Article: Cosmic CAT Scan - Observing the early universe--with 10,000 TV antennas
Robert Karl Stonjek
Observing the early universe--with 10,000 TV antennas
By W. Wayt Gibbs
In the beginning, the universe was a void full of energy but without form.
And so it remained for many millions of years--exactly how long is still a
major mystery of cosmology--until the first stars condensed from the fog of
matter and lit up with a blue nuclear glow.
Telescopes are just like time machines: the farther out in space they look,
the further back into the past they peer. But even the best optical
telescopes cannot make out what the universe was like at an age of less than
one billion years. Before that time, a haze of neutral hydrogen gas shrouded
these first beacons in the infant cosmos.
A new radio observatory under construction on the high plateau of Ulastai in
remote western China may soon yield images of this formative epoch,
however--and for a bargain price, too, because the sprawling instrument is
built almost entirely from parts that one could buy at RadioShack. Even
though it will cost just $3 million, the Primeval Structure Telescope (PaST)
is one of China's largest investments so far in experimental astronomy. The
project was launched in 2003 by Xiang-Ping Wu of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences in Beijing, Jeffrey B. Peterson of Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh and Ue-Li Pen of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical
Astrophysics in Toronto.
Though formally a telescope, PaST is better thought of as an experiment.
"We'll get enough data from it to answer our principal questions within a
couple weeks of turning it on" next year, Peterson says. (Analyzing those
data may take years, however.) That is because the instrument is essentially
a giant, incredibly sensitive television receiver.
PaST will combine radio signals picked up by 10,000 high-gain antennas
arranged in lines up to three kilometers long. The log-periodic antennas,
similar to those sold by the millions for rooftops, cost just $20 each.
Household coaxial cable splitters, installed backwards, combine the signals
from multiple antennas and feed them into a bank of 320 ordinary Pentium
PCs, running free Linux software. The computers merge the data to produce a
high-resolution picture of a 10-degree patch of sky centered near the North
Star.
Full Text at Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=000875DC-0624-12D8-BDFD83414B7F0000
Comment:
This 'time machine' will find that the further it looks back, the greater
the area of space it has to look at, which is a curious phenomena
considering that current theory has the universe ever smaller in past
times.....perhaps the Chinese will burst the explosive cosmology so favoured
by, in particular, gung-ho USA for a more subtle universe compatible with
the more mature traditional Chinese philosophy.
--
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
Bjoern Feuerbacher
[snip]
> This 'time machine' will find that the further it looks back, the greater
> the area of space it has to look at, which is a curious phenomena
> considering that current theory has the universe ever smaller in past
> times....
*sigh*
You *still* have not understood that the fact that the sky "looks
larger" at greater distances say *nothing* about *if* the universe was
larger or smaller at earlier times.
And you *still* have not told me what the sky *should* look like, *in
your opinion*, if the universe was smaller in earlier times.
It's fairly silly to complain that what we see doesn't correspond to
what you expect we should see if the BBT were true, and then refusing
to say what exactly you *would* expect to see then.
[snip]
Robert Karl Stonjek
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bjoern.fe...@pci.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:ddutkd$arv$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
The universe can not be both symmetrical and smaller at greater distances at
the same time.
Why does the universe 'look' bigger at earlier times? Because the further
you look, the greater the radius of the area of the sphere described by that
radius. At 10 billion light years we can view an area approximately
10^2*4*pi=1,256 billion square light years with a maximum viewable distance
(of an object in an arc back to the same object) of around 31.4 billion
light years.
Now let's think about this. The universe is said to be around 13 billion
years old. When we peer back 10 billion light years we are supposed to be
seeing the universe as it was around 3 billion years old. *IF* the universe
started off at some point and expanded at the speed of light, then the
maximum total size of the universe is 6 billion light years (from extreme
edge to edge).
I don't know how a uniform expanding space with a little inflation at the
beginning calculates out, but I doubt that it would be very different from
the above simple calculation.
Considering a simple 'exploding matter' model, and ignoring the speed of
light limitation (make the interval of transit zero), the maximum
circumference that a central observer can see is 18 billion light years (not
31.4), the circumference of the outer sphere.
If we consider that light does take time to transit the distance and that
space expands in that interval then any two adjacent photons emitted will be
some greater distance apart as observed ie there is a magnifying effect
whereby an object that is, say, a million light years across, say a cluster
of galaxies, will appear to be greater than one million light years when
received (and proportionally dimmer than expected). Apart from lateral
expansion of the universe (the apparent expanding of the sphere) there is
the greater distance that each photon must travel, making the distant object
appear to be further away without being any less dim.
I illustrated this point in an HTML post that included illustrations of the
points I make above.
It is not up to me to say what the universe should look like if the BBT is
correct - I'm not an advocate of the BBT - YOU are. It looks as much like a
non-expanding universe as it does like an expanding one with paradoxes and
correspondences in both models.
Why don't you outline how the universe can appear to be so big at greater
distances and yet actually be smaller than observed....it is your BBT, why
not draw upon the standard explanations (if there are any).
--
Kind Regards
Robert Karl Stonjek
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bjoern.fe...@pci.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> message news:ddutkd$arv$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>This 'time machine' will find that the further it looks back, the
>
> greater
>
>>>the area of space it has to look at, which is a curious phenomena
>>>considering that current theory has the universe ever smaller in past
>>>times....
>>
>>*sigh*
>>
>>You *still* have not understood that the fact that the sky "looks
>>larger" at greater distances say *nothing* about *if* the universe was
>>larger or smaller at earlier times.
>>
>>And you *still* have not told me what the sky *should* look like, *in
>>your opinion*, if the universe was smaller in earlier times.
>>
>>It's fairly silly to complain that what we see doesn't correspond to
>>what you expect we should see if the BBT were true, and then refusing
>>to say what exactly you *would* expect to see then.
>>
>
>
> The universe can not be both symmetrical
1) What exactly do you mean with "symmetrical"?
2) who ever said that the universe is "symmetrical"?
> and smaller at greater distances at the same time.
1) Why not?
2) No one ever said that it is smaller at greater distances. Only
that it was smaller at earlier times.
> Why does the universe 'look' bigger at earlier times? Because the further
> you look, the greater the radius of the area of the sphere described by that
> radius. At 10 billion light years we can view an area approximately
> 10^2*4*pi=1,256 billion square light years with a maximum viewable distance
> (of an object in an arc back to the same object) of around 31.4 billion
> light years.
*big sigh*
I already asked you what on earth the area of that sphere has to do
with the size of the universe at earlier times. So far, you did not
tell me.
> Now let's think about this. The universe is said to be around 13 billion
> years old. When we peer back 10 billion light years we are supposed to be
> seeing the universe as it was around 3 billion years old.
Indeed.
> *IF* the universe started off at some point
*big sigh*
<http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html>
As if I hadn't told you this already before...
> and expanded at the speed of light,
????????????
> then the
> maximum total size of the universe is 6 billion light years (from extreme
> edge to edge).
Why on earth do you think that the universe has edges???????
As most deniers of the BBT, you have obviously not the *faintest* clue
what is actually says. You demonstrate that yet again below.
> I don't know how a uniform expanding space with a little inflation at the
> beginning calculates out, but I doubt that it would be very different from
> the above simple calculation.
I've got bad news for you: it would be totally different, since even
the above simple calculation was total nonsense.
> Considering a simple 'exploding matter' model,
Why on earth should we? The Big Bang was not an explosion of
matter in already existing space.
> and ignoring the speed of
> light limitation (make the interval of transit zero),
<http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL>
> the maximum
> circumference that a central observer can see is 18 billion light years (not
> 31.4), the circumference of the outer sphere.
What "outer sphere"?
> If we consider that light does take time to transit the distance and that
> space expands in that interval then any two adjacent photons emitted will be
> some greater distance apart as observed ie there is a magnifying effect
> whereby an object that is, say, a million light years across, say a cluster
> of galaxies, will appear to be greater than one million light years when
> received (and proportionally dimmer than expected).
Huh?
> Apart from lateral
> expansion of the universe (the apparent expanding of the sphere)
Again, what sphere?
> there is
> the greater distance that each photon must travel, making the distant object
> appear to be further away without being any less dim.
Huh?
> I illustrated this point in an HTML post that included illustrations of the
> points I make above.
Suggestion: delete that post and the illustration, get a good book on
cosmology and first learn what the theory actually says before making
up all these silly straw men.
> It is not up to me to say what the universe should look like if the BBT is
> correct - I'm not an advocate of the BBT - YOU are.
It *is* silly.
And I already told you what it should look like: exactly as it does
look like.
*You* say that it does *not* look like as one would expect if the BBT
were true. So it is *your* obligation to tell me what it *should*
look like if the theory were true, in your opinion.
You are acting just like a creationists who keeps saying "there are no
transitional fossils!", dismisses every transitional fossil one shows
to him as being not a transitional fossil due to this and that reason,
but refuses to say how a transitional fossil actually *would* look
like, in his opinion.
> It looks as much like a
> non-expanding universe as it does like an expanding one with paradoxes and
> correspondences in both models.
Nonsense. Two times.
> Why don't you outline how the universe can appear to be so big at greater
> distances and yet actually be smaller than observed... it is your BBT, why
> not draw upon the standard explanations (if there are any).
Why don't you first tell me what on earth the surface area of a sphere
at a certain distance has to do with the size of the universe at the
time when the light we see from there had been emitted?
It is *you* who keeps saying that the universe "looks big" at great
distances, but so far all you have brought up for this is this totally
silly "surface area of a sphere" argument, which in fact does not show
at all that the universe was big back then!
Why should I present an explanation for an observation which simply does
not exist?
Bye,
Bjoern
G=EMC^2 Glazier
effects of distance upon the appearance of objects. Object gets smaller
and background gets larger. Opposite of that would be tunnel vision.
Bjoern I should know the answer to this but not sure. Do objects get
small the square of the distance? If stars did not dilute(dim)
their light obeying the inverse square law how could there ever be a
night sky. Bert
Robert Karl Stonjek
> >>larger" at greater distances say *nothing* about *if* the universe was
> >>larger or smaller at earlier times.
> >>
> >>And you *still* have not told me what the sky *should* look like, *in
> >>your opinion*, if the universe was smaller in earlier times.
> >>
> >>It's fairly silly to complain that what we see doesn't correspond to
> >>what you expect we should see if the BBT were true, and then refusing
> >>to say what exactly you *would* expect to see then.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The universe can not be both symmetrical
>
> 1) What exactly do you mean with "symmetrical"?
> 2) who ever said that the universe is "symmetrical"?
>
>
> > and smaller at greater distances at the same time.
>
> 1) Why not?
> 2) No one ever said that it is smaller at greater distances. Only
> that it was smaller at earlier times.
>
Oh Bjoern!! Did you really say that?? Time and distance are intrinsically
woven as you should well know - the further out in space we peer, the
further back in time we look. That is why we expect to see younger galaxy
clusters at extreme distance, as well as objects that are expected to
dominate the early universe. You yourself have pointed out as much.
So you can't have it both ways - if the universe is 13 billion years old,
then light received from 10 billion light years away is light that came from
the universe when it was 3 billion years old.
> > Why does the universe 'look' bigger at earlier times? Because the
further
> > you look, the greater the radius of the area of the sphere described by
that
> > radius. At 10 billion light years we can view an area approximately
> > 10^2*4*pi=1,256 billion square light years with a maximum viewable
distance
> > (of an object in an arc back to the same object) of around 31.4 billion
> > light years.
>
> *big sigh*
>
> I already asked you what on earth the area of that sphere has to do
> with the size of the universe at earlier times. So far, you did not
> tell me.
>
I did, but I'll do it again. As the sphere is larger at greater distances,
and as there are objects throughout the area of that sphere, we are looking
at a universe that has to be a certain minimum size - there is no way you
can fold up the viewable sphere of 10 billion light years away into one that
is 1/3rd of that size, as it should be at that distance.
> > *IF* the universe started off at some point
>
> *big sigh*
> <http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html>
>
> As if I hadn't told you this already before...
>
The visible universe, the one we live in. Or is one of the basic tenants of
the BBT been thrown out - that if the universe is expanding as we look
forward into the future, it must be contracting as we look back into past.
> > then the
> > maximum total size of the universe is 6 billion light years (from
extreme
> > edge to edge).
>
> Why on earth do you think that the universe has edges???????
>
On the page you pointed me to (for instance) the 'green' visible universe is
embedded in a larger white one (as per the illustration). The edge of the
visible universe, therefore, is the interface between the green (our
universe ie the visible universe) and the greater universe.
> As most deniers of the BBT, you have obviously not the *faintest* clue
> what is actually says. You demonstrate that yet again below.
>
The BBT keeps changing - forgotten Hawking and Penrose's singularity of the
1960s? Or was that before you were born?
>
> > I don't know how a uniform expanding space with a little inflation at
the
> > beginning calculates out, but I doubt that it would be very different
from
> > the above simple calculation.
>
> I've got bad news for you: it would be totally different, since even
> the above simple calculation was total nonsense.
>
Feel free to illustrate your point - just making sweeping statements is what
the religionists do, and you wouldn't want to be confused with a faith based
belief system, would you...
I would also point out that at the greatest scales, the universe is
basically flat.
>
> > If we consider that light does take time to transit the distance and
that
> > space expands in that interval then any two adjacent photons emitted
will be
> > some greater distance apart as observed ie there is a magnifying effect
> > whereby an object that is, say, a million light years across, say a
cluster
> > of galaxies, will appear to be greater than one million light years when
> > received (and proportionally dimmer than expected).
>
> Huh?
>
>
> > Apart from lateral
> > expansion of the universe (the apparent expanding of the sphere)
>
> Again, what sphere?
>
I am considering a simple expanding model where matter explosively expands.
If it does so symmetrically it forms a sphere. This is simple stuff, why
are you struggling with it?
> > I illustrated this point in an HTML post that included illustrations of
the
> > points I make above.
>
> Suggestion: delete that post and the illustration, get a good book on
> cosmology and first learn what the theory actually says before making
> up all these silly straw men.
>
I assume that you've read these books, yet you can not answer the question
of why the universe isn't smaller at greater distances. Indeed, all you
have managed to offer is to poohoo my efforts yet offer nothing in return -
I assume that YOU HAVE nothing to offer, except criticism.
I'm not going to do your homework for you, if you can't answer the question
then simply say so - I don't expect you to know everything about your
favourite theory.
> And I already told you what it should look like: exactly as it does
> look like.
>
That is the exact same argument used by religionists to claim that God
created the universe.
You have two issues to resolve:
1) the visible universe is smaller in the past (beginning in a Big Bang)
2) the visible universe as viewed through telescopes is ever larger at
earlier times, in direct contradiction to point (1).
> *You* say that it does *not* look like as one would expect if the BBT
> were true. So it is *your* obligation to tell me what it *should*
> look like if the theory were true, in your opinion.
>
I don't think that it can be modeled - I don't think the theory is correct.
> You are acting just like a creationists who keeps saying "there are no
> transitional fossils!", dismisses every transitional fossil one shows
> to him as being not a transitional fossil due to this and that reason,
> but refuses to say how a transitional fossil actually *would* look
> like, in his opinion.
>
You want me to think up a Big Bang model including what the universe should
look like now - cute.
> > Why don't you outline how the universe can appear to be so big at
greater
> > distances and yet actually be smaller than observed... it is your BBT,
why
> > not draw upon the standard explanations (if there are any).
>
> Why don't you first tell me what on earth the surface area of a sphere
> at a certain distance has to do with the size of the universe at the
> time when the light we see from there had been emitted?
>
> It is *you* who keeps saying that the universe "looks big" at great
> distances, but so far all you have brought up for this is this totally
> silly "surface area of a sphere" argument, which in fact does not show
> at all that the universe was big back then!
>
> Why should I present an explanation for an observation which simply does
> not exist?
>
Denial. That IS sad. How would you calculate the minimum size of the
visible universe at some distance?
Take an object, say a large disc covered in spots on, at view it, say from
10 meters, we can note that viewing angle from edge to edge. We move the
object to 20 meters. We note that the viewing angle narrows and the spots
are closer together. We can use a small terrestrial telescope to zoom in
and see the detail.
But if the viewing angle was the same at the greater distance then we must
conclude that the disk has expanded, that it is bigger at the greater
distance.
The viewable universe has the same viewable angle at every distance
viewable, so we are viewing an ever greater total area. Close up we are
obviously not viewing the entire universe, but if the universe was only,
say, 4 billion light years radius at some time in the past, then when the
viewing distance and the time at which the universe was at that size pass
(as we view ever deeper into space) we would expect to see something change
radically as the universe is ever smaller at earlier times.
Nothing of this kind occurs.
donsto...@hotmail.com
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>>>>You *still* have not understood that the fact that the sky "looks
>>>>larger" at greater distances say *nothing* about *if* the universe was
>>>>larger or smaller at earlier times.
>>>>
>>>>And you *still* have not told me what the sky *should* look like, *in
>>>>your opinion*, if the universe was smaller in earlier times.
>>>>
>>>>It's fairly silly to complain that what we see doesn't correspond to
>>>>what you expect we should see if the BBT were true, and then refusing
>>>>to say what exactly you *would* expect to see then.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The universe can not be both symmetrical
>>
>>1) What exactly do you mean with "symmetrical"?
Care to tell me?
>>2) who ever said that the universe is "symmetrical"?
Care to tell me?
>>>and smaller at greater distances at the same time.
>>
>>1) Why not?
Care to tell me?
>>2) No one ever said that it is smaller at greater distances. Only
>>that it was smaller at earlier times.
>>
>
>
> Oh Bjoern!! Did you really say that??
Yes.
> Time and distance are intrinsically
> woven as you should well know - the further out in space we peer, the
> further back in time we look.
Err, obviously. So what??? How do you get from this to "further out
*is the same as* further back in time"?
You seem to push a total non sequitur here!
[snip]
> So you can't have it both ways - if the universe is 13 billion years old,
> then light received from 10 billion light years away is light that came from
> the universe when it was 3 billion years old.
When you say "10 billion light years away", do you mean that the
object which emitted the light *was* 10 billion light years away
when it emitted the light, or is 10 billion light years away *today*,
when we observe the light?
In both cases, you are wrong - "10 billion light years away" does
*not* imply "the light was emitted 10 billion years ago". Thanks for
showing yet again that you have little clue of cosmology.
>>>Why does the universe 'look' bigger at earlier times? Because the
>>>further
>>>you look, the greater the radius of the area of the sphere described by
>>>that
>>>radius. At 10 billion light years we can view an area approximately
>>>10^2*4*pi=1,256 billion square light years with a maximum viewable
>>>distance
>>>(of an object in an arc back to the same object) of around 31.4 billion
>>>light years.
>>
>>*big sigh*
>>
>>I already asked you what on earth the area of that sphere has to do
>>with the size of the universe at earlier times. So far, you did not
>>tell me.
>>
>
>
> I did,but I'll do it again. As the sphere is larger at greater distances,
> and as there are objects throughout the area of that sphere, we are looking
> at a universe that has to be a certain minimum size
Why?
> - there is no way you
> can fold up the viewable sphere of 10 billion light years away into one that
> is 1/3rd of that size, as it should be at that distance.
Why on earth is there no way to do this?????
And where on earth did you get the 1/3 from?
>>>*IF* the universe started off at some point
>>
>>*big sigh*
>><http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html>
>>
>>As if I hadn't told you this already before...
>>
>
>
> The visible universe, the one we live in.
If you mean the visible part of the universe, then *say* that!!!
And two hints:
1) we don't live only in the "visible" universe, we live in the whole one.
2) You *do* know that what part of the universe is visible changes
with time, don't you?
> Or is one of the basic tenants of
> the BBT been thrown out - that if the universe is expanding as we look
> forward into the future, it must be contracting as we look back into past.
You *are* aware that nevertheless the universe could well be (spatially)
infinite (and always has been), aren't you?
>>>then the
>>>maximum total size of the universe is 6 billion light years (from
>>>extreme edge to edge).
>>
>>Why on earth do you think that the universe has edges???????
>>
>
>
> On the page you pointed me to (for instance) the 'green' visible universe is
> embedded in a larger white one (as per the illustration).
*sigh* So you yet again meant the *visible* part of the universe. Why
don't you *say* that?
> The edge of the
> visible universe, therefore, is the interface between the green (our
> universe ie the visible universe) and the greater universe.
Hint: this is usually called the "horizon".
And, BTW: your conclusion that the horizon has a diameter of 6 billion
light years when the universe is 3 billion years old is wrong.
>>As most deniers of the BBT, you have obviously not the *faintest* clue
>>what is actually says. You demonstrate that yet again below.
>>
>
>
> The BBT keeps changing
Only the details, not the very basic ideas. You know, the ones you
demonstrate time and time again that you don't know them.
> - forgotten Hawking and Penrose's singularity of the 1960s?
Err, a singularity is still part of the BBT today, so what's your point?
> Or was that before you were born?
Yes.
>>>I don't know how a uniform expanding space with a little inflation at
>>>the
>>>beginning calculates out, but I doubt that it would be very different
>>>from
>>>the above simple calculation.
>>
>>I've got bad news for you: it would be totally different, since even
>>the above simple calculation was total nonsense.
>>
>
>
> Feel free to illustrate your point
I already pointed out several of your mistakes. How many details do
you want?
Go to the next library, open a book on cosmology (I recommend
Kolb&Turner) and get an actual *education*.
[snip]
> I would also point out that at the greatest scales, the universe is
> basically flat.
Indeed. Your point?
>>>If we consider that light does take time to transit the distance and
>>>that
>>>space expands in that interval then any two adjacent photons emitted
>>>will be
>>>some greater distance apart as observed ie there is a magnifying effect
>>>whereby an object that is, say, a million light years across, say a
>>>cluster
>>>of galaxies, will appear to be greater than one million light years when
>>>received (and proportionally dimmer than expected).
>>
>>Huh?
Care to elaborate?
>>>Apart from lateral
>>>expansion of the universe (the apparent expanding of the sphere)
>>
>>Again, what sphere?
>>
>
>
> I am considering a simple expanding model where matter explosively expands.
Why on earth do you do that? That's now what the BBT actually says.
> If it does so symmetrically it forms a sphere. This is simple stuff, why
> are you struggling with it?
Because it's a straw man.
>>>I illustrated this point in an HTML post that included illustrations of
>>>the points I make above.
>>
>>Suggestion: delete that post and the illustration, get a good book on
>>cosmology and first learn what the theory actually says before making
>>up all these silly straw men.
>>
>
>
> I assume that you've read these books,
Yes.
> yet you can not answer the question
> of why the universe isn't smaller at greater distances.
I have told you repeatedly now that it *is* smaller at greater
distances, and your claim that it is *not* smaller at greater
distances is utter nonsense, based on some severe misconceptions.
You refuse to listen. You also refuse to simply go to the library
and learn what the theory actually says.
One can lead a horse to water...
> Indeed, all you
> have managed to offer is to poohoo my efforts yet offer nothing in return -
> I assume that YOU HAVE nothing to offer, except criticism.
Do you *really* expect me to give you a course in cosmology in a
newsgroup post?
> I'm not going to do your homework for you, if you can't answer the question
> then simply say so - I don't expect you to know everything about
> your favourite theory.
I told you several times now that your question is based on a
misconception. The universe *was* smaller at earlier times. That the
surface of a sphere gets greater with greater distance in no way is an
argument against that.
>>And I already told you what it should look like: exactly as it does
>>look like.
>>
>
>
> That is the exact same argument used by religionists to claim that God
> created the universe.
Huh???
> You have two issues to resolve:
> 1) the visible universe is smaller in the past (beginning in a Big Bang)
> 2) the visible universe as viewed through telescopes is ever larger at
> earlier times, in direct contradiction to point (1).
The visible universe is *not* ever larger at earlier times!!!
How often do I have to tell you that?
>>*You* say that it does *not* look like as one would expect if the BBT
>>were true. So it is *your* obligation to tell me what it *should*
>>look like if the theory were true, in your opinion.
>>
>
>
> I don't think that it can be modeled - I don't think the theory is correct.
*big sigh*
Yet another evasion noted.
>>You are acting just like a creationists who keeps saying "there are no
>>transitional fossils!", dismisses every transitional fossil one shows
>>to him as being not a transitional fossil due to this and that reason,
>>but refuses to say how a transitional fossil actually *would* look
>>like, in his opinion.
And you continue to act like that in this post.
> You want me to think up a Big Bang model including what the universe should
> look like now - cute.
No, I simply want you to tell me what on earth we *should* see, in
your opinion, if the theory is right.
I already told you what *we* (the ones who think that the theory is
right) expect to see, and that we see exactly that.
Now it's your turn.
Someone who says that what we see is *not* what we should see if the
theory is wrong has the obligation to say *what* we should see *if* it
is right. Is this concept really so hard to understand?
>>>Why don't you outline how the universe can appear to be so big at
>>>greater
>>>distances and yet actually be smaller than observed... it is your BBT,
>>>why not draw upon the standard explanations (if there are any).
>>
>>Why don't you first tell me what on earth the surface area of a sphere
>>at a certain distance has to do with the size of the universe at the
>>time when the light we see from there had been emitted?
You still have not told me. You only made yet another silly,
unsupported assertion above about "not being able to fit all we see
into a smaller space".
>>It is *you* who keeps saying that the universe "looks big" at great
>>distances, but so far all you have brought up for this is this totally
>>silly "surface area of a sphere" argument, which in fact does not show
>>at all that the universe was big back then!
>>
>>Why should I present an explanation for an observation which simply does
>>not exist?
>>
>
>
> Denial. That IS sad.
Glad that you are able to see your own behaviour. Now do something
against this.
> How would you calculate the minimum size of the
> visible universe at some distance?
The question makes no sense. Try to rephrase it.
If you wanted to say "the minimum size of the visible universe at
some *time*", then there are formulas for that which can be easily
found in every cosmology book. Try to look up "horizon" there. I'm not
going to do your homework for you.
> Take an object, say a large disc covered in spots on, at view it, say from
> 10 meters, we can note that viewing angle from edge to edge. We move the
> object to 20 meters. We note that the viewing angle narrows and the spots
> are closer together. We can use a small terrestrial telescope to zoom in
> and see the detail.
> But if the viewing angle was the same at the greater distance then
we must
> conclude that the disk has expanded, that it is bigger at the greater
> distance.
Clear.
> The viewable universe has the same viewable angle at every distance
> viewable, so we are viewing an ever greater total area.
False analogy, plain and simple.
Remember my example with you sitting on the north pole of a sphere?
*That* is a sensible analogy. (hint: if you now complain again that
the universe has no spatial curvature, you again only demonstrate that
you don't get the point of the analogy)
> Close up we are
> obviously not viewing the entire universe, but if the universe was only,
> say, 4 billion light years radius at some time in the past,
I assume you yet again mean the *visible* universe here?
> then when the
> viewing distance and the time at which the universe was at that size pass
> (as we view ever deeper into space) we would expect to see something change
> radically as the universe is ever smaller at earlier times.
No, we wouldn't expect that. Why on earth do you think we would?
> Nothing of this kind occurs.
Well, if it would occur, that would be big trouble for the theory,
because it predicts nothing like that.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Both of us are talking about "the size of the visible universe"
all the time. So we should we careful to define what this actually means.
Is the radius of the visible universe
1) the distance to the furthest object whose light we see today?
2) the distance to the furthest object whose light we will be able
to see at some point in the future?
When you say that the size of the visible universe changes, do you mean
1) that distance (1) above changes?
2) that distance (2) above changes?
3) that the size of the part of the universe which is visible today
according to (1) changes?
4) that the size of the part of the universe which is visible today
according to (2) changes?
Hint: the thing called the "horizon" in cosmology is number 1.
Are you even aware that these different possibilities have quite
different meanings?
Bye,
Bjoern
Robert Karl Stonjek
> Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
> >>>>You *still* have not understood that the fact that the sky "looks
> >>>>larger" at greater distances say *nothing* about *if* the universe was
> >>>>larger or smaller at earlier times.
> >>>>
> >>>>And you *still* have not told me what the sky *should* look like, *in
> >>>>your opinion*, if the universe was smaller in earlier times.
> >>>>
> >>>>It's fairly silly to complain that what we see doesn't correspond to
> >>>>what you expect we should see if the BBT were true, and then refusing
> >>>>to say what exactly you *would* expect to see then.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The universe can not be both symmetrical
> >>
> >>1) What exactly do you mean with "symmetrical"?
>
> Care to tell me?
>
>
> >>2) who ever said that the universe is "symmetrical"?
>
> Care to tell me?
>
>
>
> >>>and smaller at greater distances at the same time.
> >>
> >>1) Why not?
>
> Care to tell me?
>
Isotropic
>
> >>2) No one ever said that it is smaller at greater distances. Only
> >>that it was smaller at earlier times.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oh Bjoern!! Did you really say that??
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > Time and distance are intrinsically
> > woven as you should well know - the further out in space we peer, the
> > further back in time we look.
>
> Err, obviously. So what??? How do you get from this to "further out
> *is the same as* further back in time"?
>
> You seem to push a total non sequitur here!
>
>
Absolutely not - at greater distances we effectively see the universe as it
was at earlier times. According to the BBT at earlier times we see ever
younger galaxies until eventually we arrive at a time when stars and
galaxies were still forming. The universe was also smaller at earlier
times - it is expanding as we look forward from now (in time) and it
contracts as we look ever further into the past.
You yourself have claimed that younger objects are seen at great distances -
so why isn't the earlier universe also visible?
>
> > So you can't have it both ways - if the universe is 13 billion years
old,
> > then light received from 10 billion light years away is light that came
from
> > the universe when it was 3 billion years old.
>
> When you say "10 billion light years away", do you mean that the
> object which emitted the light *was* 10 billion light years away
> when it emitted the light, or is 10 billion light years away *today*,
> when we observe the light?
>
> In both cases, you are wrong - "10 billion light years away" does
> *not* imply "the light was emitted 10 billion years ago". Thanks for
> showing yet again that you have little clue of cosmology.
>
I mean the light has travelled 10 billion light years - what else could it
mean? To travel that far it takes light 10 billion years. You are avoiding
the issue with childish nit picking. Why don't you try an easier variation:
at what distance would you expect to see evidence of a smaller past
universe? It seems to me a bit of philosophy given without evidence or even
a testable hypotheses (testable via future observation).
>
> >>>Why does the universe 'look' bigger at earlier times? Because the
> >>>further
> >>>you look, the greater the radius of the area of the sphere described by
> >>>that
> >>>radius. At 10 billion light years we can view an area approximately
> >>>10^2*4*pi=1,256 billion square light years with a maximum viewable
> >>>distance
> >>>(of an object in an arc back to the same object) of around 31.4 billion
> >>>light years.
> >>
> >>*big sigh*
> >>
> >>I already asked you what on earth the area of that sphere has to do
> >>with the size of the universe at earlier times. So far, you did not
> >>tell me.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I did,but I'll do it again. As the sphere is larger at greater
distances,
> > and as there are objects throughout the area of that sphere, we are
looking
> > at a universe that has to be a certain minimum size
>
> Why?
>
You want me to run thought beginner's geometry?
>
> > - there is no way you
> > can fold up the viewable sphere of 10 billion light years away into one
that
> > is 1/3rd of that size, as it should be at that distance.
>
> Why on earth is there no way to do this?????
>
> And where on earth did you get the 1/3 from?
>
It is an arbitrary example.
>
> >>>*IF* the universe started off at some point
> >>
> >>*big sigh*
> >><http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html>
> >>
> >>As if I hadn't told you this already before...
> >>
> >
> >
> > The visible universe, the one we live in.
>
> If you mean the visible part of the universe, then *say* that!!!
>
> And two hints:
> 1) we don't live only in the "visible" universe, we live in the whole one.
> 2) You *do* know that what part of the universe is visible changes
> with time, don't you?
>
Why are you avoiding the issue?? Here it is:
If the universe is expanding now as we look forward in time, it must be
contracting as we look back in time. True??
If it is smaller, denser and hotter in the past, then we should see evidence
of a smaller, denser, hotter universe at some distance. True?
So why do we see an ever bigger universe at greater distances?
We're not forgetting inflation are we? The universe was very small during
the period of inflation, when the universe was about 3 billion years younger
than the most ancient objects we have yet detected.
>
> > Or is one of the basic tenants of
> > the BBT been thrown out - that if the universe is expanding as we look
> > forward into the future, it must be contracting as we look back into
past.
>
> You *are* aware that nevertheless the universe could well be (spatially)
> infinite (and always has been), aren't you?
>
Inflation struck when the universe was small, didn't it?? Unless a specific
feature of a particular model, space is not included in a description of the
size of the universe at particular intervals after the Big Bang. Although
you seem to be moving away from the event that gives the model its name -
the big bang.
> >>>then the
> >>>maximum total size of the universe is 6 billion light years (from
> >>>extreme edge to edge).
> >>
> >>Why on earth do you think that the universe has edges???????
> >>
> >
> >
> > On the page you pointed me to (for instance) the 'green' visible
universe is
> > embedded in a larger white one (as per the illustration).
>
> *sigh* So you yet again meant the *visible* part of the universe. Why
> don't you *say* that?
>
That is EXACTLY what I said ie "the 'green' **visible** universe"
I would point out that such researchers as George Smoot, drawing on standard
theory of the day (mid 90s), spoke of the big bang creating matter AND
space.
>
> > The edge of the
> > visible universe, therefore, is the interface between the green (our
> > universe ie the visible universe) and the greater universe.
>
> Hint: this is usually called the "horizon".
>
> And, BTW: your conclusion that the horizon has a diameter of 6 billion
> light years when the universe is 3 billion years old is wrong.
>
OK, so what was the horizon at that time?? Just saying that I am wrong is
and leaving it at that seems to be just wishful thinking on your part - If
you mean that you HOPE than I am wrong because if I was right that would
burst your model's bubble you should say so. Or are you just guessing at
what the model of your choice says on these issues and hoping to be right?
>
> >>As most deniers of the BBT, you have obviously not the *faintest* clue
> >>what is actually says. You demonstrate that yet again below.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The BBT keeps changing
>
> Only the details, not the very basic ideas. You know, the ones you
> demonstrate time and time again that you don't know them.
>
>
> > - forgotten Hawking and Penrose's singularity of the 1960s?
>
> Err, a singularity is still part of the BBT today, so what's your point?
>
Really? Back in favour?
>
>
> >>>I don't know how a uniform expanding space with a little inflation at
> >>>the
> >>>beginning calculates out, but I doubt that it would be very different
> >>>from
> >>>the above simple calculation.
> >>
> >>I've got bad news for you: it would be totally different, since even
> >>the above simple calculation was total nonsense.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Feel free to illustrate your point
>
> I already pointed out several of your mistakes. How many details do
> you want?
>
> Go to the next library, open a book on cosmology (I recommend
> Kolb&Turner) and get an actual *education*.
>
Don't give me that crap - that is the argument used by the Aristotelians -
if you disagree with us it is because you haven't studied the relevant
texts, and if you have studied them, you obviously haven't understood them.
Proof of understanding of the Aristotelian philosophy was to agree with it.
We left that argument back in Galileo's time, and good riddance to it. If
you know what you're talking about, show that you do - put up or shut up
(and no copy-paste from someone else's website).
> >>>Apart from lateral
> >>>expansion of the universe (the apparent expanding of the sphere)
> >>
> >>Again, what sphere?
> >>
> >
> >
> > I am considering a simple expanding model where matter explosively
expands.
>
> Why on earth do you do that? That's now what the BBT actually says.
>
It is sufficient to illustrate the point.
>
> > If it does so symmetrically it forms a sphere. This is simple stuff,
why
> > are you struggling with it?
>
> Because it's a straw man.
>
It is better than no man at all. You are saying that you are right and I am
wrong, and if I don't agree it is because I don't understand the model.
Well, this is a tried and true method - it has worked for religionists for
centuries. But isn't science different? Doesn't science HATE secret
knowledge and closed arguments? Isn't science happy to reveal the logical
underpinnings of its conclusions? But not you....
> >
> > I assume that you've read these books,
>
> Yes.
>
If you've read and understood the literature then you will be happy to
illustrate the points you think salient and defend them if need be.
>
> > yet you can not answer the question
> > of why the universe isn't smaller at greater distances.
>
> I have told you repeatedly now that it *is* smaller at greater
> distances, and your claim that it is *not* smaller at greater
> distances is utter nonsense, based on some severe misconceptions.
>
> You refuse to listen. You also refuse to simply go to the library
> and learn what the theory actually says.
>
Give us the outline - you can't because there isn't one. You know that it
would take some time to read those books and in that time I would not be
here to point out the failings in either the model or your understanding of
it.
Yours is very weak argument. Though I don't advocate steady state theory,
would you say a sufficient defence would be:
I am right; you are wrong; you haven't read all of Fred Hoyle's books and so
can not take part of any debate on the issue until you've read and
understood them (proof of understanding is where you agree with the theory).
Are you willing to follow the precedent you are attempting to set?
Read all the books on the Aether theory? No? Then you won't be saying
anything bad about it, will you?
Read all the books on the after-life? No? Then you won't be arguing
against it, will you?
Read Lamark? No? Then you obviously won't be defending evolution?
Read Marx? No? Then you would never consider knocking communism, would
you?
And one could go on, and on and on. It is the weakest and most dangerous
argument there is - scientologists have masses of written material that
adherents believe must be read before anything derogatory can be said
against it, and only those who fail to understand the text would ever knock
it.
So don't be so childish - you have already revealed that you are a young
man, I hope we don't have to include 'immature' into the mix - there's no
question of your intelligence, but has this been at the expense of real
world experience?
>
> > Indeed, all you
> > have managed to offer is to poohoo my efforts yet offer nothing in
return -
> > I assume that YOU HAVE nothing to offer, except criticism.
>
> Do you *really* expect me to give you a course in cosmology in a
> newsgroup post?
>
That is a very weak response. When you think that you're on a winner you
give details, when the argument is weak you avoid responding. Yet you
constantly demand details from me, which I give.
>
> > I'm not going to do your homework for you, if you can't answer the
question
> > then simply say so - I don't expect you to know everything about
> > your favourite theory.
>
> I told you several times now that your question is based on a
> misconception. The universe *was* smaller at earlier times. That the
> surface of a sphere gets greater with greater distance in no way is an
> argument against that.
>
How so?? What of when the sphere of the shell as viewed from Earth is
bigger than the universe was at the time in the past??
> >
> > That is the exact same argument used by religionists to claim that God
> > created the universe.
>
> Huh???
>
That if God created the universe, it would look just as it does today. Or,
if inflation theory/steady state/etc etc is correct then the universe would
look just the way it does. You've given a non-argument - it applies to
whatever theory you dream up.
>
> > You have two issues to resolve:
> > 1) the visible universe is smaller in the past (beginning in a Big Bang)
> > 2) the visible universe as viewed through telescopes is ever larger at
> > earlier times, in direct contradiction to point (1).
>
> The visible universe is *not* ever larger at earlier times!!!
>
> How often do I have to tell you that?
>
Then why does it have that appearance?
>
> >>*You* say that it does *not* look like as one would expect if the BBT
> >>were true. So it is *your* obligation to tell me what it *should*
> >>look like if the theory were true, in your opinion.
> >>
> >
> > I don't think that it can be modeled - I don't think the theory is
correct.
>
> *big sigh*
>
> Yet another evasion noted.
>
No, I am saying that if the BBT is wrong, the universe should appear to be
even bigger as we push the observational limits further out into space.
What do you say? You seem to think that I should give an answer on behalf
of the BBT. Anyway, the apparently larger universe at earlier time needs to
be explained by BBT advocates - that appearance is what Hoyle predicted back
in the 50s (when the maximum viewable distance was only around 0.7% of what
it is today) ie that at ever greater distance the universe would appear to
be ever bigger.
>
> >>You are acting just like a creationists who keeps saying "there are no
> >>transitional fossils!", dismisses every transitional fossil one shows
> >>to him as being not a transitional fossil due to this and that reason,
> >>but refuses to say how a transitional fossil actually *would* look
> >>like, in his opinion.
>
> And you continue to act like that in this post.
>
Oh, I see, you want me to ignore the fact that the universe appears to be
bigger instead of smaller at earlier times?
>
> > You want me to think up a Big Bang model including what the universe
should
> > look like now - cute.
>
> No, I simply want you to tell me what on earth we *should* see, in
> your opinion, if the theory is right.
>
Some evidence of a smaller universe at earlier times.
> I already told you what *we* (the ones who think that the theory is
> right) expect to see, and that we see exactly that.
>
Rubbish - you are saying that whatever is out there agrees with your model -
that is not sufficient. The universe appears to be bigger, you say it
should appear to be bigger at earlier periods but really its smaller - we
just have to take your word for it or spend the next six months reading all
the literature supporting your case.
> Now it's your turn.
>
Not before you've had a turn - why the paradox? Why does the universe
appear bigger rather than smaller at greater distances? You haven't even
attempted to answer, you've tried to attack the question, me, anything but
address the issue.
> Someone who says that what we see is *not* what we should see if the
> theory is wrong has the obligation to say *what* we should see *if* it
> is right. Is this concept really so hard to understand?
>
There should be some evidence of contraction of the universe as we see ever
further into the past. What evidence do you offer??
>
> >>>Why don't you outline how the universe can appear to be so big at
> >>>greater
> >>>distances and yet actually be smaller than observed... it is your BBT,
> >>>why not draw upon the standard explanations (if there are any).
> >>
> >>Why don't you first tell me what on earth the surface area of a sphere
> >>at a certain distance has to do with the size of the universe at the
> >>time when the light we see from there had been emitted?
>
> You still have not told me. You only made yet another silly,
> unsupported assertion above about "not being able to fit all we see
> into a smaller space".
>
There should be some evidence of contraction of the universe as we see ever
further into the past.
>
> >>It is *you* who keeps saying that the universe "looks big" at great
> >>distances, but so far all you have brought up for this is this totally
> >>silly "surface area of a sphere" argument, which in fact does not show
> >>at all that the universe was big back then!
> >>
> >>Why should I present an explanation for an observation which simply does
> >>not exist?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Denial. That IS sad.
>
> Glad that you are able to see your own behaviour. Now do something
> against this.
>
There should be some evidence of contraction of the universe as we see ever
further into the past.
>
> > How would you calculate the minimum size of the
> > visible universe at some distance?
>
> The question makes no sense. Try to rephrase it.
>
You are either thick or trying to avoid the question.
The further out into space we look the further into the past we see. The
universe is purportedly smaller in the past. There must be estimates of the
size of the universe at, say, 100 million, 1 billion, 2 billion years, these
estimates form a range, any range includes a maximum and minimum, therefore
it must be possible to, say, estimate the age of the universe at a given
distance from Earth and therefore a size of the universe at that age.
I have at least one formula to hand that calculates the size of the universe
for a given age, but I wouldn't know the current thinking on the values of
Hubble's constant, the cosmological constant etc to make it work. And it
doesn't look to good in plain text. The PDF can be downloaded from
http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2002/chap27/0227.1.pdf
I'm thinking of equation 27.41
> If you wanted to say "the minimum size of the visible universe at
> some *time*", then there are formulas for that which can be easily
> found in every cosmology book. Try to look up "horizon" there. I'm not
> going to do your homework for you.
>
The actual range of values depends on the model you are advocating - ball
back in your court - my universe is not even expanding.
>
> > The viewable universe has the same viewable angle at every distance
> > viewable, so we are viewing an ever greater total area.
>
> False analogy, plain and simple.
>
> Remember my example with you sitting on the north pole of a sphere?
> *That* is a sensible analogy. (hint: if you now complain again that
> the universe has no spatial curvature, you again only demonstrate that
> you don't get the point of the analogy)
>
False analogy, plain and simple.
I do see the point - you wish to avoid the question of the failure to detect
any observational evidence of a smaller past universe. And the Hawking
model you keep dragging out is no longer supported even by Hawking himself.
In that model, as with the sphere, if you travelled far enough in any
direction you end up back at the starting point.
Robert Karl Stonjek
> [snip all]
>
> Both of us are talking about "the size of the visible universe"
> all the time. So we should we careful to define what this actually means.
>
> Is the radius of the visible universe
> 1) the distance to the furthest object whose light we see today?
> 2) the distance to the furthest object whose light we will be able
> to see at some point in the future?
>
A manifold, by definition, can be mapped onto three dimensions. As such,
the visible universe can be mapped onto three dimensions - assuming that
this would form a sphere (for simplicity) then it must have some radius.
We can see only a slice (inner surface of a sphere) of the universe at any
age because if we look further into space we are seeing an earlier era and
closer in we are seeing a later era.
The area nearer and further from the object under observation are all part
of the same universe, but the size of the universe was not the same when the
light left the object under observation than it is today, according to the
BBT.
> When you say that the size of the visible universe changes, do you mean
> 1) that distance (1) above changes?
> 2) that distance (2) above changes?
> 3) that the size of the part of the universe which is visible today
> according to (1) changes?
> 4) that the size of the part of the universe which is visible today
> according to (2) changes?
>
I refer only to observations made today. When we see even close objects,
say Andromeda, we are seeing it as it was when light left that object ie 2.9
million years ago.
I am not saying anything about the change of distance to the object of
observation.
Your questions 1 to 4 are irrelevant to my question.
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bjoern.fe...@pci.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> message news:decop2$j4s$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>[snip all]
>>
>>Both of us are talking about "the size of the visible universe"
>>all the time. So we should we careful to define what this actually means.
>>
>>Is the radius of the visible universe
>>1) the distance to the furthest object whose light we see today?
>>2) the distance to the furthest object whose light we will be able
>>to see at some point in the future?
>>
>
>
> A manifold, by definition, can be mapped onto three dimensions. As such,
> the visible universe can be mapped onto three dimensions - assuming that
> this would form a sphere (for simplicity) then it must have some radius.
Err, you still have not told me what "the visible universe" actually
means. Again, is this
1) the part of the universe which we can see today?
2) the part of the universe which we will be able to see at some
point in the future?
Usually what is meant is (1), but I want to be sure that we really
mean the same thing.
[snip]
>>When you say that the size of the visible universe changes, do you mean
>>1) that distance (1) above changes?
>>2) that distance (2) above changes?
>>3) that the size of the part of the universe which is visible today
>>according to (1) changes?
>>4) that the size of the part of the universe which is visible today
>>according to (2) changes?
>>
>
>
> I refer only to observations made today. When we see even close objects,
> say Andromeda, we are seeing it as it was when light left that object ie 2.9
> million years ago.
>
> I am not saying anything about the change of distance to the object of
> observation.
>
> Your questions 1 to 4 are irrelevant to my question.
Huh? As long as we don't define what "the size of the visible universe
changes" exactly is supposed to mean, it makes no sense to ask "why
does the visible universe look larger and not smaller at large
distances?".
So this is exactly the point and not irrelevant at all!
As long as you don't clear this up, I see no sense in future discussions.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bjoern.fe...@pci.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> message news:deco61$iv6$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
>>
>>>>>>You *still* have not understood that the fact that the sky "looks
>>>>>>larger" at greater distances say *nothing* about *if* the universe was
>>>>>>larger or smaller at earlier times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And you *still* have not told me what the sky *should* look like, *in
>>>>>>your opinion*, if the universe was smaller in earlier times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's fairly silly to complain that what we see doesn't correspond to
>>>>>>what you expect we should see if the BBT were true, and then refusing
>>>>>>to say what exactly you *would* expect to see then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The universe can not be both symmetrical
>>>>
>>>>1) What exactly do you mean with "symmetrical"?
>>
>>Care to tell me?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>2) who ever said that the universe is "symmetrical"?
>>
>>Care to tell me?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>and smaller at greater distances at the same time.
>>>>
>>>>1) Why not?
>>
>>Care to tell me?
>>
>
>
> Isotropic
I suppose this "isotropic" is the answer to my question
above "What exactly do you mean with symmetrical?", although
you chose to place this answer under a totally different question.
And you still have not told me why the universe couldn't be
symmetrical (isotropic) and smaller at greater distances (which
actually makes no sense, since it only was smaller at earlier
times, not *is* smaller at greater distances) at the same time.
>>>>2) No one ever said that it is smaller at greater distances. Only
>>>>that it was smaller at earlier times.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh Bjoern!! Did you really say that??
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Time and distance are intrinsically
>>>woven as you should well know - the further out in space we peer, the
>>>further back in time we look.
>>
>>Err, obviously. So what??? How do you get from this to "further out
>>*is the same as* further back in time"?
>>
>>You seem to push a total non sequitur here!
>>
>>
>
>
> Absolutely not - at greater distances we effectively see the universe as it
> was at earlier times.
Yes, at greater distances we *see* the universe as it was at earlier
times. But again: So what??? How do you get from this to "further out
*is the same as* further back in time"?
> According to the BBT at earlier times we see ever
> younger galaxies until eventually we arrive at a time when stars and
> galaxies were still forming. The universe was also smaller at earlier
> times - it is expanding as we look forward from now (in time) and it
> contracts as we look ever further into the past.
All exactly right. But that *still* has nothing to do with "the
universe *is* smaller at greater distances". At best, you can say
that "the universe *should look* smaller at greater distances".
> You yourself have claimed that younger objects are seen at great distances -
> so why isn't the earlier universe also visible?
Err, it is.
>>>So you can't have it both ways - if the universe is 13 billion years
>>>old,
>>>then light received from 10 billion light years away is light that came
>>>from the universe when it was 3 billion years old.
>>
>>When you say "10 billion light years away", do you mean that the
>>object which emitted the light *was* 10 billion light years away
>>when it emitted the light, or is 10 billion light years away *today*,
>>when we observe the light?
>>
>>In both cases, you are wrong - "10 billion light years away" does
>>*not* imply "the light was emitted 10 billion years ago". Thanks for
>>showing yet again that you have little clue of cosmology.
>>
>
>
> I mean the light has travelled 10 billion light years - what else could it
> mean? To travel that far it takes light 10 billion years.
Agreed. But hopefully you agree that this does not mean that the
object which emitted the light is now 10 billion light years away?
> You are avoiding the issue with childish nit picking.
If you think that taking care of what exactly the terms one uses
actually mean is "nitpicking", then you really have no clue of science.
Do you think that Ned Wright is also nitpicking in his section
"Many Distances" on this webpage?
<http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm>
> Why don't you try an easier variation:
> at what distance would you expect to see evidence of a smaller past
> universe?
At *every* distance, since no matter how little one goes back into the
past, the universe was always "smaller" back then.
> It seems to me a bit of philosophy given without evidence or even
> a testable hypotheses (testable via future observation).
I already gave you several pieces of evidence, several times, which
show that the universe expands. You are still ignoring them.
[snip]
>>>I did,but I'll do it again. As the sphere is larger at greater
>>>distances,
>>>and as there are objects throughout the area of that sphere, we are
>>>looking
>>>at a universe that has to be a certain minimum size
>>
>>Why?
>>
>
>
> You want me to run thought beginner's geometry?
I want you to tell me what the area of that sphere has to do
with a "certain minimum size" of the universe.
That's the question I asked you already several times now. You keep
evading it.
>>- there is no way you
>>>can fold up the viewable sphere of 10 billion light years away into one
>>>that is 1/3rd of that size, as it should be at that distance.
>>
>>Why on earth is there no way to do this?????
Care to tell me?
[snip]
>>>>>*IF* the universe started off at some point
>>>>
>>>>*big sigh*
>>>><http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html>
>>>>
>>>>As if I hadn't told you this already before...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The visible universe, the one we live in.
>>
>>If you mean the visible part of the universe, then *say* that!!!
>>
>>And two hints:
>>1) we don't live only in the "visible" universe, we live in the whole one.
>>2) You *do* know that what part of the universe is visible changes
>>with time, don't you?
>>
>
>
> Why are you avoiding the issue??
Huh??? It is precisely *you* who is avoiding simple questions.
> Here it is:
>
> If the universe is expanding now as we look forward in time, it must be
> contracting as we look back in time. True??
True.
> If it is smaller, denser and hotter in the past, then we should see evidence
> of a smaller, denser, hotter universe at some distance. True?
True. Hint: we do.
> So why do we see an ever bigger universe at greater distances?
*sigh* We don't. And you *still* have not explained *WHY ON EARTH* you
think we do see that. You *still* have not explained what the size
of a sphere at distance R has to do with the size of the universe
at the time when the light we see from that sphere was emitted.
[snip remainder]
This discussion is really pointless. You repeat the same unsupported,
silly claim (that we see an ever bigger universe at greater distance)
again and again and again, and refuse steadfastly to answer any
clarifying questions on why you think so.
Answer these questions, or this discussion ends here.
Bye,
Bjoern
Robert Karl Stonjek
> Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
> > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bjoern.fe...@pci.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> > message news:decop2$j4s$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >
> >>[snip all]
> >>
> >>Both of us are talking about "the size of the visible universe"
> >>all the time. So we should we careful to define what this actually
means.
> >>
> >>Is the radius of the visible universe
> >>1) the distance to the furthest object whose light we see today?
> >>2) the distance to the furthest object whose light we will be able
> >>to see at some point in the future?
> >>
> >
> >
> > A manifold, by definition, can be mapped onto three dimensions. As
such,
> > the visible universe can be mapped onto three dimensions - assuming that
> > this would form a sphere (for simplicity) then it must have some radius.
>
> Err, you still have not told me what "the visible universe" actually
> means. Again, is this
> 1) the part of the universe which we can see today?
> 2) the part of the universe which we will be able to see at some
> point in the future?
>
> Usually what is meant is (1), but I want to be sure that we really
> mean the same thing.
>
Visible - "that can be seen", unless otherwise specified. The meaning of
'the visible universe' varies according to the era of the BBT one is
referring to. The earlier (non inflation) models had space and matter
expanding, so that at the big bang, space and matter were compacted and
there was nothing outside the initial confinement.
Inflation models have the big bang occurring within a bigger universe,
whether that universe consists of space only or space and matter.
In referring to the visible universe, in the earlier BBT one refers to that
part of the universe that is visible. Discussing cosmology in the inflation
era I and others often refer to the part of the universe that expanded from
a big bang as the visible universe as distinct from the whole universe, most
of which is not considered when referring to the size of just our bit (the
bit that expanded.) I may have been using the two meanings interchangeably.
So how do you refer to that subset of the universe that expanded from a
small dense region?
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>When you say that the size of the visible universe changes, do you mean
> >>1) that distance (1) above changes?
> >>2) that distance (2) above changes?
> >>3) that the size of the part of the universe which is visible today
> >>according to (1) changes?
> >>4) that the size of the part of the universe which is visible today
> >>according to (2) changes?
> >>
> >
> >
> > I refer only to observations made today. When we see even close
objects,
> > say Andromeda, we are seeing it as it was when light left that object ie
2.9
> > million years ago.
> >
> > I am not saying anything about the change of distance to the object of
> > observation.
> >
> > Your questions 1 to 4 are irrelevant to my question.
>
> Huh? As long as we don't define what "the size of the visible universe
> changes" exactly is supposed to mean, it makes no sense to ask "why
> does the visible universe look larger and not smaller at large
> distances?".
>
> So this is exactly the point and not irrelevant at all!
>
> As long as you don't clear this up, I see no sense in future discussions.
>
The distance from an observer here on earth and some point in space is not
necessarily the radius of a sphere that describes the universe at that point
in time. In fact, that is not a particularly useful way of considering the
size of the universe as the light received has purportedly travelled over
expanding space.
A better way is to consider the visible envelope of stars at some distance
from the viewer. That way one can see a slice of the early universe, that
slice that forms the inside surface of a sphere described by the viewing
distance. Exactly what shape that sheet actually takes depends on several
factors. What we can conclude is that as the visible sheet becomes larger at
greater distances (as we look further and further out into space) it must,
at some point, be too large to fit inside the universe as it was at that
point in time eg the universe must have expanded to some size after 3
billion years - if we can view the universe as it was at that period, then
we would expect to see evidence of its size at that time.
Robert Karl Stonjek
>
> I suppose this "isotropic" is the answer to my question
> above "What exactly do you mean with symmetrical?", although
> you chose to place this answer under a totally different question.
>
> And you still have not told me why the universe couldn't be
> symmetrical (isotropic) and smaller at greater distances (which
> actually makes no sense, since it only was smaller at earlier
> times, not *is* smaller at greater distances) at the same time.
>
Greater distance = earlier time.
> > Absolutely not - at greater distances we effectively see the universe as
it
> > was at earlier times.
>
> Yes, at greater distances we *see* the universe as it was at earlier
> times. But again: So what??? How do you get from this to "further out
> *is the same as* further back in time"?
>
Further out (as viewed from the earth) is further back in time. What else
could it mean?
>
> > According to the BBT at earlier times we see ever
> > younger galaxies until eventually we arrive at a time when stars and
> > galaxies were still forming. The universe was also smaller at earlier
> > times - it is expanding as we look forward from now (in time) and it
> > contracts as we look ever further into the past.
>
> All exactly right. But that *still* has nothing to do with "the
> universe *is* smaller at greater distances". At best, you can say
> that "the universe *should look* smaller at greater distances".
>
That is what I meant. We can't both view the universe at greater distances
and see it as it is now, so I truncated my rhetoric, thinking that what I
was saying was obvious.
>
> > You yourself have claimed that younger objects are seen at great
distances -
> > so why isn't the earlier universe also visible?
>
> Err, it is.
>
and the earlier universe was smaller, smaller, and ever smaller the further
back in time we look, no?
> >
> > I mean the light has travelled 10 billion light years - what else could
it
> > mean? To travel that far it takes light 10 billion years.
>
> Agreed. But hopefully you agree that this does not mean that the
> object which emitted the light is now 10 billion light years away?
>
More like 20+ billion light years and long since turned to dust.
> > Why don't you try an easier variation:
> > at what distance would you expect to see evidence of a smaller past
> > universe?
>
> At *every* distance, since no matter how little one goes back into the
> past, the universe was always "smaller" back then.
>
At some point that smallness must become a feature of what is seen through
telescopes (so to speak). What feature would indicate the smallness of the
early universe? Why haven't we seen this feature already?
>
> > It seems to me a bit of philosophy given without evidence or even
> > a testable hypotheses (testable via future observation).
>
> I already gave you several pieces of evidence, several times, which
> show that the universe expands. You are still ignoring them.
>
You have given me evidence that shows that one can model an expanding
universe and get useful predictions from such a model, but you have shown no
evidence whatsoever that space can expand.
Consider a space traveller who is decelerating (negative acceleration). As
he peers out into space he notices that space in the direction he is
travelling appears to expand - is it expanding?
An individual on a massive body peering out into space see objects slightly
contracted relative to how the appear from space. Light from all objects is
BLUE shifted. Distances appear to be much shorter than they actually are.
Is the observer, say one that is viewing from a neutron star (Mr.Flatty),
seeing a contracting, blue shifted universe or is it just an anomaly of the
gravity of the object he is standing on?
BTW the Neutron star observer also notes that all the objects in the
universe appear to be coming right at him, the exact opposite of what we see
from Earth.
Considering how much dark matter is out there, we are looking into a strong
gravitational field. If so, that alone may be sufficient to account for the
apparent expansion of the universe. In fact, if the universe was infinite
(and isotropic), then an observer anywhere in that universe would see an
expanding universe just as we do from earth, the cause of the illusion being
the immense accumulated gravitational force in any direction the observer
looks - gravitational redshift and apparent expansion result.
> >
> >
> > You want me to run thought beginner's geometry?
>
> I want you to tell me what the area of that sphere has to do
> with a "certain minimum size" of the universe.
>
> That's the question I asked you already several times now. You keep
> evading it.
>
I've already answered it - if the universe is small back then and we see a
huge sphere, how can the huge sphere fit into the smaller universe?
>
> >>- there is no way you
> >>>can fold up the viewable sphere of 10 billion light years away into one
> >>>that is 1/3rd of that size, as it should be at that distance.
> >>
> >>Why on earth is there no way to do this?????
>
> Care to tell me?
>
>
You are the one claiming that it can be done - how can it be done?
> > Here it is:
> >
> > If the universe is expanding now as we look forward in time, it must be
> > contracting as we look back in time. True??
>
> True.
>
>
>
> > If it is smaller, denser and hotter in the past, then we should see
evidence
> > of a smaller, denser, hotter universe at some distance. True?
>
> True. Hint: we do.
>
OK, so what observation confirms the smaller past universe?
>
> > So why do we see an ever bigger universe at greater distances?
>
> *sigh* We don't. And you *still* have not explained *WHY ON EARTH* you
> think we do see that. You *still* have not explained what the size
> of a sphere at distance R has to do with the size of the universe
> at the time when the light we see from that sphere was emitted.
>
A-------B--------C--------D------E--------A
consider five objects, A to E, viewed at 10 billion light years in an arc as
the Earth rotates (telescope pointing straight up, 180 degrees swept in
summer, 180 degrees swept in winter (to avoid that pesky sun)). We have a
complete arc of objects from A to A at 10 billion light years distance (and
around 10 billion years back in time). Assuming that we can determine the
distance between each of the objects, we can calculate the total distance
from A to A. Let's say we come up with a figure of around 63 billion light
years.
Now, if we calculated that the universe was 3 billion light years radius at
that time, the maximum distance one could travel in that early universe
would be around the circumference of the sphere which is around 19 billion
light years. How do we fit present day observation of the early universe
into the universe as it was 10 billion years ago?
Bilge
>Considering a simple 'exploding matter' model, and ignoring the speed of
>light limitation (make the interval of transit zero), the maximum
>circumference that a central observer can see is 18 billion light years
>(not 31.4), the circumference of the outer sphere.
did not explode and the speed of light is inextricably linked to
what we see visually, so you can't ignore it. (Even at that, I'm
ignoring the further complication from the possibility that light
could be massive and propagate like other massive particles, i.e., be
at rest in some frame, in which case the accessible universe would
be larger than we could see visually.)
>If we consider that light does take time to transit the distance and that
>space expands in that interval then any two adjacent photons emitted will
>be
Try a different model. Take a balloon with a bunch of dots on it,
which is being inflated. Imagine yourself at one of those dots.
Now draw two meridians which intersect at that dot and have an
angle of say, 90 degrees. After the universe expands for a while,
what's the angle? It's still 90 degrees. How big does the universe
look along two rays whose angles remain the same?
Here's a different set of circumstance. Assume the universe is
accelerating as it expands. How big will the universe be as a
as a function of time? It will become _smaller_.
[...]
>I illustrated this point in an HTML post that included illustrations of the
>points I make above.
>
>It is not up to me to say what the universe should look like if the BBT is
>correct - I'm not an advocate of the BBT - YOU are. It looks as much like a
>non-expanding universe as it does like an expanding one with paradoxes and
>correspondences in both models.
Well, but it would appear that you also don't have very good
intuition regarding the appearance of the universe as the
theory describes it. Since observations _are_ consistent with
the theory, it doesn't matter whether you advocate or reject
it. Either way, your judgement would be based on a misconception.
>Why don't you outline how the universe can appear to be so big at greater
>distances and yet actually be smaller than observed....it is your BBT, why
>not draw upon the standard explanations (if there are any).
Why is it that those who want to argue about any of the theories
which have gained acceptance, always try to shift the burden of
explanation away from themselves? Moreover, why is it that those
same people also seem to not understand what they are objecting to?
I fail to see how anyone can form an opinion about anything without
understanding why they are objecting and being able to say why they
are objecting to it without having to resort to a caricature of it
as a strawman. If you have to base your objections to a theory on
misrepresntations of the theory, dont you think what you are doing
is trying to make the theory fit your objections in order to justify
a preconception to which you are unwilling to admit.
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> I would also point out that at the greatest scales, the universe is
> basically flat.
*Space* is flat at large scales. *Spacetime* has a significant positive
curvature at large scales because of the positive energy density of the
universe.[*] If the energy density were much lower, spacetime would be
roughly flat and space would have a significant negative curvature.
Here "space" means a spacetime slice at a constant cosmological time. What
we can actually see right now (where "right now" means all of human history)
is given by our past light cone, which is a different spacetime slice
extending backwards through cosmological time. It is positively curved, not
flat. You can imagine it as a sphere or a sort of egg shape (I'm not sure of
its exact shape), with the here-and-now being a point at one end and the big
bang being a point at the other end.
Imagine that you're located on this surface at the here-and-now point (which
you are!) and think about what you'd see if you looked in any direction.
Remember that light rays travel along the surface. It's easy to see that
rays heading in any direction will all converge at the antipode. So there's
a focusing effect, as though you were looking through a magnifying lens. If
an object is placed at the antipode, you will see a highly magnified image
of it which fills your field of view in every direction.
Well, there is an "object" at the antipode -- it's the plasma that filled
the early universe before it became transparent -- and we do see a highly
magnified image of it in every direction: the CMBR. Going forward in time
from the plasma, the earliest, most distant galaxies will actually appear
larger in the sky than later, closer galaxies, until we pass the "equator",
at which point closer galaxies will appear larger, as you would expect. We
can't actually see those early galaxies, though, because they're overwhelmed
by the CMBR.
-- Ben
[*] I'm not sure how the nonzero cosmological constant changes this, but
it's at least true that spacetime *had* a significant positive curvature --
the mass-energy dominates Lambda when the scale factor is small -- which is
all we need here.
Robert Karl Stonjek
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndgp74u....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Robert Karl Stonjek:
> >
> >Considering a simple 'exploding matter' model, and ignoring the speed of
> >light limitation (make the interval of transit zero), the maximum
> >circumference that a central observer can see is 18 billion light years
> >(not 31.4), the circumference of the outer sphere.
>
> But that is precisely the _wrong_ way to picture it. The universe
> did not explode and the speed of light is inextricably linked to
> what we see visually, so you can't ignore it. (Even at that, I'm
> ignoring the further complication from the possibility that light
> could be massive and propagate like other massive particles, i.e., be
> at rest in some frame, in which case the accessible universe would
> be larger than we could see visually.)
>
At any POINT in time we can consider a three dimensional model of the
universe. In three dimensions, the universe appears to be larger at greater
distances, in direct contradiction to the BBT.
> >If we consider that light does take time to transit the distance and
that
> >space expands in that interval then any two adjacent photons emitted
will
> >be
>
> Try a different model. Take a balloon with a bunch of dots on it,
> which is being inflated. Imagine yourself at one of those dots.
> Now draw two meridians which intersect at that dot and have an
> angle of say, 90 degrees. After the universe expands for a while,
> what's the angle? It's still 90 degrees. How big does the universe
> look along two rays whose angles remain the same?
>
You want me to keep trying different models until I come up with one that
agrees with your position? Cute...
But lets go with the balloon analogue and test it against observation.
First observation is, as you have pointed out, that regardless of the size
of the balloon (as it inflates) we see a panorama of 'objects' (the dots we
drew on the balloon), BUT THE GAPS BETWEEN DOTS INCREASE. No such
observation has been made - at ever greater distances, the density of
objects does not decrease.
Second, on an expanding balloon, the dots also expand. This gives us a kind
of magnifying effect where distant objects appear to be larger than they
should be eg a group of galaxies. No such observations have been made.
So the balloon analogy, in explaining why we see objects throughout the
night sky at any distance works, but the additional implications fail - the
increasing gap between objects and the magnifying effect, both fail
miserably.
>
> Here's a different set of circumstance. Assume the universe is
> accelerating as it expands. How big will the universe be as a
> as a function of time? It will become _smaller_.
>
The universe is basically flat, so a three dimensional model is valid. The
balloon imagery is an analogue and is wrong except in explaining a few basic
concepts such as expansion in general. The universe is not like the surface
of a balloon, it is well known that it is basically FLAT.
>
> [...]
> >I illustrated this point in an HTML post that included illustrations of
the
> >points I make above.
> >
> >It is not up to me to say what the universe should look like if the BBT
is
> >correct - I'm not an advocate of the BBT - YOU are. It looks as much
like a
> >non-expanding universe as it does like an expanding one with paradoxes
and
> >correspondences in both models.
>
> Well, but it would appear that you also don't have very good
> intuition regarding the appearance of the universe as the
> theory describes it. Since observations _are_ consistent with
> the theory, it doesn't matter whether you advocate or reject
> it. Either way, your judgement would be based on a misconception.
>
So you are saying that because you are arbitrarily right, anyone who
disagrees must have made a mistake in their perception. You would have made
a great Aristotelian in earlier times, say around the time of Galileo - you
could have argued against him as he obviously wasn't looking at the solar
system "in the right way".
> >Why don't you outline how the universe can appear to be so big at
greater
> >distances and yet actually be smaller than observed....it is your BBT,
why
> >not draw upon the standard explanations (if there are any).
>
> Why is it that those who want to argue about any of the theories
> which have gained acceptance, always try to shift the burden of
> explanation away from themselves? Moreover, why is it that those
> same people also seem to not understand what they are objecting to?
> I fail to see how anyone can form an opinion about anything without
> understanding why they are objecting and being able to say why they
> are objecting to it without having to resort to a caricature of it
> as a strawman. If you have to base your objections to a theory on
> misrepresntations of the theory, dont you think what you are doing
> is trying to make the theory fit your objections in order to justify
> a preconception to which you are unwilling to admit.
>
There are no valid explanations in the theory as to why the universe appears
to be ever larger at greater distances, though I have seen some attempts to
explain this. What you seem to be suggesting is that questions that annoy
you either: A) shouldn't be asked or B) should be solved by the person
asking them or is C) the question seems to contradict current theory, the
inquirer obviously hasn't understood current theory.
The FACT that you have thought little of this problem is obvious is the very
poor standard of explanation that you have given for the phenomena - balloon
analogy must have taken all of 10 seconds contemplation.
In approaching a question, it is traditional for scientists NOT to assume
that their position is arbitrarily correct but, rather, that their position
is falsifiable. In this way they can consider for and against arguments and
evaluate the most valid. Yet those on this forum have not even acknowledged
the problem, let alone considered it. Why so defensive?
Robert Karl Stonjek
"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:deilr0$30u$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
How much of this spacetime curvature is dependant on dark matter and dark
energy?
I have seen an attempt at explaining distant observation in the manner you
have outlined including illustrations but can not, for the life of me,
locate that book(s) or web page(s). If you have a link I would be very
appreciative.
At least you acknowledge the problem and have offered a falsifiable
observational hypothesis. Others on this forum have refused to even
acknowledge the problem.
If the observational anomaly you mention is a valid one, then, using the egg
analogy for simplicity, we must see this magnifying effect for any distance
beyond the widest point of the egg ie we are observing from the pointy end,
light travels around the outside of the egg past the widest point from the
other pointy end.
Thus there should be some way of calculating at what distance the magnifying
effect should occur. Simply assuming that it is too far away or engulfed by
the CMBR is simply avoidance of the problem. The first time I saw this form
of explanation the author predicted that a magnifying effect should be
observable from around 8 billion light years observation distance. Well, he
was obviously wrong.
Thus the egg will have its widest point ever closer to the big bang - is
this really consistent with the theory? We are already getting to (I think)
more than 10 billion light years - what prediction does the theory make
about observations at 11 billion light years?
Thanks for your input,
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> How much of this spacetime curvature is dependant on dark matter and dark
> energy?
About 95% last I heard, but I don't think that figure is at all definite.
More is known about the curvature itself than about what contributes to it.
> If the observational anomaly you mention is a valid one, then, using the egg
> analogy for simplicity, we must see this magnifying effect for any distance
> beyond the widest point of the egg ie we are observing from the pointy end,
> light travels around the outside of the egg past the widest point from the
> other pointy end.
Right.
> Thus there should be some way of calculating at what distance the magnifying
> effect should occur. Simply assuming that it is too far away or engulfed by
> the CMBR is simply avoidance of the problem. The first time I saw this form
> of explanation the author predicted that a magnifying effect should be
> observable from around 8 billion light years observation distance. Well, he
> was obviously wrong.
I wasn't able to find a good web site for this, but we can work it out
ourselves. The FRW metric at the critical density is
ds^2 = dt^2 - a(t)^2 (dr^2 + r^2 dOmega^2)
It'll be easiest to place the earth at r=0 and measure time in units of 13.7
Gyr, so t=1 is now and t=0 is the big bang. a(t) is normalized so that a(1)
= 1. I *think* the expansion has been roughly linear since the CMBR era, so
we can take a(t) = t.
For the past light cone we have ds^2 = 0 and so dr/dt = 1/a(t). Integrating,
we get
r(t) = integral { 1 to t } (dT / a(T)) = ln (1/t)
To convert this to a physical (metric) distance R, we multiply it by the
scale factor for the appropriate era, which gives
R(t) = r(t) a(t) = t ln (1/t).
This is the radius of the egg (in units of 13.7 Gly) as a function of cosmic
time. If you plot it it actually does look sort of like an egg, with a
maximum at t=1/e, which is 13.7(1-1/e) = 8.7 billion years ago. This is
obviously where the figure you quoted comes from.
I was wrong last time: we have seen far beyond this. I think galaxies have
been seen at a redshift of z~10, which corresponds to t~0.1 (z+1 = 1/a(t)).
The angular size should be about the same as that of a galaxy at t ~ 0.75,
or z ~ 1/3 (since R(0.1) ~ R(0.75)), and around twice the angular size of a
galaxy at t=1/e. Galaxy sizes vary by much more than a factor of two, and I
don't know whether we can see the whole of the high-z galaxies or just the
core, and I don't know how accurately things like a(t) are known, so I
suspect there's not enough data yet to test this prediction, but I really
don't know. At this point you should probably ask over in sci.astro.
-- Ben
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>>>Isotropic
>>
>>I suppose this "isotropic" is the answer to my question
>>above "What exactly do you mean with symmetrical?", although
>>you chose to place this answer under a totally different question.
>>
>>And you still have not told me why the universe couldn't be
>>symmetrical (isotropic) and smaller at greater distances (which
>>actually makes no sense, since it only was smaller at earlier
>>times, not *is* smaller at greater distances) at the same time.
>>
>
>
> Greater distance = earlier time.
No.
*looking at* greater distance = *looking at* earlier time.
[snip]
[snip]
> and the earlier universe was smaller, smaller, and ever smaller the further
> back in time we look, no?
Could you *please* state more carefully what you mean with "the
universe" in such sentence?
The part of the universe which is visible today was smaller in the past.
The visible part of the universe was also smaller in the past.
I hope you see the difference between these two statements?
[snip]
>>>Why don't you try an easier variation:
>>>at what distance would you expect to see evidence of a smaller past
>>>universe?
>>
>>At *every* distance, since no matter how little one goes back into the
>>past, the universe was always "smaller" back then.
>>
>
>
> At some point that smallness must become a feature of what is seen through
> telescopes (so to speak). What feature would indicate the smallness of the
> early universe?
Increased density and temperature.
> Why haven't we seen this feature already?
We have. CMBR.
>>>It seems to me a bit of philosophy given without evidence or even
>>>a testable hypotheses (testable via future observation).
>>
>>I already gave you several pieces of evidence, several times, which
>>show that the universe expands. You are still ignoring them.
>>
>
>
> You have given me evidence that shows that one can model an expanding
> universe and get useful predictions from such a model, but you have shown no
> evidence whatsoever that space can expand.
What on earth is the difference between these two statements? How
*else* could I show that space expands than by making predictions
based on this assumption and then checking these predictions against
observations?
> Consider a space traveller who is decelerating (negative acceleration). As
> he peers out into space he notices that space in the direction he is
> travelling appears to expand - is it expanding?
In his coordinate system, it is (if you are talking about special
relativistic length contraction here).
However, this type of expansion won't lead to all the other effects
predicted by the space expansion of the BBT (and observed).
> An individual on a massive body peering out into space see objects slightly
> contracted relative to how the appear from space. Light from all objects is
> BLUE shifted. Distances appear to be much shorter than they actually are.
> Is the observer, say one that is viewing from a neutron star (Mr.Flatty),
> seeing a contracting, blue shifted universe or is it just an anomaly of the
> gravity of the object he is standing on?
No, he sees a *contracted*, but nevertheless expanding universe.
And this is not an "anomaly", but simply a consequence of the choice
of coordinates.
> BTW the Neutron star observer also notes that all the objects in the
> universe appear to be coming right at him, the exact opposite of what we see
> from Earth.
Huh??? Why on earth should he?
> Considering how much dark matter is out there, we are looking into a strong
> gravitational field.
Huh??? Why???
> If so, that alone may be sufficient to account for the
> apparent expansion of the universe. In fact, if the universe was infinite
> (and isotropic), then an observer anywhere in that universe would see an
> expanding universe just as we do from earth, the cause of the illusion being
> the immense accumulated gravitational force in any direction
Err, hint: if the forces are into every direction, they cancel out
each other, and no net force is left.
> the observer
> looks - gravitational redshift and apparent expansion result.
Even if there were a net force, that still wouldn't explain the
features we see quantitatively. It wouldn't explain why the redshift
is proportional to distance, it wouldn't fulfil the Tolman test etc.
>>>You want me to run thought beginner's geometry?
>>
>>I want you to tell me what the area of that sphere has to do
>>with a "certain minimum size" of the universe.
>>
>>That's the question I asked you already several times now. You keep
>>evading it.
>>
>
>
> I've already answered it - if the universe is small back then and we see a
> huge sphere, how can the huge sphere fit into the smaller universe?
*big sigh*
There is a huge sphere *today*. But what on earth has the size of this
sphere *today* with the size of the universe at earlier times???
>>>>- there is no way you
>>>>
>>>>>can fold up the viewable sphere of 10 billion light years away into one
>>>>>that is 1/3rd of that size, as it should be at that distance.
>>>>
>>>>Why on earth is there no way to do this?????
>>
>>Care to tell me?
>>
>>
>
>
> You are the one claiming that it can be done - how can it be done?
The huge sphere which is there today was smaller in the past. WHERE IS
THE PROBLEM???
[snip]
>>>If it is smaller, denser and hotter in the past, then we should see
>>>evidence
>>>of a smaller, denser, hotter universe at some distance. True?
>>
>>True. Hint: we do.
>>
>
>
> OK, so what observation confirms the smaller past universe?
As I already said above: for example, the CMBR, whose existence shows
that the universe was denser and hotter in the past.
>>>So why do we see an ever bigger universe at greater distances?
>>
>>*sigh* We don't. And you *still* have not explained *WHY ON EARTH* you
>>think we do see that. You *still* have not explained what the size
>>of a sphere at distance R has to do with the size of the universe
>>at the time when the light we see from that sphere was emitted.
>>
>
>
> A-------B--------C--------D------E--------A
>
> consider five objects, A to E, viewed at 10 billion light years
Do you mean objects which are 10 billion light years away now? Or at
the time at which the light was emitted? Or objects for which the
light took 10 billion years to reach us?
> in an arc as
> the Earth rotates (telescope pointing straight up, 180 degrees swept in
> summer, 180 degrees swept in winter (to avoid that pesky sun)). We have a
> complete arc of objects from A to A at 10 billion light years distance (and
> around 10 billion years back in time). Assuming that we can determine the
> distance between each of the objects, we can calculate the total distance
> from A to A. Let's say we come up with a figure of around 63 billion light
> years.
Why should we say that? That figure was made up totally out of thin
air. It looks like as if you simply multiplied the radius of the arc
with two pi - which makes no sense, since this computation does *not*
give the size of the arc *at the time when the light was emitted*.
And obviously precisely that size is what is important here!
> Now, if we calculated that the universe was 3 billion light years radius at
> that time, the maximum distance one could travel in that early universe
> would be around the circumference of the sphere which is around 19 billion
> light years. How do we fit present day observation of the early universe
> into the universe as it was 10 billion years ago?
If you realize that your figure of 63 billion light years above is
totally baseless, this problem will neatly go away.
Also, you might try to look here:
<http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#ct2>
<http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN>
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
*sigh* If you didn't notice: that fits both (1) and (2) above. So
the question still stands.
> The meaning of
> 'the visible universe' varies according to the era of the BBT one is
> referring to. The earlier (non inflation) models had space and matter
> expanding, so that at the big bang, space and matter were compacted and
> there was nothing outside the initial confinement.
Vaguely right.
> Inflation models have the big bang occurring within a bigger universe,
Not necessarily.
> whether that universe consists of space only or space and matter.
>
> In referring to the visible universe, in the earlier BBT one refers to that
> part of the universe that is visible.
That *is* visible? So you apparently mean (1) above.
> Discussing cosmology in the inflation
> era I and others often refer to the part of the universe that expanded from
> a big bang as the visible universe
That would be a quite nonsensical choice of words, since by far not
all of that is visible.
[snip]
> So how do you refer to that subset of the universe that expanded from a
> small dense region?
"our universe"
[snip]
>>>>When you say that the size of the visible universe changes, do you mean
>>>>1) that distance (1) above changes?
>>>>2) that distance (2) above changes?
>>>>3) that the size of the part of the universe which is visible today
>>>>according to (1) changes?
>>>>4) that the size of the part of the universe which is visible today
>>>>according to (2) changes?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I refer only to observations made today. When we see even close
>>>objects,
>>>say Andromeda, we are seeing it as it was when light left that object ie
>>>2.9 million years ago.
>>>
>>>I am not saying anything about the change of distance to the object of
>>>observation.
>>>
>>>Your questions 1 to 4 are irrelevant to my question.
>>
>>Huh? As long as we don't define what "the size of the visible universe
>>changes" exactly is supposed to mean, it makes no sense to ask "why
>>does the visible universe look larger and not smaller at large
>>distances?".
>>
>>So this is exactly the point and not irrelevant at all!
>>
>>As long as you don't clear this up, I see no sense in future discussions.
I notice you *still* have not cleared this up.
> The distance from an observer here on earth and some point in space is not
> necessarily the radius of a sphere that describes the universe at that point
> in time.
At *which* point in time?
And how could a sphere describe the universe?
> In fact, that is not a particularly useful way of considering the
> size of the universe as the light received has purportedly travelled over
> expanding space.
Duh.
> A better way is to consider the visible envelope of stars at some distance
> from the viewer. That way one can see a slice of the early universe, that
> slice that forms the inside surface of a sphere described by the viewing
> distance. Exactly what shape that sheet actually takes depends on several
> factors. What we can conclude is that as the visible sheet becomes larger at
> greater distances (as we look further and further out into space) it must,
> at some point, be too large to fit inside the universe as it was at that
> point in time
Utter *nonsense*. You *still* make the same error, again and again and
again!
That this sphere is large *today* (and the size you calculate from the
radius is the size *today*!!!) does not in the least imply that this
*also* was large *back then*!!!
> eg the universe must have expanded to some size after 3
> billion years - if we can view the universe as it was at that period, then
> we would expect to see evidence of its size at that time.
What evidence would you expect to see, specifically?
Bye,
Bjoern
brian a m stuckless
> Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
> > Greater distance = earlier time.
> No.
> *looking at* greater distance = *looking at* earlier time.
Your "..*looking at*.." *CANCELLs OUT* there, *Dimwit*.!!
!!!PLEASE!!! Take a SABBATiCAL, Bj.!! ```SNiP```
Sincerely,
```Brian
> Bye,
> Bjoern
University of Heidelberg, Germany.
Newsgroups: < sci.physics >< sci.physics.relativity >.
Re: Article: Cosmic CAT Scan - Observing the early universe--with
10,000 TV antennas
><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Robert Karl Stonjek
further
> > back in time we look, no?
>
> Could you *please* state more carefully what you mean with "the
> universe" in such sentence?
>
> The part of the universe which is visible today was smaller in the past.
>
> The visible part of the universe was also smaller in the past.
>
> I hope you see the difference between these two statements?
>
You're attempting to confound the issue. We can't see the universe as it is
'today' as it takes billions of years for the light from distant areas to
reach us.
When we receive light from distant objects we are viewing those objects as
they were when the light was emitted, which may well be billions of years
ago and from a period when the universe was much smaller than it is today.
The fact that I am now getting a variety of theories as to why the universe
appears as it does at great distances indicates that the problem is one that
is generally known and acknowledged, and there have been several attempts to
explain the distant appearance of the universe. You weem to be having
difficulty acknowledging the problem.
> >>>Why don't you try an easier variation:
> >>>at what distance would you expect to see evidence of a smaller past
> >>>universe?
> >>
> >>At *every* distance, since no matter how little one goes back into the
> >>past, the universe was always "smaller" back then.
> >>
> >
> >
> > At some point that smallness must become a feature of what is seen
through
> > telescopes (so to speak). What feature would indicate the smallness of
the
> > early universe?
>
> Increased density and temperature.
>
>
> > Why haven't we seen this feature already?
>
> We have. CMBR.
>
That is not sufficient. The CMBR is not focusable light - it is diffuse and
describes no objects such as galaxy clusters. There should be some
progression between distant objects presently viewable and the CMBR,
assuming that CMBR is an artefact from a big bang.
>
> >>>It seems to me a bit of philosophy given without evidence or even
> >>>a testable hypotheses (testable via future observation).
> >>
> >>I already gave you several pieces of evidence, several times, which
> >>show that the universe expands. You are still ignoring them.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You have given me evidence that shows that one can model an expanding
> > universe and get useful predictions from such a model, but you have
shown no
> > evidence whatsoever that space can expand.
>
> What on earth is the difference between these two statements? How
> *else* could I show that space expands than by making predictions
> based on this assumption and then checking these predictions against
> observations?
>
All you are doing is showing that a model that ASSUMES an expanding space
may give results. One can also point out that a model that ASSUMES that
quarks exist may also give positive results. The man who formatted the
quark model does not claim that they are real objects, only that a model
assuming their existence works. Quarks can not be independently verified,
so they remain hypothetical objects - mathematical beasts.
Why do you think that space can actually expand? Empty space has no
properties that can expand. How would an experiment, real or
thought-experiment, be set up locally to test whether space can expand or
not?
>
> > Consider a space traveller who is decelerating (negative acceleration).
As
> > he peers out into space he notices that space in the direction he is
> > travelling appears to expand - is it expanding?
>
> In his coordinate system, it is (if you are talking about special
> relativistic length contraction here).
>
> However, this type of expansion won't lead to all the other effects
> predicted by the space expansion of the BBT (and observed).
>
So you are saying relative expansion is real?? Observers at points along
the direction of travel of our decelerating observer above note no expansion
or contraction.
If you are saying that the expansion of space that is noted here on Earth is
a relative property and not an actual property of space then you are saying
something very interesting. But an event like a big bang can not be deduced
from a relative only expansion of space.
Why won't relative expansion lead to the results that you say have been
observed? Lets look at one of them - you outline the case.
>
> > An individual on a massive body peering out into space see objects
slightly
> > contracted relative to how the appear from space. Light from all
objects is
> > BLUE shifted. Distances appear to be much shorter than they actually
are.
> > Is the observer, say one that is viewing from a neutron star
(Mr.Flatty),
> > seeing a contracting, blue shifted universe or is it just an anomaly of
the
> > gravity of the object he is standing on?
>
> No, he sees a *contracted*, but nevertheless expanding universe.
>
> And this is not an "anomaly", but simply a consequence of the choice
> of coordinates.
>
No, he sees a *contracting* universe with his own location being the centre
of contraction. Your assumption that he sees an expanding universe can not
be sustained.
Objects at any distance out in space appear to be travelling toward him as
the light from those objects is blue shifted. The amount of blue shift
increases with distance but increases ever less noticeably.
Note that we do not observe objects *actually* moving away from us. We
observe only the redshift. The same would be true for my example above,
except that the redshift is replaced by blueshift.
>
> > BTW the Neutron star observer also notes that all the objects in the
> > universe appear to be coming right at him, the exact opposite of what we
see
> > from Earth.
>
> Huh??? Why on earth should he?
>
Because the amount of blue shift depends on the distance of the object
observed from his point of observation alone (the neutron star on which he
resides). As the only indication of the motion of objects at great
distances, either for our own theories (redshift) or for his (blue shift) is
the relativistic Doppler shift of the light observed, the neutron star
observer has no confirming data apart from that relativistic Doppler shift
of the light. Same here on Earth with a redshift data.
>
> > Considering how much dark matter is out there, we are looking into a
strong
> > gravitational field.
>
> Huh??? Why???
>
Assuming that dark matter adds to the mass of space it must also contribute
to the gravitational potential of space and so to the gravitational
component of the redshift of light coming from that region of space.
>
> > If so, that alone may be sufficient to account for the
> > apparent expansion of the universe. In fact, if the universe was
infinite
> > (and isotropic), then an observer anywhere in that universe would see an
> > expanding universe just as we do from earth, the cause of the illusion
being
> > the immense accumulated gravitational force in any direction
>
> Err, hint: if the forces are into every direction, they cancel out
> each other, and no net force is left.
>
Gravity is a force? Well, I did use that word for simplicity, but in
actuality most gravitational models do not consider gravity to be simple
force. Quantum gravity model may have a cancellation, but the density of
gravitons must increase. In relativity theory, the inside of a hollow
sphere also has no curvature within the sphere, but the gravitational
potential inside the sphere is very different to that in space (eg if the
sphere was removed).
Consider a planet made up of solid little balls. From the centre of the
planet I emit a photon and absorb it at some distance from the centre. I
will note that the light will be Doppler shifted. Now, let the distance
between the balls increase. I repeat the experiment - will the Doppler
shift still be in evidence? Yes, it will. The magnitude of the shift may
vary, but its presence and direction (red/blue shift) does not.
Now let's increase the distance between balls so that the gaps between them
is around 1 light year. Doppler shift still there? Yes.
If we increase the gap even more and replace the balls with clusters of
galaxies then we have a simple model of an isotropic universe. Note that,
returning to the unexpanded planet model, the further the distance the beam
of light travels, the greater the Doppler shift.
Now, in an infinite universe, any point is effectively central. We would
expect light received at that central point to be red shifted, and the
greater the distance of travel of that light, the greater the red shift.
>
> > the observer
> > looks - gravitational redshift and apparent expansion result.
>
> Even if there were a net force, that still wouldn't explain the
> features we see quantitatively. It wouldn't explain why the redshift
> is proportional to distance, it wouldn't fulfil the Tolman test etc.
>
Why do you think the redshift would not increase with the observational
distance?
It would pass the Tolman test, with flying colours!! A clock at the source
of light will be slower (due to gravitational time dilation) and so the
brightness will decrease.
You are referring to this, aren't you?:
"Tolman (1930, 1934) derived the remarkable result that, in an expanding
universe with any arbitrary geometry, the surface brightness of a set of
"standard" (identical) objects will decrease by (1 + z)4. One factor of (1 +
z) comes from the decrease in the energy of each photon due to the redshift.
The second factor comes from the decrease in the number flux per unit time.
Two additional factors of (1 + z) come from the apparent increase of area
due to aberration. The effect is the same for all intrinsic geometries
because the cosmological geometric effects due to different space curvatures
(i.e., the dependence on q0) are identical in the equations for luminosity,
L = f(q0, z) and intrinsic radius = g(q0, z). Hence, the ratio of L to
(radius)2, which is the surface brightness, is independent of all the
cosmological parameters, precisely (Sandage 1961, 1972).
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJ/journal/issues/v121n5/200507/200507.html
> > I've already answered it - if the universe is small back then and we see
a
> > huge sphere, how can the huge sphere fit into the smaller universe?
>
> *big sigh*
>
> There is a huge sphere *today*. But what on earth has the size of this
> sphere *today* with the size of the universe at earlier times???
>
Because it is news of earlier times that the light from great distances
brings us. The question is, why doesn't this old light bring news of a
smaller universe that fits into a smaller sphere?
>
> >>>>- there is no way you
> >>>>
> >>>>>can fold up the viewable sphere of 10 billion light years away into
one
> >>>>>that is 1/3rd of that size, as it should be at that distance.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why on earth is there no way to do this?????
> >>
> >>Care to tell me?
> >>
> >>
> > You are the one claiming that it can be done - how can it be done?
>
> The huge sphere which is there today was smaller in the past. WHERE IS
> THE PROBLEM???
>
If it is smaller in the past, why don't we see that smaller sphere when we
see the universe as it was in ancient times ie via the light from great
distances??? Why are you the only one who seems unable to acknowledge the
problem and offer an answer - other Big Bang advocates in this thread have
eg Bilge and Ben.
> > A-------B--------C--------D------E--------A
> >
> > consider five objects, A to E, viewed at 10 billion light years
>
> Do you mean objects which are 10 billion light years away now? Or at
> the time at which the light was emitted? Or objects for which the
> light took 10 billion years to reach us?
>
This is a childish attempt to confound the issue. We can only speak of what
we can see now. "VIEWED AT 10 BILLION LIGHT YEARS."
>
> > in an arc as
> > the Earth rotates (telescope pointing straight up, 180 degrees swept in
> > summer, 180 degrees swept in winter (to avoid that pesky sun)). We have
a
> > complete arc of objects from A to A at 10 billion light years distance
(and
> > around 10 billion years back in time). Assuming that we can determine
the
> > distance between each of the objects, we can calculate the total
distance
> > from A to A. Let's say we come up with a figure of around 63 billion
light
> > years.
>
> Why should we say that? That figure was made up totally out of thin
> air. It looks like as if you simply multiplied the radius of the arc
> with two pi - which makes no sense, since this computation does *not*
> give the size of the arc *at the time when the light was emitted*.
> And obviously precisely that size is what is important here!
>
No, you would come up with that figure by measuring the distance between
objects A and B, then adding that to the distance between B and C and so on.
>
> > Now, if we calculated that the universe was 3 billion light years radius
at
> > that time, the maximum distance one could travel in that early universe
> > would be around the circumference of the sphere which is around 19
billion
> > light years. How do we fit present day observation of the early
universe
> > into the universe as it was 10 billion years ago?
>
> If you realize that your figure of 63 billion light years above is
> totally baseless, this problem will neatly go away.
>
> Also, you might try to look here:
> <http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#ct2>
> <http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#DN>
>
They are irrelevant to the discussion. The speed of light expansion rate
that I sometimes mention is just an arbitrary benchmark. In an expanding
model, expansion occurs locally, so when you add up all the expansion over
some distance it can easily exceed the speed of light (eg the rate at which
distant objects recede from each other). I have no problem with that. The
problem is that there is no single agreed upon expansion rate, though that
wed resource you point to does give a single formula - if you agree with it
we can use it to calculate the actual size of the universe at various
intervals after the big bang.
Robert Karl Stonjek
> been seen at a redshift of z~10, which corresponds to t~0.1 (z+1 =
1/a(t)).
> The angular size should be about the same as that of a galaxy at t ~ 0.75,
> or z ~ 1/3 (since R(0.1) ~ R(0.75)), and around twice the angular size of
a
> galaxy at t=1/e. Galaxy sizes vary by much more than a factor of two, and
I
> don't know whether we can see the whole of the high-z galaxies or just the
> core, and I don't know how accurately things like a(t) are known, so I
> suspect there's not enough data yet to test this prediction, but I really
> don't know. At this point you should probably ask over in sci.astro.
>
> -- Ben
Thanks, Ben. I'm just trying to get Bjorn to acknowledge the problem. He
has gone from informed observer to Aristotelian intellectual snobbery, so I
might just pack up your informed message and head to sci.astro as you
recommend :)
--
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>>>and the earlier universe was smaller, smaller, and ever smaller the
>
> further
>
>>>back in time we look, no?
>>
>>Could you *please* state more carefully what you mean with "the
>>universe" in such sentence?
>>
>>The part of the universe which is visible today was smaller in the past.
>>
>>The visible part of the universe was also smaller in the past.
>>
>>I hope you see the difference between these two statements?
>>
>
>
> You're attempting to confound the issue.
No, I am attempting to *clarify* it. *You* are constantly confounding
it, no matter how often I ask you to state clearly what you mean.
As long as you deliberately act that way, this discussion is pointless.
[snip all]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bilge
>So you are saying that because you are arbitrarily right, anyone who
>disagrees must have made a mistake in their perception.
No, I'm saying you are suffering from (at least) a misconception.
It also appears you wish to persist in your misconception(s) as you
are obviously doing your utmost to misconstrue and misrepresent
every attempt to relieve you of those misconceptions. Ignorance is
curable, but your choice to remain ignorant is not.
>You would have made a great Aristotelian in earlier times, say
>around the time of Galileo - you could have argued against him
>as he obviously wasn't looking at the solar system "in the right way".
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day
Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
[...]
>
>There are no valid explanations in the theory as to why the universe appears
>to be ever larger at greater distances, though I have seen some attempts to
>explain this. What you seem to be suggesting is that questions that annoy
>you either: A) shouldn't be asked or B) should be solved by the person
>asking them or is C) the question seems to contradict current theory, the
>inquirer obviously hasn't understood current theory.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm flat out stating that you aren't
really interested in the question you asked. Your misconceptions are
not a contradiction to any current theory. If you don't want to
understand why you have that misconception and eliminate it, that's
your problem.
>The FACT that you have thought little of this problem is obvious is the very
>poor standard of explanation that you have given for the phenomena - balloon
>analogy must have taken all of 10 seconds contemplation.
I've also not given a lot of thought as to why the earth isn't shaped
like a large capital ``E.'' Just because you can ask a question, doesn't
mean the question has any deep physical significance or that it contradicts
any physical theory.
>In approaching a question, it is traditional for scientists NOT to assume
OK. Why isn't the earth shaped like a large capital ``E?'' It appears
no theory of the solar system has ever considered this possibility so
the fact that the earth is round must disprove every physical theory
of the solar system that has been proposed.
>that their position is arbitrarily correct but, rather, that their position
>is falsifiable. In this way they can consider for and against arguments and
>evaluate the most valid. Yet those on this forum have not even acknowledged
>the problem, let alone considered it. Why so defensive?
I haven't acknowledged that the fact that the earth is not shaped
like a large capital ``E'' is a problem, either. Your question was
reasonable the first time you asked it (assuming you actually wanted
to understand the answer). However, you've done nothing toward trying
to understand the answers you've received. You aren't interested in
the answer to your question. You're interested in being contrary
for the sake of veing contrary.
Bilge
>> Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
>> > Greater distance = earlier time.
>> No.
>> *looking at* greater distance = *looking at* earlier time.
>
>Your "..*looking at*.." *CANCELLs OUT* there, *Dimwit*.!!
>
>!!!PLEASE!!! Take a SABBATiCAL, Bj.!! ```SNiP```
>
> Sincerely,
> ```Brian
o o
\ /
\ / (\
_~ ~7_.-'"``-.,, ) )
\*/*~ ; -._( '~./
(@) _ )`-. \ :~~ ~
_'U' _..-/ /((.' @@ ~
"'" "'" @@@@ ~
brian a m stuckless
Dear Bjoern,
Bilge (& PUSCH) was wondering if your "looking at", in your UNiVERSAL
EQUATiON, just might be SYNONOMOUS with his own "un-physical" factor,
( Having the SAME "un-physical"-LiKE nature as "HUBBLE's EXPANSiON".)
( Or Max Born's LiTTLE iMP's "no feelings" or like another CRACKEDpot
jOE Fischer's own CHiCKEN-LiTTLE-like FALLEN "spacetime" CURVATURE.!!
Or maybe, Dipstick UNCLE AL's "other LONGER way round" GR geodesic.!!
Of course, COLLATERAL BENEFiT surely CAUSED "space-time" CURVATURE.!!
"Looking at" the UNiVERSE, Bjoern sees a UNiVERSE "looking at" HiM.!!
That's WHY your NEW "looking at" term CANCELs OUT in your EQUATiON.!!
Max Born's LiTTLE iMPs did ALL the "looking at" in ALL the GR-TiViTY
gedanken ELEVATORs.!! LiTTLE GR iMPs observed "no feelings" when they
were all FREEfalling UP, UN-knowingly, in a GEDANKEN vacuum ELEVATOR.
They "COULD NOT" know that they were FREEfalling UP "UN-knowingly".!!
NOBODY knows, exactly, just HOW those LiTTLE iMPs actually KNEW that
they WERE NOT having those "no feelings", say other times, when they
WERE NOT FREEfalling.!! One thing's for CERTAiN ..those LiTTLE iMP's
"no feelings" were quite "UN-physical"-LiKE, as Bilge & PUSCH say.!!
The MYSTERY remains, still, HOW did ALL the "UN-KNOWiNG" LiTTLE iMPs
distinguish VARiOUS "no feelings" relaying ALL the SiGNALs to MAX.!!
For CHRiST'S sake ..leave Chris (SQUEEZED-vacu-brain) Hillman OUT of
all THiS. "VARiOUS vacuums" ONLY exist in SWiSS-cheese-LiKE minds.!!
`'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'`
____ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / |_| |_|
The BiG | __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < _ _ _
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_
NO more is more.!!
TiME 07:00iPMsat27aug2005; ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> © B A STUCKLESS.
COReL WordPerfect 7 File < GR-was.wpd >; ><> ><> ><> ..End of POST.
Robert Karl Stonjek
> Robert Karl Stonjek:
> >
> >So you are saying that because you are arbitrarily right, anyone who
> >disagrees must have made a mistake in their perception.
>
> No, I'm saying you are suffering from (at least) a misconception.
> It also appears you wish to persist in your misconception(s) as you
> are obviously doing your utmost to misconstrue and misrepresent
> every attempt to relieve you of those misconceptions. Ignorance is
> curable, but your choice to remain ignorant is not.
>
> >You would have made a great Aristotelian in earlier times, say
> >around the time of Galileo - you could have argued against him
> >as he obviously wasn't looking at the solar system "in the right way".
>
> 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
modern-day
> Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
I was making no such comparison - I was comparing YOU to Aristotelians. It
is a simple formula:
1) make an arbitrary assumption that you are right
2) assume that those that don't agree with you have failed to understand the
literature.
>
> [...]
> >
> >There are no valid explanations in the theory as to why the universe
appears
> >to be ever larger at greater distances, though I have seen some attempts
to
> >explain this. What you seem to be suggesting is that questions that
annoy
> >you either: A) shouldn't be asked or B) should be solved by the person
> >asking them or is C) the question seems to contradict current theory,
the
> >inquirer obviously hasn't understood current theory.
>
> I'm not suggesting anything. I'm flat out stating that you aren't
> really interested in the question you asked. Your misconceptions are
> not a contradiction to any current theory. If you don't want to
> understand why you have that misconception and eliminate it, that's
> your problem.
>
You mean that I will be 'cured' when I agree with your position? This
thinking went a long way In China where the government even provided (re-)
educational facilities for those who had 'misconceptions' about the current
political theories.
Others, including those who agree with the basic principles of the Big Bang
model, have recognised the paradox of the appearance of the universe and
have offered possible explanations as to why it should appear as it does.
You seem to be somewhat insulted that anyone would even question the model.
> >The FACT that you have thought little of this problem is obvious is the
very
> >poor standard of explanation that you have given for the phenomena -
balloon
> >analogy must have taken all of 10 seconds contemplation.
>
> I've also not given a lot of thought as to why the earth isn't shaped
> like a large capital ``E.'' Just because you can ask a question, doesn't
> mean the question has any deep physical significance or that it
contradicts
> any physical theory.
>
So, contemplating why the universe appears as it does (observationally) is
about as useful as wondering why the universe doesn't look like a capital
E??
> >In approaching a question, it is traditional for scientists NOT to
assume
>
> OK. Why isn't the earth shaped like a large capital ``E?'' It appears
> no theory of the solar system has ever considered this possibility so
> the fact that the earth is round must disprove every physical theory
> of the solar system that has been proposed.
No, the shape of the Earth HAS been studied and continues to be studied.
Recent papers have postulated that some seismic observations indicate that
the core of the Earth is spinning much faster than the surface. The Earth
is not a simple sphere but bulges at the equator.
The shape of the Earth does not contradict any theories, so why should we
contemplate absurdities?
The universe *should* have some indication of a limited size as we view ever
earlier periods when the universe was ever smaller - that is a perfectly
valid question. I am taking the position that there are currently no
adequate explanations as to why such observational data is not forthcoming.
This is not the same as asking why the universe doesn't have some ridiculous
shape. Indeed, postulating an arbitrary period of 'inflation' is far more
radical than anything I am suggesting or asking about.
>
> >that their position is arbitrarily correct but, rather, that their
position
> >is falsifiable. In this way they can consider for and against arguments
and
> >evaluate the most valid. Yet those on this forum have not even
acknowledged
> >the problem, let alone considered it. Why so defensive?
>
> I haven't acknowledged that the fact that the earth is not shaped
> like a large capital ``E'' is a problem, either. Your question was
> reasonable the first time you asked it (assuming you actually wanted
> to understand the answer). However, you've done nothing toward trying
> to understand the answers you've received. You aren't interested in
> the answer to your question. You're interested in being contrary
> for the sake of veing contrary.
>
No answers have been forthcoming - thus far I have encountered only
avoidance of answers or attempts to minimise the significance of the
question or straight out attacks on me - with the exception of Ben
Rudiak-Gould who postulated an answer (one that is known) and even
calculated it out, approximately, and found that observational confirmation
should have been in evidence at the current maximal observation distances,
though he also pointed out that detail at the greatest distances may not be
sufficient to confirm or deny such a theory as the one he presented.
Why haven't others come up with perfect rational, testable answers to the
question such as his? Why do the feathers fly when off-the-cuff answers are
treated with the contempt they deserve?
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrndh07t4....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> Robert Karl Stonjek:
>> >
>> >So you are saying that because you are arbitrarily right, anyone who
>> >disagrees must have made a mistake in their perception.
>>
>> No, I'm saying you are suffering from (at least) a misconception.
>> It also appears you wish to persist in your misconception(s) as you
>> are obviously doing your utmost to misconstrue and misrepresent
>> every attempt to relieve you of those misconceptions. Ignorance is
>> curable, but your choice to remain ignorant is not.
>>
>> >You would have made a great Aristotelian in earlier times, say
>> >around the time of Galileo - you could have argued against him
>> >as he obviously wasn't looking at the solar system "in the right way".
>>
>> 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
>> modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
>
>I was making no such comparison - I was comparing YOU to Aristotelians.
By comparing me to aristotelians arguing against galileo, you
_were_ comparing yourself to galileo.
>It is a simple formula:
>1) make an arbitrary assumption that you are right
The assumption wasn't arbitrary. So your simple formula is wrong.
>2) assume that those that don't agree with you have failed to understand the
>literature.
So, does that mean you just object to the assumption or did you
have some evidence that I've assumed that incorrectly?
Robert Karl Stonjek
> Robert Karl Stonjek:
> >
> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrndh07t4....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> Robert Karl Stonjek:
> >> >
> >> >So you are saying that because you are arbitrarily right, anyone who
> >> >disagrees must have made a mistake in their perception.
> >>
> >> No, I'm saying you are suffering from (at least) a misconception.
> >> It also appears you wish to persist in your misconception(s) as you
> >> are obviously doing your utmost to misconstrue and misrepresent
> >> every attempt to relieve you of those misconceptions. Ignorance is
> >> curable, but your choice to remain ignorant is not.
> >>
> >> >You would have made a great Aristotelian in earlier times, say
> >> >around the time of Galileo - you could have argued against him
> >> >as he obviously wasn't looking at the solar system "in the right
way".
> >>
> >> 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
> >> modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
> >
> >I was making no such comparison - I was comparing YOU to Aristotelians.
>
> By comparing me to aristotelians arguing against galileo, you
Aristotelians were around since the time of Aristotle (384-322BC). Galileo
(1564-1642) came along nearly two millennia later. Why are you confounding
them?
Those who compare themselves to Galileo usually have some unsustainable
theory which is, often justifiably, ignored.
I don't have any such theory - I am questioning the current model and asking
questions which you find worthy of ignoring, minimising, or passing off as
the ignorance of the inquirer.
Odd how neatly packaged we find answerable questions. Someone asking, say,
about the CMBR will have no end of volunteers explaining the phenomena. Ask
a question that is a little embarrassing and attack seems to be the best
form of defence.
Bilge
text included above, [you know, that which is called context] let
me copy what you wrote down where you can see it, so you don't have
to strain your eyes (or your memory). YOU said:
``You would have made a great Aristotelian in earlier times, say
around the time of Galileo - you could have argued against him
as he obviously wasn't looking at the solar system "in the right...''
As soon as you figure out why _YOU_ were ``confounding them,''
you'll be able to answer your question, unless you need an
additional explanation as to why I replied to what you wrote,
rather than just pulled some random text of a hat.
>Those who compare themselves to Galileo usually have some unsustainable
>theory which is, often justifiably, ignored.
>
>I don't have any such theory - I am questioning the current model and asking
>questions which you find worthy of ignoring, minimising, or passing off as
>the ignorance of the inquirer.
You are doing no such thing, regardless of how clever you think your
facade is. If you were serious about ``questioning the model,'' I would
think the most important priority would be to understand the model, so
that you would actually be in a position to question it. Understanding the
model isn't a priority for you, however. You simply looked for additional
opportunities to digress on things you could have tried answering
yourself. What you are doing is trying to force everyone else to accept
your misconceptions _as_ the model, so you can validate your bias.
>Odd how neatly packaged we find answerable questions.
Why is that odd? I can neatly package unanswerable questions, too.
I'm sure I can come up with answerable and unanswerable questions
that can't be neatly packaged. What does that have to do with anything?
>Someone asking, say,
>about the CMBR will have no end of volunteers explaining the phenomena. Ask
>a question that is a little embarrassing and attack seems to be the best
>form of defence.
We'll have to wait until you ask an embarassing question to
find the answer to that.
Robert Karl Stonjek
Galileo
> >(1564-1642) came along nearly two millennia later. Why are you
confounding
> >them?
>
> Because that is what _YOU_ wrote. Since you can't seem to read the
> text included above, [you know, that which is called context] let
> me copy what you wrote down where you can see it, so you don't have
> to strain your eyes (or your memory). YOU said:
>
> ``You would have made a great Aristotelian in earlier times, say
> around the time of Galileo - you could have argued against him
> as he obviously wasn't looking at the solar system "in the right...''
>
> As soon as you figure out why _YOU_ were ``confounding them,''
> you'll be able to answer your question, unless you need an
> additional explanation as to why I replied to what you wrote,
> rather than just pulled some random text of a hat.
>
RKS:
Your quote clearly shows that I gave Galileo as an example vis "**say**
around the time of Galileo" and I no way compared myself to Galileo, as you
erroneously stated. I suggested the time of Galileo only because the
attitude of the Aristotelians at the time is generally well known.
I only mentioned the Aristotelians in the hope that this would prompt you to
offer a scientific answer to the question I asked. You have offered
childish analogies and suggested that I study the model well enough that I
can formulate an answer which is currently not forthcoming from the
proponents of the model.
> >Those who compare themselves to Galileo usually have some unsustainable
> >theory which is, often justifiably, ignored.
> >
> >I don't have any such theory - I am questioning the current model and
asking
> >questions which you find worthy of ignoring, minimising, or passing off
as
> >the ignorance of the inquirer.
>
> You are doing no such thing, regardless of how clever you think your
> facade is. If you were serious about ``questioning the model,'' I would
> think the most important priority would be to understand the model, so
> that you would actually be in a position to question it. Understanding the
> model isn't a priority for you, however. You simply looked for additional
> opportunities to digress on things you could have tried answering
> yourself. What you are doing is trying to force everyone else to accept
> your misconceptions _as_ the model, so you can validate your bias.
>
RKS:
Other Big Bang advocates have tried and failed to account for the phenomena
about which I am asking. You assume that the answer is already in current
theory, I am pointing out that it isn't. Still, you insist I study the
model so that I can do for myself what the model has failed to do
generally - to answer this question.
For instance Ben Rudiak-Gould also assumed that there was an answer to this
question, but when he calculated it out he found that his assumption was
wrong. Here is what he said:
I wasn't able to find a good web site for this, but we can work it out
ourselves. The FRW metric at the critical density is
ds^2 = dt^2 - a(t)^2 (dr^2 + r^2 dOmega^2)
It'll be easiest to place the earth at r=0 and measure time in units of 13.7
Gyr, so t=1 is now and t=0 is the big bang. a(t) is normalized so that a(1)
= 1. I *think* the expansion has been roughly linear since the CMBR era, so
we can take a(t) = t.
For the past light cone we have ds^2 = 0 and so dr/dt = 1/a(t). Integrating,
we get
r(t) = integral { 1 to t } (dT / a(T)) = ln (1/t)
To convert this to a physical (metric) distance R, we multiply it by the
scale factor for the appropriate era, which gives
R(t) = r(t) a(t) = t ln (1/t).
This is the radius of the egg (in units of 13.7 Gly) as a function of cosmic
time. If you plot it it actually does look sort of like an egg, with a
maximum at t=1/e, which is 13.7(1-1/e) = 8.7 billion years ago. This is
obviously where the figure you quoted comes from.
I was wrong last time: we have seen far beyond this. I think galaxies have
been seen at a redshift of z~10, which corresponds to t~0.1 (z+1 = 1/a(t)).
The angular size should be about the same as that of a galaxy at t ~ 0.75,
or z ~ 1/3 (since R(0.1) ~ R(0.75)), and around twice the angular size of a
galaxy at t=1/e. Galaxy sizes vary by much more than a factor of two, and I
don't know whether we can see the whole of the high-z galaxies or just the
core, and I don't know how accurately things like a(t) are known, so I
suspect there's not enough data yet to test this prediction, but I really
don't know. At this point you should probably ask over in sci.astro.
> >Odd how neatly packaged we find answerable questions.
>
> Why is that odd? I can neatly package unanswerable questions, too.
> I'm sure I can come up with answerable and unanswerable questions
> that can't be neatly packaged. What does that have to do with anything?
>
Bilge - adjust your glasses - I said "answerable questions" not
"unanswerable". Even so, I meant to say:
"Odd how neatly packaged we find answers to answerable questions."
..to contrast this to the unanswerable (thus far) question of why the
universe does not show any indication of decreasing size with viewing
distance (the greater the viewing distance, the earlier the universe was at
the time the light from that great distance was emitted).
I am not aware of any such data, and you have offered no reason whatsoever
why this should be so, except to attempt to throw me off the track with
raison bread or spotted balloon analogues, which fail to answer the question
even by analogue.
If you actually have an answer to this question then you are yet to share it
with us - why?
> >Someone asking, say,
> >about the CMBR will have no end of volunteers explaining the phenomena.
Ask
> >a question that is a little embarrassing and attack seems to be the best
> >form of defence.
>
> We'll have to wait until you ask an embarassing question to
> find the answer to that.
>
RKS:
Was the universe, or our region of the universe, smaller than it currently
is at the time of the big bang?
Why is there no sign of a reduction in the overall size of the universe (or
our region of the universe - that part that is currently expanding and was
smaller and denser at the time of the big bang) as we view light that comes
from a period ever closer to the time of the big bang? We currently see
objects as they were just a couple of billion years after the big bang - why
is there no sign that the universe was smaller than its current size at that
time?
At what distance or age of the universe should we detect some indication of
ever smaller size as we peer ever further back in time and what are the
observational indications of this reduction in size?
Bilge
>Galileo
>> >(1564-1642) came along nearly two millennia later. Why are you
>confounding
>> >them?
>>
>> Because that is what _YOU_ wrote. Since you can't seem to read the
>> text included above, [you know, that which is called context] let
>> me copy what you wrote down where you can see it, so you don't have
>> to strain your eyes (or your memory). YOU said:
>>
>> ``You would have made a great Aristotelian in earlier times, say
>> around the time of Galileo - you could have argued against him
>> as he obviously wasn't looking at the solar system "in the right...''
>>
>> As soon as you figure out why _YOU_ were ``confounding them,''
>> you'll be able to answer your question, unless you need an
>> additional explanation as to why I replied to what you wrote,
>> rather than just pulled some random text of a hat.
>>
>
>RKS:
>Your quote clearly shows that I gave Galileo as an example vis "**say**
>around the time of Galileo" and I no way compared myself to Galileo, as you
>erroneously stated.
If you don't like the way I interpret your extraneous comments,
dont post them and stick to the subject instead. Either that, or
go to a great deal of effort to insure that anything you plan to
use as a strawman or insult has been worded so carefully that
it wont be turned around on you. As far as I'm concerned, if you
want me to confine my replies to physics, then post physics. If
want to be an asshole, you ought to plan on being a better at it
than I am, unless youre just a glutton for abuse.
Robert Karl Stonjek
I must remember your technique when next I wish to avoid a question I can't
answer.... it's unsubtle, but effective :)
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrndhle3u....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> >RKS:
>> >Your quote clearly shows that I gave Galileo as an example vis "**say**
>> >around the time of Galileo" and I no way compared myself to Galileo, as
>you
>> >erroneously stated.
>>
>> If you don't like the way I interpret your extraneous comments,
>> dont post them and stick to the subject instead. Either that, or
>> go to a great deal of effort to insure that anything you plan to
>> use as a strawman or insult has been worded so carefully that
>> it wont be turned around on you. As far as I'm concerned, if you
>> want me to confine my replies to physics, then post physics. If
>> want to be an asshole, you ought to plan on being a better at it
>> than I am, unless youre just a glutton for abuse.
>>
>
>I must remember your technique when next I wish to avoid a question I can't
>answer.... it's unsubtle, but effective :)
My guess is that you'll remember that better than you remember that
I answered your question.
donsto...@hotmail.com
who have free will.
Amazing that people cannot jump up a level and realize that endless
negativity begets endless negativity. Just like the war in Iraq, just
like all wars, just like politics. A result of people with too much
time on their hands, filling it however they can, longing for the
Eternal Nothingness at the end of it.
What, Darlene? You say sci.phyics is beginning to wear a bit thin? OK,
darling, we can go over to alt.dig.a.hole.and.fill.it.back.in. It's a
lot more interesting.
Robert Karl Stonjek
No you didn't - you gave this goofy speckled balloon thing, which answers
nothing and is not even consistent with observation with regard to the
phenomena I'm asking about. You seem incapable of comprehending the
problem, let alone offering a hypothesis to account for it. The balloon
doesn't cut it.
Bilge
>No you didn't - you gave this goofy speckled balloon thing, which answers
>nothing and is not even consistent with observation with regard to the
tell me what issue you have with that picture?
>phenomena I'm asking about. You seem incapable of comprehending the
>problem, let alone offering a hypothesis to account for it. The balloon
>doesn't cut it.
And the reason for that is what? You picture the same thing if
the additional spatial domension is included? All you've done
is digress on irrelevant tangents and avoid the answer to your
question. I repeat, you really didnt want the answer to question.
brian a m stuckless
The GR TEST mass, quite LiTERALLY is a POiNT-like SYNONYM.!!
GRAViTATiONAL CENTRO-SYMMENTRY is SiMPLY purely EUCLiDEAN.!!
GR TEST masses falling together DO NOT ATTRACT each other.!!
GR TEST masses ..with NO field, DO NOT ATTRACT each other.!!
The PLANCK mass HAS a field, so, ALL PLANCK mass ATTRACTs.!!
GR TEST masses falling, in PAiR, will intersect at CENTER.!!
PLANCK masses falling, in PAiR, shall do so ..BEFORE that.!!
Hope THiS helps, ```Brian
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Bilge wrote:
> Robert Karl Stonjek:
> >No you didn't - you gave this goofy speckled balloon thing,
>
> Then why have you digressed on these irrelevant tangents
> rather than tell me what issue you have with that picture?
All PLANCK SPOTs on COLLAPSiNG BUBBLEs get closer TOGETHER.!!
Robert Karl Stonjek
You really don't have an answer to offer, which is why you are avoiding
answering. Others have offered answers and even calculated out their
hypothesis, but not you. I wonder why?