes I presume? The stuff that was going to become our
part of the whole was somewhere in there and the stuff that Hubble sees now
(13bnly+ away) was shining at that time. Because it has been moving away,
and so have 'we', some of the light is still on the way? Does this mean at
almost any time in the last say 10bny if we had built hubble it would see
this early universe, and if we build another in 10bny time it could still
see it?
There is always a surface that is "departing at c" and
light on the "inside" of that surface will get to us in some very long
time. It doesn't require inflation or even acceleration-of-expansion
to work.
Giga2
Feb 1, 2012, 2:35:12 PM2/1/12
to
news:9or6ko...@mid.individual.net...
Ah, OK, I think I am starting to get there now.
dlzc
Feb 1, 2012, 5:28:21 PM2/1/12
to
Dear Giga2:
On Feb 1, 12:33 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
> news:cb095c42-e4db-486f...@c13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Is this quite a new idea (to take account of more
> difficult data!)?
No, just to hit a CMBR "size" in a few hundred thousand years.
...
a "guess".
>> As to "non-verifiable", if civilization lasts long enough that
>> we can (eventually) image with low energy neutrinos, then
>> it could be verifiable. As it stands right now though... the
>> barber shop is open.
>
> =Unverifiable for the foreseeable future
> =non-science according to Popper IIRC.
But to not attempt to look, is non-science too.
...
> The stuff that was going to become our part of the whole
> was somewhere in there and the stuff that Hubble sees
> now (13bnly+ away) was shining at that time.
Yes. And the light was "heading for the back of our heads" (in the
hall of mirrors analogy)...
> Because it has been moving away, and so have 'we',
> some of the light is still on the way?
Yep.
> Does this mean at almost any time in the last say
> 10bny if we had built hubble it would see this early
> universe,
... only "bluer", better contrast, and so on. Still stops at the
CMBR, but it would be blue shifted towards far infrared depending on
how far back you'd go.
> and if we build another in 10bny time it could still
> see it?
Yes, assuming no more acceleration, the CMBR might be down into short
radio waves at that point...
>> There is always a surface that is "departing at c" and
>> light on the "inside" of that surface will get to us in
>> some very long time. It doesn't require inflation or even
>> acceleration-of-expansion to work.
>
> =Surface? As in the surface of a star?
More like the "line" on the river above a waterfall, where
disturbances (waves) can no longer reach upstream. It is a
mathematical surface, not anything you could crash into.
David A., Smith
On Feb 1, 12:33 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
> news:cb095c42-e4db-486f...@c13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 31, 12:08 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
>> > =So how big was the universe after inflation, a basketball?
>
>> If you followed the link, it was larger than a supercluster is today.
>
> =That is quite different from what they were claiming on the
> site I linked, and what I had heard.
... but not what I linked.
>
>> If you followed the link, it was larger than a supercluster is today.
>
> =That is quite different from what they were claiming on the
> site I linked, and what I had heard.
> Is this quite a new idea (to take account of more
> difficult data!)?
...
>> > =So Inflation Theory is currently (and probably always will
>> > be) non-verifiable?
>
>> We have what came out of the "black box" that is on the
>> other side of the CMBR. If what comes out makes more
>> sense with one "cosmology" over another, we got a better
>> guess with the one that fits better.
>
> =Guess. That's what I thought.
We can still do some disproof, but yes I agree. As is most of Science
>> > be) non-verifiable?
>
>> We have what came out of the "black box" that is on the
>> other side of the CMBR. If what comes out makes more
>> sense with one "cosmology" over another, we got a better
>> guess with the one that fits better.
>
> =Guess. That's what I thought.
a "guess".
>> As to "non-verifiable", if civilization lasts long enough that
>> we can (eventually) image with low energy neutrinos, then
>> it could be verifiable. As it stands right now though... the
>> barber shop is open.
>
> =Unverifiable for the foreseeable future
> =non-science according to Popper IIRC.
...
>> > Is it simply that the universe expanded almost as
>> > fast as light travels so the earliest light hasn't outrun
>> > the telescope?
>
>> If you add "really large" and "expanding at some finite rate"
>> together, you get essentially an identical effect to what you
>> describe.
>
> =So this universe was say 500mly across after 'inflation'.
> This is really large for these purposes I presume?
Probably not.
>> > fast as light travels so the earliest light hasn't outrun
>> > the telescope?
>
>> If you add "really large" and "expanding at some finite rate"
>> together, you get essentially an identical effect to what you
>> describe.
>
> =So this universe was say 500mly across after 'inflation'.
> This is really large for these purposes I presume?
> The stuff that was going to become our part of the whole
> was somewhere in there and the stuff that Hubble sees
> now (13bnly+ away) was shining at that time.
hall of mirrors analogy)...
> Because it has been moving away, and so have 'we',
> some of the light is still on the way?
> Does this mean at almost any time in the last say
> 10bny if we had built hubble it would see this early
> universe,
CMBR, but it would be blue shifted towards far infrared depending on
how far back you'd go.
> and if we build another in 10bny time it could still
> see it?
radio waves at that point...
>> There is always a surface that is "departing at c" and
>> light on the "inside" of that surface will get to us in
>> some very long time. It doesn't require inflation or even
>> acceleration-of-expansion to work.
>
> =Surface? As in the surface of a star?
disturbances (waves) can no longer reach upstream. It is a
mathematical surface, not anything you could crash into.
David A., Smith
John J Stafford
Feb 1, 2012, 7:36:10 PM2/1/12
to
In article <jgc41m$5m5$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Don't forget that the universe is not 'out there' but everything so if
the universe is expanding now, for example, so are all of us. This can
help account for some so-called quantum strangeness. Consider the
mysteries of quantum measurements - we humans live in the past so what
we observe has occurred before we witnessed them. Determination comes in
here. When we observe, the outcome had already existed before our
observation.
the universe is expanding now, for example, so are all of us. This can
help account for some so-called quantum strangeness. Consider the
mysteries of quantum measurements - we humans live in the past so what
we observe has occurred before we witnessed them. Determination comes in
here. When we observe, the outcome had already existed before our
observation.
Giga2
Feb 2, 2012, 12:37:04 PM2/2/12
to
news:0913f92f-2174-4dd4...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
=OK thanks.
Giga2
Feb 2, 2012, 12:38:20 PM2/2/12
to
"John J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.invalid> wrote in message
can observe it happening.
G=EMC^2
Feb 3, 2012, 10:11:53 AM2/3/12
to
> > I'm suspicous that we have it all wrong. That 'things'
> > are simply beyond our capacity to understand all that well. I'm all
> > for humility. And I WANT this thing we call LOVE to mean something
> > more than just 'brain chemistry'.
>
> > are simply beyond our capacity to understand all that well. I'm all
> > for humility. And I WANT this thing we call LOVE to mean something
> > more than just 'brain chemistry'.
>
> This is a good an answer as any:
>
> > Interview with Physicist Steven Weinberg
> > http://www.meta-library.net/transcript/wein-body.html
>
> > QUESTION: You have written that the more comprehensible the universe becomes the more pointless it seems. Could you explain what you mean by that?
>
> > DR. WEINBERG: Years ago I wrote a book about cosmology, and near the end I tried to summarize the view of the expanding universe and the laws of nature. And I made the remark - I guess I was foolish enough to make the remark - that the more the universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless. And that remark has been quoted more than anything else I've ever said. It's even in Bartlett's Quotations. I think it's been the truth in the past that it was widely hoped that by studying nature we will find the sign of a grand plan, in which human beings play a particularly distinguished starring role. And that has not happened. I think that more and more the picture of nature, the outside world, has been one of an impersonal world governed by mathematical laws that are not particularly concerned with human beings, in which human beings appear as a chance phenomenon, not the goal toward which the universe is directed. And for some this has no effect on their religion. Thei
>
> r religion never looked for any kind of point in nature. For others this is appalling, the idea that all of the stars and galaxies and atoms are going about their business, and it's just by accident that here on this solar system the peculiar chemical properties of DNA acting over billions of years have produced these people who have been able to talk and look around and enjoy life. For some people that picture is antithetical to the view of nature and the world that their religion had given them.
>
> > Interview with Physicist Steven Weinberg
> > http://www.meta-library.net/transcript/wein-body.html
>
> > QUESTION: You have written that the more comprehensible the universe becomes the more pointless it seems. Could you explain what you mean by that?
>
> > DR. WEINBERG: Years ago I wrote a book about cosmology, and near the end I tried to summarize the view of the expanding universe and the laws of nature. And I made the remark - I guess I was foolish enough to make the remark - that the more the universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless. And that remark has been quoted more than anything else I've ever said. It's even in Bartlett's Quotations. I think it's been the truth in the past that it was widely hoped that by studying nature we will find the sign of a grand plan, in which human beings play a particularly distinguished starring role. And that has not happened. I think that more and more the picture of nature, the outside world, has been one of an impersonal world governed by mathematical laws that are not particularly concerned with human beings, in which human beings appear as a chance phenomenon, not the goal toward which the universe is directed. And for some this has no effect on their religion. Thei
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > QUESTION: Do you believe then there is no overall point to the universe?
>
> > DR. WEINBERG: I believe that there is no point in the universe that can be discovered by the methods of science. I believe that what we have found so far, an impersonal universe in which it is not particularly directed toward human beings is what we are going to continue to find. And that when we find the ultimate laws of nature they will have a chilling, cold impersonal quality about them.
>
> > I don't think this means [however] there's no point to life. Usually the remark is quoted just as it stands. But if anyone read the next paragraph, they would see that I went on to say that if there is no point in the universe that we discover by the methods of science, there is a point that we can give the universe by the way we live, by loving each other, by discovering things about nature, by creating works of art. And that -- in a way, although we are not the stars in a cosmic drama, if the only drama we're starring in is one that we are making up as we go along, it is not entirely ignoble that faced with this unloving, impersonal universe we make a little island of warmth and love and science and art for ourselves. That's not an entirely despicable role for us to play.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
> > QUESTION: Do you believe then there is no overall point to the universe?
>
> > DR. WEINBERG: I believe that there is no point in the universe that can be discovered by the methods of science. I believe that what we have found so far, an impersonal universe in which it is not particularly directed toward human beings is what we are going to continue to find. And that when we find the ultimate laws of nature they will have a chilling, cold impersonal quality about them.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
We only see 6% of the universe. Humankind has only studied the
universe for a short time. We have no GUT,and as I type this I can say
with no disagreement "THE UNIVERSE IS IMPOsSIBLE" O ya TreBert
Michael Gordge
Feb 3, 2012, 4:43:27 PM2/3/12
to
On Jan 30, 7:17 pm, "Giga2" <"Giga2" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "CWatters" <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
>
> news:PZCdnfFMm9cvubjS...@brightview.co.uk...
>
> > If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, how can we see objects that
> > are now 47 billion light years away?
>
> > When talking about the distance of a moving object, we mean the spatial
> > separation NOW, with the positions of both objects specified at the
> > current time. In an expanding Universe this distance NOW is larger than
> > the speed of light times the light travel time due to the increase of
> > separations between objects as the Universe expands. This is not due to
> > any change in the units of space and time, but just caused by things being
> > farther apart now than they used to be.
>
> > What is the distance NOW to the most distant thing we can see? Let's take
> > the age of the Universe to be 14 billion years. In that time light travels
> > 14 billion light years, and some people stop here. But the distance has
> > grown since the light traveled. The average time when the light was
> > traveling was 7 billion years ago. For the critical density case, the
> > scale factor for the Universe goes like the 2/3 power of the time since
> > the Big Bang, so the Universe has grown by a factor of 22/3 = 1.59 since
> > the midpoint of the light's trip. But the size of the Universe changes
> > continuously, so we should divide the light's trip into short intervals.
> > First take two intervals: 7 billion years at an average time 10.5 billion
> > years after the Big Bang, which gives 7 billion light years that have
> > grown by a factor of 1/(0.75)2/3 = 1.21, plus another 7 billion light
> > years at an average time 3.5 billion years after the Big Bang, which has
> > grown by a factor of 42/3 = 2.52. Thus with 1 interval we got 1.59*14 =
> > 22.3 billion light years, while with two intervals we get 7*(1.21+2.52) =
> > 26.1 billion light years. With 8192 intervals we get 41 billion light
> > years. In the limit of very many time intervals we get 42 billion light
> > years. With calculus this whole paragraph reduces to this.
>
> > Another way of seeing this is to consider a photon and a galaxy 42 billion
> > light years away from us now, 14 billion years after the Big Bang. The
> > distance of this photon satisfies D = 3ct. If we wait for 0.1 billion
> > years, the Universe will grow by a factor of (14.1/14)2/3 = 1.0048, so the
> > galaxy will be 1.0048*42 = 42.2 billion light years away. But the light
> > will have traveled 0.1 billion light years further than the galaxy because
> > it moves at the speed of light relative to the matter in its vicinity and
> > will thus be at D = 42.3 billion light years, so D = 3ct is still
> > satisfied.
>
> > If the Universe does not have the critical density then the distance is
> > different, and for the low densities that are more likely the distance NOW
> > to the most distant object we can see is bigger than 3 times the speed of
> > light times the age of the Universe. The current best fit model which has
> > an accelerating expansion gives a maximum distance we can see of 47
> > billion light years.
>
> Thank you but I'm not sure this really addresses my question. The Hubble can
> look back at structures that were formed in the early universe, how is that
> possible?
How long ago was the computer ewe're looking at, formed?
MG
end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "CWatters" <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
>
> news:PZCdnfFMm9cvubjS...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > On 29/01/2012 09:09, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
> >> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years
> >> ago
> >> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light.
> >> Light
> >> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
> >> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot
> >> travel
> >> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel
> >> half
> >> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
> >> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should
> >> be
> >> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
> >> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
> >> gone way past the telescope?
>
> >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN
>
>
> > On 29/01/2012 09:09, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
> >> If the matter of which we are made originated in a Big Bang 14bn years
> >> ago
> >> then we have had 14bn years to travel from that point, as has light.
> >> Light
> >> would travel 14bn light years in 14bn years obviously. Matter must have
> >> travelled less than 14bn light years in that time because it cannot
> >> travel
> >> at the speed of light AFAIK. So lets say matter has managed to travel
> >> half
> >> the distance that light has, 7bnly. Any light from before 7bn should have
> >> overtaken us by now, and light photons from the earliest universe should
> >> be
> >> 7bnly away by now. However the Hubble Space Telescope can see structures
> >> that are 13+bnly away. How is it possible that the light has not already
> >> gone way past the telescope?
>
>
> > If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, how can we see objects that
> > are now 47 billion light years away?
>
> > When talking about the distance of a moving object, we mean the spatial
> > separation NOW, with the positions of both objects specified at the
> > current time. In an expanding Universe this distance NOW is larger than
> > the speed of light times the light travel time due to the increase of
> > separations between objects as the Universe expands. This is not due to
> > any change in the units of space and time, but just caused by things being
> > farther apart now than they used to be.
>
> > What is the distance NOW to the most distant thing we can see? Let's take
> > the age of the Universe to be 14 billion years. In that time light travels
> > 14 billion light years, and some people stop here. But the distance has
> > grown since the light traveled. The average time when the light was
> > traveling was 7 billion years ago. For the critical density case, the
> > scale factor for the Universe goes like the 2/3 power of the time since
> > the Big Bang, so the Universe has grown by a factor of 22/3 = 1.59 since
> > the midpoint of the light's trip. But the size of the Universe changes
> > continuously, so we should divide the light's trip into short intervals.
> > First take two intervals: 7 billion years at an average time 10.5 billion
> > years after the Big Bang, which gives 7 billion light years that have
> > grown by a factor of 1/(0.75)2/3 = 1.21, plus another 7 billion light
> > years at an average time 3.5 billion years after the Big Bang, which has
> > grown by a factor of 42/3 = 2.52. Thus with 1 interval we got 1.59*14 =
> > 22.3 billion light years, while with two intervals we get 7*(1.21+2.52) =
> > 26.1 billion light years. With 8192 intervals we get 41 billion light
> > years. In the limit of very many time intervals we get 42 billion light
> > years. With calculus this whole paragraph reduces to this.
>
> > Another way of seeing this is to consider a photon and a galaxy 42 billion
> > light years away from us now, 14 billion years after the Big Bang. The
> > distance of this photon satisfies D = 3ct. If we wait for 0.1 billion
> > years, the Universe will grow by a factor of (14.1/14)2/3 = 1.0048, so the
> > galaxy will be 1.0048*42 = 42.2 billion light years away. But the light
> > will have traveled 0.1 billion light years further than the galaxy because
> > it moves at the speed of light relative to the matter in its vicinity and
> > will thus be at D = 42.3 billion light years, so D = 3ct is still
> > satisfied.
>
> > If the Universe does not have the critical density then the distance is
> > different, and for the low densities that are more likely the distance NOW
> > to the most distant object we can see is bigger than 3 times the speed of
> > light times the age of the Universe. The current best fit model which has
> > an accelerating expansion gives a maximum distance we can see of 47
> > billion light years.
>
> Thank you but I'm not sure this really addresses my question. The Hubble can
> look back at structures that were formed in the early universe, how is that
> possible?
How long ago was the computer ewe're looking at, formed?
MG
John Polasek
Feb 3, 2012, 5:08:30 PM2/3/12
to
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:38:20 -0000, "Giga2" <"Giga2"
This is a question that cries out for a simple model of the universe,
in this case why not the line of sight to the beginning, to the CMBR,
etc. It would save a lot of philosophy.
Science has not come as far as it thinks.
John Polasek
in this case why not the line of sight to the beginning, to the CMBR,
etc. It would save a lot of philosophy.
Science has not come as far as it thinks.
John Polasek
Jonathan
Feb 3, 2012, 5:57:21 PM2/3/12
to
"Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> And just as a tease, I claim this math allows any
> system at all to be analyzed easily by one idea.
>
I wrote on Tuesday the 31th
> And just as a tease, I claim this math allows any
> system at all to be analyzed easily by one idea.
>
>BUY when a slope
>of minus one falls to 40%, in this current chart below, and
>see the easy profit.
>
> It's already bounced
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=meg&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=23
>
>
> This one should soon...
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=enmd&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=24
>
>
And it did. Enmd up 20% today. Aint she pretty
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=meg&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=23
>
>
> This one should soon...
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=enmd&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=24
>
>
Jonathan
Feb 4, 2012, 10:10:10 AM2/4/12
to
"Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:...
>>
>> And just as a tease, I claim this math allows any
>> system at all to be analyzed easily by one idea.
>>
>
> I wrote on Tuesday the 31th
>
>
>>BUY when a slope
>>of minus one falls to 40%, in this current chart below, and
>>see the easy profit.
>
>
>>
>> It's already bounced
>> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=meg&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=23
>>
>>
>
>
>> This one should soon...
>> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=enmd&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=24
>>
>>
>
> And it did. Enmd up 20% today. Aint she pretty
pattern plays out. Talk about stress, the day-trading herd showed up
yesterday on this one, from 1 million traded a day, to 27 million
the next....
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=mnkd&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=33&y=19
I'm betting it behaves the same way as the other two.
Even though one is a tiny newspaper, another is a giant
Pharmaceutical, and the third is a tiny bio-tech.
Jonathan
Feb 6, 2012, 6:03:45 PM2/6/12
to
news:ud-dnXgaaNDK17DS...@giganews.com...
>
>
> So for next week, let's see how this high-volume version of that
> pattern plays out. Talk about stress, the day-trading herd showed up
> yesterday on this one, from 1 million traded a day, to 27 million
> the next....
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=mnkd&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=33&y=19
>
Started to bounce today, up a nice 8% for the day.
Looking forward to tomorrow to see what happens
s
>
> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:...
>>
>> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:...
>>>
>>> And just as a tease, I claim this math allows any
>>> system at all to be analyzed easily by one idea.
>>>
>>
>> I wrote on Tuesday the 31th
>>
>>
>>>BUY when a slope
>>>of minus one falls to 40%, in this current chart below, and
>>>see the easy profit.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It's already bounced
>>> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=meg&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=23
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> This one should soon...
>>> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=enmd&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=24
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And it did. Enmd up 20% today. Aint she pretty
And enmd went up another 20% today, yeeeha!
> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:...
>>
>> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:...
>>>
>>> And just as a tease, I claim this math allows any
>>> system at all to be analyzed easily by one idea.
>>>
>>
>> I wrote on Tuesday the 31th
>>
>>
>>>BUY when a slope
>>>of minus one falls to 40%, in this current chart below, and
>>>see the easy profit.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It's already bounced
>>> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=meg&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=23
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> This one should soon...
>>> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=enmd&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=32&y=24
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And it did. Enmd up 20% today. Aint she pretty
>
>
> So for next week, let's see how this high-volume version of that
> pattern plays out. Talk about stress, the day-trading herd showed up
> yesterday on this one, from 1 million traded a day, to 27 million
> the next....
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=mnkd&insttype=&freq=7&show=&time=18&x=33&y=19
>
Looking forward to tomorrow to see what happens
s
Jonathan
Feb 7, 2012, 9:34:06 PM2/7/12
to
"G=EMC^2" <herbert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af3a6b49-7985-41d2...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>We only see 6% of the universe. Humankind has only studied the
>universe for a short time. We have no GUT,and as I type this I can say
>with no disagreement "THE UNIVERSE IS IMPOsSIBLE" O ya TreBert
In a totally disordered system, completely random, with
essentially a zero level of order. Any random disturbance
...MUST create a non-zero level of order.
And order is only positive in value.
Now ask yourself again, what does The Second Law
do first, last and every chance it gets? It creates
the ideal conditions for spontaneous order or
evolution.
With the same relentlessness as The Second Law destroys
the universe...creates. Increasing order, evolution and
creation, entirely for 'free'. The famous Hubble pictures
of forming stars and solar systems proved this.
Since stars and solar systems from form the disturbance
of large clouds of interstellar gas and dust. OR, spontaneous
order results from the random disturbance of a random
system.
Creation resides at the one-and-only-place objective
reductionism can't clearly see, an elegant cloud
of uncertainty.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
Feb 7, 2012, 9:45:29 PM2/7/12
to
news:ud-dnXgaaNDK17DS...@giganews.com...
>
Hasn't anyone noticed the first stock I predicted
went up almost 50% in the following two days?
I mean, that doesn't happen very often.
Jonathan
s
>
Hasn't anyone noticed the first stock I predicted
went up almost 50% in the following two days?
I mean, that doesn't happen very often.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
Feb 8, 2012, 8:59:12 PM2/8/12
to
news:jLadncJI-qZ_fKzS...@giganews.com...
And the second one, MNKD, I made a ho-hum 10%
in two days, which is more typical. So for the first
two public predictions, I'm averaging roughly 2% return
per market hour, at lunch with my cell phone.
s
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> s
>
>
>
>
in two days, which is more typical. So for the first
two public predictions, I'm averaging roughly 2% return
per market hour, at lunch with my cell phone.
s
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> s
>
>
>
>
0 new messages