We ARE at the center of mass of the universe!
Jonathan Doolin
Here is some technical information.
The furthest galaxy has a redshift of 5.34.
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/apod/ap980324.html
The velocity relation with redshift is given at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/doppler.html
(Note, this gives frequency proportion, take reciprocal to get wavelength
proportion.)
Meaning that the furthest galaxy is receding at about 93.23% of the speed of
light.
And the particles from which the CBR is coming from must be receding faster.
Cosmic Background Radiation is 2.735 Kelvin:
http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/note/shikumi/E/shi105_housya_e.html
Frequncy and temperature are directly proportional.
I'm getting this info from a textbook which would not divulge the actual
equation, but did mention that
Wavelength*Temperature=2.898E-3 meterdegreeKelvins=Wein's constant .
(textbooks are usually designed not to teach but to frustrate students and
obscure information.)
Irregularities in the CBR are one in one-hundred-thousand. Accurate
to1/100,000 or the .00001
http://www.physicscentral.com/action/action-01-4c.html
This means that across the sky, CMR is between 2.73499K and 2.73501K
However, Assuming that the earth is not at the exact center of the universe,
one end of the universe must be moving away from us faster than the other
end.
In the chart below, v/c is portion of speed of light, w'/w is the difference
in wavelengths, and f'/f is difference in frequency.
v/c w'/w f'/f
0.9323 5.34248046219373 0.187178971842113
0.9324 5.34656888261697 0.187035839611316
0.9325 5.35066627903756 0.186892612592515
0.9326 5.35477268466655 0.186749290565314
0.9327 5.35888813288749 0.186605873308495
0.9328 5.36301265725755 0.186462360600014
0.9329 5.36714629150874 0.186318752216999
0.933 5.37128906954901 0.186175047935739
It gets worse :
0.9999 141.417820659198 0.00707124459519067
0.99999 447.212477465497 0.00223607356768607
0.999999 1414.21320880715 0.000707106957969565
0.9999999 4472.13584446251 0.000223606803276833
0.99999999 14142.1355489482 0.0000707106784925684
0.999999999 44721.360182399 0.0000223606794587963
In order for the CMR to be between 2.73499K and 2.73501K
the velocities of the furthest particles must be within .0001c of each
other.
Or even closer if the particles are faster.
Thus we must be VERY near the center of the universe.
What error have I made?
hanson
let me cross post it and let the fun begin.
hanson
"Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wtIF7.17118$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
radiationman
> This is a cool post.
> let me cross post it and let the fun begin.
> hanson
>
> "Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:wtIF7.17118$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Please help me find my error.
> >[snipped red shift and universal expansion stuff]
> > What error have I made?
> >
> >
> >
> >
You are *a* center of the universe, from your point of view.
Mark Fergerson
>
> Please help me find my error.
<snip to the crash>
> Thus we must be VERY near the center of the universe.
>
> What error have I made?
None. But remember, the CBR looks the same from
everywhere, so the center is everywhere.
Feel better now?
Mark L. Fergerson
George Dishman
news:sTJF7.17469$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> This is a cool post.
> let me cross post it and let the fun begin.
> hanson
>
> "Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:wtIF7.17118$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Please help me find my error.
> >
> > In order for the CMR to be between 2.73499K and 2.73501K
> > the velocities of the furthest particles must be within
> > .0001c of each other.
> > Or even closer if the particles are faster.
In fact there is a slight difference. Look up "dipole
anisotropy" in the search engines.
> > Thus we must be VERY near the center of the universe.
> >
> > What error have I made?
Go outside on a foggy night when, say, you cansee 100m in
every direction. Now walk 50m forward. You can still see
100m in every direction. It doesn't matter where you are,
you seem to be in the centre of a circle.
It is the same with the CMBR. The distance you can see is
how far the light from that hot early period has travelled
in the time since the universe became transparent.
--
George Dishman
The arrow of time points in many directions.
Paul Schlyter
That's called the "ego-centric worldview".... :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch
Rushtown
>From: "hanson" han...@quick.net
>Date: 11/5/2001 8:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <sTJF7.17469$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Everyone is the center of the universe. Think of spots on a balloon being
inflated, or raisins in an expanding three dimensional fruit cake that is
expanding into a 4th dimension (not that the universe is so expanding)
Uncle Al
>
> Please help me find my error.
*Every* point in the universe is at the *exact* center. Every 4(pi)
steradian direction you look is pointed directly at and equidistant
from the Big Bang. Ain't geometry grand?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Jonathan Doolin
"radiationman" <bun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BE784B0...@hotmail.com...
>
> You are *a* center of the universe, from your point of view.
>
Are you talking about the "geometric center" or the "center of mass?" It is
quite simple to establish that every particle is at the geometric center of
the universe. But I have not yet heard any arguments that suggest that
convince me that every particle is at the center of mass of the universe.
hanson
news:1005031018.15469....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > "Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:wtIF7.17118$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > Thus we must be VERY near the center of the universe.
> > >
> Go outside on a foggy night when, say, you cansee 100m in
> every direction. Now walk 50m forward. You can still see
> 100m in every direction. It doesn't matter where you are,
> you seem to be in the centre of a circle.
George: ........right ! ........ especially, if you spread your "fog" far
beyond the reaches of the observable universe. In this case we don't need
the expansion of space, don't need the Big Bag, don't need a point of
origin, don't need to wonder about flatness of space, etc, etc.
All we need to do is to reinterpret our plethora of astro/cosmo
measurements and data and resynthesize it into an updated modernized,
static cosmology, where there is One universe in normal large scale flat 3D
space, which reaches much, much farther then the observable limits, where
the observed “edge” is simply the distance , no matter wherefrom it is
measured, from which the photon energy has weakened to the point where it
is the same as the background energy, (your fog barrier), and can no
longer be distinguished from the back ground, hence the apparent, yet not
real limit of a flat 3D Universe, but denoting OUR LIT UP SPHERE in the
grand, infinite and eternal cosmic fog …
I think an update to an eternal, infinite and static cosmos describes
nature at large in a more palatable way, certainly preferable over the
current story which is essentially nothing more than a convoluted rewrite
of the biblical fantasy which says: ”Let there be light.
It is interesting to note that ever since Gamov and cronies promulgated
their “Let there be light” BBT, the grants for astronomy and astrophysics
flowed much more freely…….. “and the pope and his bible beating flock
smiled benignly and saw that it was good and threw a purse full of shekels
their way……and God was pleased that his children obeyed and did his
will…….” Right? Right. Of course. Right. Right?
hanson
> It is the same with the CMBR. The distance you can see is
> how far the light from that hot early period has travelled
> in the time since the universe became transparent.
> --
> George Dishman
> The arrow of time points in many directions.
Be radical and do physics:
Duality when expressed pathologically aberrant, turns into Relativity.
Jonathan Doolin
As indicated by the picture
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/images/cobe.jpg
We are close to the gravitational center of the universe, but not actually
AT it.
However, the color scheme has me confused. The blue is bigger than the
red...
I think the larger section should be red-shifted.
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1005031018.15469....@news.demon.co.uk...
VApoll'uan
What will you folks ever think of next?
Search Result 1
From: Mikal 606 (mika...@ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Red Shift (Was Re: Who created God?)
Newsgroups: alt.bible, talk.religion.misc, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet
View: Complete Thread (73 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-01-14 10:02:03 PST
"Pastor Dave" <pcd...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gri36tktsdvh30vk8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:21:04 -0500, "Rodney Dunning"
> <dunn...@wfu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> How is it that we are only on ``one side" of a shifted spectrum?
> >> It seems to me that the entire universe cannot be moving away from us
in the
> >> same direction to cause red shift-shouldnt some of it be blueshifted as
> >> well?If everything is moving away from everything else this makes
sense.
> >> _L_
> >
> >Correct- everything is moving away from everything else. Something that
may
> >help you visualize it: get a ballon and make marks on the surface with a
> >magic marker. As you blow up the ballon, no two marks will get closer
> >together. I.e., every mark will recede from every other mark.
>
> The universe is not a balloon.
>
What you want to do now is somehow prove that the big bang happened here
around earth, which would explain whay everything is supposedly receding
from us[redshifted] and explain why those lil aliens find this planet such a
jewell of real estate.
Maybe we are the center of the universe-for a reason.
Hoping to make you think,
Apollyon
<snip religious stuff>
Jonathan Doolin <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gnVF7.20325$hZ.18...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Bart P. Jaszcz
you don't make the obvious conclusions from the observations. 1) the
universe is infinite 2) there are galaxies beyond the light wall that
are receding away from us faster than light speed..
--bart
Bill Hewitt
"VApoll'uan" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9s9825$nlv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > <snip some stuff>
> "Pastor Dave" <pcd...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:gri36tktsdvh30vk8...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:21:04 -0500, "Rodney Dunning"
> > <dunn...@wfu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >> How is it that we are only on ``one side" of a shifted spectrum?
> > >> It seems to me that the entire universe cannot be moving away from us
> in the
> > >> same direction to cause red shift-shouldnt some of it be blueshifted
as
> > >> well?If everything is moving away from everything else this makes
> sense.
> > >> _L_
> > >
> > >Correct- everything is moving away from everything else. Something that
> may
> > >help you visualize it: get a ballon and make marks on the surface with
a
> > >magic marker. As you blow up the ballon, no two marks will get closer
> > >together. I.e., every mark will recede from every other mark.
> >
> > The universe is not a balloon.
Correct. The universe is not a balloon; it's a loaf of raisin bread!
Prepare the dough (the universe), and mix in 100 raisins (galaxies). Place
the dough lump into the bread pan. The 100 raisins are evenly distributed
within the dough, which sits as a lump in the middle of the bread pan. As
the dough rises, the whole thing swells towards the edges of the pan.
After one hour (several billion years), the length, width, and height of the
dough lump have all increased (expansion of the universe), yet all 100
raisins are still evenly distributed throughout the dough. Every one of
those raisins has moved further from its neighboring raisins. The raisins
near the center-bottom of the lump haven't moved very far (relative to the
pan), but the raisins near the edge have moved several inches (relative to
the pan). However, every raisin has moved away from every other raisin. The
greater the distance between any two raisins at the start, the further
they've moved apart during that one hour of rising. Any two adjacent raisins
have moved at a speed of perhaps 1/4" per hour, while any two raisins
situated at opposite sides of the loaf have moved at a speed of several
inches per hour. (An exception is the case of several raisins stuck together
in a clump -- they will likely remain a clump as the rest of the raisin
bread rises away from them.)
We've observed, and measured, the very same phenomenon in our expanding
universe. The universe expands. In general, every galaxy moves away from
every other galaxy (excluding local clumps of galaxies, such as our Local
Group), producing a red shift in whichever direction you look. And, the
greater the distance between two galaxies, the faster they are moving away
from each other, and the greater the red shift (i.e. Hubble's Constant). A
galaxy 1/2 billion light years away from us will appear slightly red
shifted, but a galaxy 8 billion light years away will appear extremely red
shifted.
>
> What you want to do now is somehow prove that the big bang happened here
> around earth, which would explain whay everything is supposedly receding
> from us[redshifted] and explain why those lil aliens find this planet such
a
> jewell of real estate.
> Maybe we are the center of the universe-for a reason.
> Hoping to make you think,
> Apollyon
>
The big bang did indeed happen near Earth. It also happened everywhere else,
too! (Referring to the raisin bread model, every molecule of dough
experiences the same rising effect as every other molecule of dough. The
dough rises everywhere through itself at the same time.) The big bang
occurred, and expansion still occurs, evenly through the entire universe in
the same way everywhere.
> <snip religious stuff>
<snip other stuff>
Darrin A. Yarbrough
"Bill Hewitt" <billh...@tiny.net> wrote in message
news:W33G7.324$H7.3...@ruti.visi.com...
Bill Hewitt
It's mass? It's matter (i.e. the number of atoms it contains)? Its length
(or width, or height, or age)? Or, simply that it has no edge? (However, the
surface of the earth has no edge, yet it has a finite surface area.) I've
always been unclear just what is meant by the "infinite universe".
2) Couldn't there be galaxies receding away from us faster than light speed,
yet we can still see them (or, more specifically, we can see them as they
were in their distant youth)? I suppose if we could, it would indicate an
increasing rate of expansion, not a steady rate of expansion. Do you agree?
...Bill
"Bart P. Jaszcz" <fres...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a0907de9.01110...@posting.google.com...
Bill Hewitt
"Darrin A. Yarbrough" <dda...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:8i3G7.36$Ox1....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...<snip>
> > > > The universe is not a balloon.
> >
> > Correct. The universe is not a balloon; it's a loaf of raisin bread!
> >
> >
> Darrin: Was the bread good?
>
I was waiting for it to cool, and it suddenly collapsed back into a
singularity! Now wasn't that odd! --Bill
Maury Markowitz
news:wtIF7.17118$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
There is none that I can see (didn't bother running the numbers). We are
at the center of mass of the universe. Of course we are. In three space
anyway. What led you to believe otherwise?
The big bang occured at the tip of my nose. Your nose too.
Want a good book on this? Cosmic Horizons. Small, quick to read, TEACHES
and reads nicely too. Dated, but that's OK.
Maury
G=EMC^2 Glazier
would still have the effect that we are in the center. When astronomers
look for the beginning of the BB they look out as far as possible in all
directions. That shows that the BB was blown out to the horizon the
first trillionth of a second(Guth's theory) So the horizon is the center
of the universe,and the rest of the universe is losing out trying to
keep up with the still accelerating speed it got from the BB. Tricky
stuff Best regards to all Herb
Bart P. Jaszcz
> 1) You said the universe is infinite. What exactly is it that's infinite?
> It's mass? It's matter (i.e. the number of atoms it contains)? Its length
> (or width, or height, or age)? Or, simply that it has no edge? (However, the
> surface of the earth has no edge, yet it has a finite surface area.) I've
> always been unclear just what is meant by the "infinite universe".
>
Hrm, you're bringing up this curved space idea again, and using
two dimensional surface as an analogy for 3D space. This is one of
those comparing apples and oranges, not to mention the fact that
there is no real 2D or 1D, it's an abstraction we make, and using
it to explain our fears of an inifinite universe is just that, an
irrational reaction to the facts, what reason I have no idea, because
what's so bad about infinity?
> 2) Couldn't there be galaxies receding away from us faster than light speed,
> yet we can still see them (or, more specifically, we can see them as they
> were in their distant youth)? I suppose if we could, it would indicate an
> increasing rate of expansion, not a steady rate of expansion. Do you agree?
>
Well, yes.. the doppler shift is increasing the further you look,
so it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that once it's 0.99 light
speed, eventually it's gonna be faster than light speed. Obviously
the galaxy
doesn't grind to a halt once it passes out of view.
I'm not sure what this means exactly, but ideas like "nothing
travels
faster than light" is not exactly true. Relative velocities can be
just
about anything, including infinite..
It also seems true that you can't travel faster than light though
local space, which gets into the trouble of defining local space. But
the
basic idea is that if you tried to accelerate to light speed you'd be
contained by the background radiation (the pressure of your visible
universe).
So maybe there is a limit on acceleration, not speed.
--bart
Jonathan Doolin
Thank you for your responses everyone. Especially thanks to George Dishman.
I would like to clarify that I already understand that we are at the
geometric center of the universe. The speed of light is the same in all
directions, and assuming the big bang and an age of the universe of
approximately 15 billion years, it is 15 billion light years from here in
each and every direction is the edge of a perfect spherical light wave front
expanding outward at the speed of light. We will NEVER see that wave unless
the gravitational force of the universe is strong enough to pull it back in.
My problem is different. Unless you assume the mass of the universe is
INFINITE,
there must be ONE particle which is further north (beyond the north star)
than any other particle
(as measured from earth), and ONE particle which is further south than any
other particle. From their own perspective, those particles are STILL at
the geometric
center of the universe, but they are NOT at the Center Of Mass, but at the
very
EDGE of MASS.
If the earth were at the exact center of mass of the universe, this would be
an
extremely surprising discovery, but the COBE Satellite
(http://space.gsfc.nasa.gov/astro/cobe/cobe_home.html) has already found
that
we are not at the center of mass of the universe.
It is perhaps old news, but it is still interesting.
George Dishman asked me to look up dipole anisotropy, and I did.
I found these pages enlightening.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123/lecture-1/cmbr.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_04.htm
These pages told me that the CBT was not 2.735 within 1/100,000, but instead
it was 2.735 within 12/10,000.
In other words, CBT ranged between 2.723K and 2.727 K.
which means that the blackbody radiation at one end of the sky has a
frequency
0.2% faster than the other. Which means that we are within .002d of the
center of
mass of the universe, where d is the diameter of the universe, but we are
not AT the
center of mass of the universe.
Thank you,
Jonathan Doolin
(P.S. Please look at my Flash 5 Relativity demonstrations:
http://home.earthlink.net/~spencerdoolin/relativity/wavereflect.htm
Any feedback is appreciated.)
Joe Fischer
Jonathan Doolin <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
: My conclusions:
:
:[snip]
:
: Any feedback is appreciated.)
It gets worser and worser. :-)
Joe Fischer
--
3
Uncle Al
[snip]
> My problem is different. Unless you assume the mass of the universe is
> INFINITE,
> there must be ONE particle which is further north (beyond the north star)
> than any other particle
> (as measured from earth), and ONE particle which is further south than any
> other particle. From their own perspective, those particles are STILL at
> the geometric
> center of the universe, but they are NOT at the Center Of Mass, but at the
> very
> EDGE of MASS.
Bullshit. All points in your universe are at its center. All points
are equidistant from the Big Bang. All four(pi) steradian directions
point exactly at the Big Bang. That is how the geometry is plumbed.
Pookie pookie.
[snip]
> In other words, CBT ranged between 2.723K and 2.727 K.
> which means that the blackbody radiation at one end of the sky has a
> frequency
> 0.2% faster than the other. Which means that we are within .002d of the
> center of
> mass of the universe, where d is the diameter of the universe, but we are
> not AT the
> center of mass of the universe.
You don't know what you are talking about. Might the tiny glimmer
enter your fevered brain that if there were such a justifiable
explanation for the observation, vast numbers of more educated
professionals would be rushing to publish?
My forebears at the turn of the century in Eastern Europe were hyped
with the spew that "America's streets are paved with GOLD!" My great
grandfather ran home to my great grandmother and couldn't stop
jabbering, "The streets are paved! The streets are paved!" Things
went downhill from there.
Bill Hewitt
You didn't respond to a single thing I wrote.
...Bill
"Bart P. Jaszcz" <fres...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a0907de9.01110...@posting.google.com...
Jonathan Doolin
obvious?
How does everybody else explain the dipole anisotropy phenomena?
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3BE9EBA8...@hate.spam.net...
Jonathan Doolin
You are correct. Even the particles at the edge of mass are at the
geometric center of the universe.
The universe looks much different from those places. It is smaller,
younger, and there's a big explosion off to ONE SIDE of you!
And I'd be happy to publish if I'm the first person to figure this out.
Lord knows it's better than collecting unemployment.
Except, if I could get help from this George Dishman guy. It was old news
to him, after all.
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3BE9EBA8...@hate.spam.net...
James Hunter
Jonathan Doolin wrote:
> Are you saying that the greatest minds overlooked something so simple and
> obvious?
The greatest minds obviously overlooked the ungreatness of their
minds, so anything is possible when you're working with simpletons
in a finite universe who believe pi to be a mysterious phenomoner.
George Dishman
I have tried to answer all your posts in one - soryy it is a
bit long as a result.
"Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:gnVF7.20325$hZ.18...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Thank YOU!
>
> As indicated by the picture
> http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/images/cobe.jpg
> We are close to the gravitational center of the universe, but not actually
> AT it.
No it doesn't. Think about what I said:
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1005031018.15469....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Go outside on a foggy night when, say, you cansee 100m in
> > every direction. Now walk 50m forward. You can still see
> > 100m in every direction. It doesn't matter where you are,
> > you seem to be in the centre of a circle.
Suppose the fog was a cloud of uniform density 100km in
diameter. Could you tell if the 100m radius patch you could
see was near the centre or just 500m from the edge? Every
observation you could make would be the same in both cases.
Where we are is the geometric centre and centre of mass of
the tiny fraction we can see, but the same could be said by
an alien living in a galaxy at the limits of our vision. He
would see other galaxies further on in that direction whose
light has not yet reached us, while we see some in the
opposite direction that he cannot. So it goes on:
X Us Alien A B C
|<-------------->|
Our limits of view
We can see X but the alien cannot. He can see A but we
cannot. An observer at A could see the alien and B and
another observer at B could see the galaxies at A and C.
Now I have to ask you to do something hard - try to change
the way you think of "the universe". Try to extend the
picture you have of the fog to something like a dust storm
on Mars. Imagine the fog covering the whole planet. Think
only of the surface of the planet - is there any point on
the surface that you could say was the centre of the fog?
Don't get misled by thinking about the center of the planet,
I am trying to draw a sort of 2D analogy to our 3D universe.
There is no point on the surface that is more central than
any other, and there is no location in the universe that is
more central than any other. Please try to understand what
I am saying here, especially if you disagree, or we will
end up arguing past each other.
What I have described (crudely) is called a closed universe
(no doubt any real cosmologists will be wincing at that but
it is close enough for the moment). The planet with the fog
has a finite surface area but no edge and by analogy the
universe would have a finite volume but no boundary and no
no centre. If you set off in any direction in a straight
line, you would eventually return to the starting point
and the patch of universe you could see would look basically
the same everywhere, always uniform and always with you at
the centre. On the other hand, you could also imagine that
the universe was infinite by thinking of the diagram above
and extending the chain of alien galaxies unendingly. All
volumes would have roughly the same number of galaxies at
large enough scales so the density is fairly uniform. That
is an open universe and again has no boundaries or centre.
The dividing line between these two possibilities is the
value of the density. At the moment, the best measurements
suggest the universe is in fact open but it seems likely
the value of density will be almost exactly on the critical
value.
> However, the color scheme has me confused. The blue is bigger than
> the red... I think the larger section should be red-shifted.
The distortions can be misleading when projections of a sphere
are involved and it depends on what shade of purple represents
zero shift. You also said in another post:
"Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:f6rG7.23535$S4.21...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> How does everybody else explain the dipole anisotropy phenomena?
The real analysis takes the dipole component and fits that
with the best value of proper motion for our galaxy. The
shift that would cause by Dopppler is calculated and
subtracted from the observations. What remains is shown in
the other diagrams. As you can see, it is hard to identify
any particular direction as being 'special' in those: the
mottled look is similar everywhere. That suggests that the
dipole is just due to our motion relative to the ancient
plasma that produced the CMBR. In other words, the areas are
equal and symmetrical about a line drawn from the reddest
point to the bluest, the line of our motion relative the gas.
This is not as trivial as it sounds. If the anisotropy had
some other cause, subtracting the Doppler effect could leave
rings centred about points of maximum shift. The curve of
the dipole component versus the angle from the apparent
direction of motion is an exact match for the Doppler effect.
"Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:OLkG7.23936$hZ.21...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> My conclusions:
>
> Thank you for your responses everyone. Especially thanks to George
Dishman.
> I would like to clarify that I already understand that we are at the
> geometric center of the universe. The speed of light is the same in all
> directions, and assuming the big bang and an age of the universe of
> approximately 15 billion years, it is 15 billion light years from here in
> each and every direction is the edge of a perfect spherical light wave
front
> expanding outward at the speed of light. We will NEVER see that wave
unless
> the gravitational force of the universe is strong enough to pull it back
in.
On the contrary, aliens in a galaxy far from here are seeing the
light that left our region 300,000 years after the BB and we are
seeing the light that left their region at that time. We call it
the CMBR, as I think you know.
> My problem is different. Unless you assume the mass of the universe is
> INFINITE,
> there must be ONE particle which is further north (beyond the north star)
> than any other particle
Well measurements suggest both volume and mass are infinite and
density is finite, but it is closed, just keep on going past more
particles until you get back here (it will take you longer than
the lifetime of the universe but that's another story). Either
way, there is no centre.
> (P.S. Please look at my Flash 5 Relativity demonstrations:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~spencerdoolin/relativity/wavereflect.htm
> Any feedback is appreciated.)
George Dishman
>
> Well measurements suggest both volume and mass are infinite and
> density is finite, but it is closed, just keep on going past more
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That should read "but IF it is closed ...". As I said,
measurement suggests it is not.
Bill Hewitt
from another post of mine (11/6 11:23pm)...
>> Regarding the universe being infinite... What exactly is it that's
infinite?
>> Its mass? Its matter (i.e. the number of atoms it contains)? Its length
>> (or width, or height, or age)? Or, simply that it has no edge? (However,
the
>> surface of the earth has no edge, yet it has a finite surface area.)
Also, please see other questions below.
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1005251915.25510....@news.demon.co.uk...
> Hi Jonathan,
>
<snip>
<snip>
I understand how you could start "here", and travel "straight" in one
direction all the way back to "here", but it might take trillions of years.
By then, "here" wouldn't be at the same place anymore. Does this make sense?
Isn't it true that we actually have no idea how far it really is all the way
straight "through" a closed universe and back to "here"? It could even be
some seemingly ridiculous distance, like 10^100 light years, couldn't it? I
think we have no idea how big, beyond the 15 billion light years, the
universe actually extends (due to inflation), correct?
Also, imagine you placed a "rubber meter stick" in the universe early in the
inflationary period, when it was not much larger than a meter in diameter.
Did it have infinite volume and matter then (yet a surface area of only a
few square meters)? Wouldn't that "rubber meter stick" still be only 1 meter
long today? (As measured at any local point, that is?)
I don't understand how volume and mass could be infinite (based on big bang
& inflation as assumed in this conversation). Is it infinite only when
measured in spacetime (4-dimension)?
Does it even make sense to speak of "diameter", "volume", "area", "distance
between galaxies", when measuring at the scale of the universe (billions of
light years)? Aren't these measurements misleading, because there are four
dimensions in every meaningful measurement at such large distances?
For example, we may say galaxy "x" is 12 billion light years from earth, but
it really isn't. Galaxy "x" isn't there anymore! It has either moved, or
disappeared, or evolved, or whatever, but it certainly isn't still the same
as what we are seeing right now in a telescope. We'd actually need two
dimensions: length (12 billion light years away), and time (12 billions
years past).
George, do you agree?
>snip>
Bart P. Jaszcz
> Bart,
> You didn't respond to a single thing I wrote.
> ...Bill
>
You're right, I reread your message, and I will try again.
>
> "Bart P. Jaszcz" <fres...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:a0907de9.01110...@posting.google.com...
> > "Bill Hewitt" <billh...@tiny.net> wrote in message
> news:<Jz3G7.402$H7.3...@ruti.visi.com>...
> > > 1) You said the universe is infinite. What exactly is it that's
> infinite?
> > > It's mass? It's matter (i.e. the number of atoms it contains)? Its
> length
> > > (or width, or height, or age)? Or, simply that it has no edge?
I think it's infinite both in mass, height, with, and has no edge.
I don't think it's curved, but actually someone else as one of the posters
mentioned, you could perform an experiment, by linking different localities to
see if it is linked back at some point.. I really doubt this is the case though.
> (However,
> the
> > > surface of the earth has no edge, yet it has a finite surface area.)
> I've
> > > always been unclear just what is meant by the "infinite universe".
> > >
Like I said before, I don't think it's helpful to make analogies between
dimensions. We know that the universe is 3 dimensional, and we should assume
there are no other dimensions, and the universe is continous and not "curved
back on itself", which would require a 4th spacial dimension which we have
no observation of.
All these concepts are the same thing basicly.. infinite means not
curved, and vice versa, 3-dimensions, etc..
> > > 2) Couldn't there be galaxies receding away from us faster than light
> speed,
> > > yet we can still see them (or, more specifically, we can see them as
> they
> > > were in their distant youth)?
Yes. What we're now seeing was happening in the past because light
is not instantanous. So some of the objects we see are "now" traveling
faster than light, if we could somehow be aware of them instananously.
> I suppose if we could, it would indicate
> an
> > > increasing rate of expansion, not a steady rate of expansion. Do you
> agree?
> > >
> >
I'm not sure how you're linking these ideas, why would the ability to
observe objects that are "now" traveling faster than light have any
impact on the ability to determine if the expansion is increasing or
decreasing or constant?
Anyway, this is a good question though, because there is no easy way
to determine if the expansion is constant or increasing or decreasing.
To do that, we'd have to have direct measurements of the age of a particular
galaxy, and compare it's doppler shift to it's age. But since we calculate
the age by how doppler shifted it is, we just don't know if that's correct
or not. It's the same with distance, it's also calculated from the doppler
shift.. The only way to really do this is take measurements and wait
billions of years and make another measurement.
--bart
Jonathan Doolin
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> I have tried to answer all your posts in one - soryy it is a
> bit long as a result.
>
> "Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message news:gnVF7.20325$hZ.18...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Thank YOU!
> >
> > As indicated by the picture
> > http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/images/cobe.jpg
> > We are close to the gravitational center of the universe, but not
actually
> > AT it.
>
> No it doesn't. Think about what I said:
>
> > "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1005031018.15469....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > Go outside on a foggy night when, say, you cansee 100m in
> > > every direction. Now walk 50m forward. You can still see
> > > 100m in every direction. It doesn't matter where you are,
> > > you seem to be in the centre of a circle.
>
> Suppose the fog was a cloud of uniform density 100km in
> diameter. Could you tell if the 100m radius patch you could
> see was near the centre or just 500m from the edge? Every
> observation you could make would be the same in both cases.
I suppose you are correct. We can only see to the edge of the visible
universe.
Curious that it appears as a wall of black-body radiation.
>
> Where we are is the geometric centre and centre of mass of
> the tiny fraction we can see, but the same could be said by
> an alien living in a galaxy at the limits of our vision. He
> would see other galaxies further on in that direction whose
> light has not yet reached us, while we see some in the
> opposite direction that he cannot. So it goes on:
>
> X Us Alien A B C
> |<-------------->|
> Our limits of view
>
> We can see X but the alien cannot. He can see A but we
> cannot. An observer at A could see the alien and B and
> another observer at B could see the galaxies at A and C.
>
I think I'll make it clear that I subscribe to the flat space-time model.
It's boring but simple.
CMR X Us Alien RD1 CMR A B C
FarPhoton| nothing
|<------------------------------------->|
Our limits of view
------------------------The
Universe--------------------------------------------->|
RD1 is the furthest known galaxy, CMR is the source of the Cosmic Microwave
Radiation.
A, B and C are regions that we believe to be filled with diffuse particles
at temperatures above 3000K
FarPhoton is a photon at the very edge of the explosion which created the
big bang.
Beyond that is pure nothingness extending for infinity (unless there are
other universes, created by other big bangs.)
> Now I have to ask you to do something hard - try to change
> the way you think of "the universe". Try to extend the
> picture you have of the fog to something like a dust storm
> on Mars. Imagine the fog covering the whole planet. Think
> only of the surface of the planet - is there any point on
> the surface that you could say was the centre of the fog?
> Don't get misled by thinking about the center of the planet,
> I am trying to draw a sort of 2D analogy to our 3D universe.
>
Okay, I did not realize you were into the wrap-around universe theory, but
I'll give it a shot.
Be warned, I will be looking for flaws. It makes for great sci-fi, but I
feel like ripping it up
with Occam's Razor.
> There is no point on the surface that is more central than
> any other, and there is no location in the universe that is
> more central than any other. Please try to understand what
> I am saying here, especially if you disagree, or we will
> end up arguing past each other.
>
I will, for the moment, suspend disbelief. I have been searching for the
source of the idea of a wraparound spacetime but I have not found it yet.
Maybe you know why people believe this wierd thing.
> What I have described (crudely) is called a closed universe
> (no doubt any real cosmologists will be wincing at that but
> it is close enough for the moment). The planet with the fog
> has a finite surface area but no edge and by analogy the
> universe would have a finite volume but no boundary and no
> no centre. If you set off in any direction in a straight
> line, you would eventually return to the starting point
> and the patch of universe you could see would look basically
> the same everywhere, always uniform and always with you at
> the centre. On the other hand, you could also imagine that
> the universe was infinite by thinking of the diagram above
> and extending the chain of alien galaxies unendingly. All
> volumes would have roughly the same number of galaxies at
> large enough scales so the density is fairly uniform. That
> is an open universe and again has no boundaries or centre.
>
This has always been the point that I have had trouble with.
The actual mass of the universe causes space-time to curve
all the way around into a sphere in your model?
> The dividing line between these two possibilities is the
> value of the density. At the moment, the best measurements
> suggest the universe is in fact open but it seems likely
> the value of density will be almost exactly on the critical
> value.
So you're saying if we've got the right amount of mass
at the proper densities, all around the universe, then
the universe will bend back around on itself,
no question, proven beyond all reasonable doubt?
Did this model come from the theory or did the theory
come from the model?
>
> > However, the color scheme has me confused. The blue is bigger than
> > the red... I think the larger section should be red-shifted.
>
> The distortions can be misleading when projections of a sphere
> are involved and it depends on what shade of purple represents
> zero shift. You also said in another post:
>
Yeah, it's a mercator projection.
I wasn't confused. There is still no doubt in my mind that we are traveling
with respect to the cosmic background radiation.
It's just that I'm starting now to think that this could be explained
by another phenomenon than I had originally thought.
For instance, the earth HAS been under a lot of acceleration since the
beginning of the universe.
I am very curious which section of the sky the red area in the picture
represents.
If it is straight toward the center of the milky-way then the difference in
redshift
probably can be explained by our fall towards the milky way.
If it is straight along the tangent of our path around the milky way, then
it should increase or
decrease as the earth circles the galaxy.
Hmmm. Even if my original idea was wrong, there is still something really
cool
about that anisotropy effect.
> "Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message news:f6rG7.23535$S4.21...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > How does everybody else explain the dipole anisotropy phenomena?
>
> The real analysis takes the dipole component and fits that
> with the best value of proper motion for our galaxy. The
> shift that would cause by Dopppler is calculated and
> subtracted from the observations. What remains is shown in
> the other diagrams. As you can see, it is hard to identify
> any particular direction as being 'special' in those: the
> mottled look is similar everywhere. That suggests that the
> dipole is just due to our motion relative to the ancient
> plasma that produced the CMBR. In other words, the areas are
> equal and symmetrical about a line drawn from the reddest
> point to the bluest, the line of our motion relative the gas.
>
> This is not as trivial as it sounds. If the anisotropy had
> some other cause, subtracting the Doppler effect could leave
> rings centred about points of maximum shift. The curve of
> the dipole component versus the angle from the apparent
> direction of motion is an exact match for the Doppler effect.
>
Grrr. This is what I wanted to hear a long time ago but
this cross-posting isn't what it's cracked up to be.
Sorry, I'm a newsgroup newbie.
Jonathan Doolin
I got it.
Occam's Razor seems to be edging over to destroy the flat universe theory.
I only need one more thing to be fully convinced.
Is the center of the milky-way completely stationary in the Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation?
Paul F. Dietz
> Is the center of the milky-way completely stationary in the Cosmic Microwave
> Background Radiation?
No.
Paul
Paul Mays
G=EMC^2 Glazier
it being infinite or finite will go on for another 2500 years.It could
have finite mass,and infinite area of space. A thought has come up that
if the universe is 25 billion light years in diameter it should be
considered infinite.(I don't like that) I go with Mach and Albert that
the universe is finite in both matter and area,even if its horizon is
increasing. I think the universe is revolving very fast,and we interpret
part of its angular motion as to its expansion. I feel the finite mass
of the universe gives all objects in it their inertia. I see the finite
mass of the universe giving light its constant speed of 186,000 mps in a
vacuum. If the universe was more massive light would be slower.Less and
light would be faster. Best regards to all Herb
Jonathan Doolin
For a full answer, I would like to see the Mercator projection of the
first-order dipole anisotropy, along with a star-chart of the galaxy, to
tell which stars are in the more and less red-shifted areas.
Along with that, I would like to know which way to look to see the center of
the galaxy and which way is in FRONT of us as we circle the galaxy.
If the curved-space-time model is correct AND the Milky Way has not COLLIDED
with other galaxies in the history of the universe, the dipole anisotropy
should match our direction of travel around the galaxy.
There should be no significant dipole anisotropy at the center of the
universe.
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
Jonathan Doolin
Paul Mays
To find an answer one must first find the question...
You seem to have the question... The rest is fully available...
Greg Neill
> Sorry I do need more information to convince me.
>
> For a full answer, I would like to see the Mercator projection of the
> first-order dipole anisotropy, along with a star-chart of the galaxy, to
> tell which stars are in the more and less red-shifted areas.
>
> Along with that, I would like to know which way to look to see the center
of
> the galaxy and which way is in FRONT of us as we circle the galaxy.
A trip to a good library will stand you in good stead. You may
also be able to locate some of what you want on the web. Good luck
in your research.
>
> If the curved-space-time model is correct AND the Milky Way has not
COLLIDED
> with other galaxies in the history of the universe, the dipole anisotropy
> should match our direction of travel around the galaxy.
Not necessarily. Gravity is a long range force, and can have
effects over long distances without necessarily involving any
collisions. Note, for example, that our galaxy is a member of
a cluster of galaxies with mutual orbits. Andromeda is currently
accelerating more or less towards us (and we towards it). See
also the Great Attractor, a supermassive supercluster of galaxies
which seem to be drawing our whole cluster towards it.
>
> There should be no significant dipole anisotropy at the center of the
> universe.
I don't see how this follows. Everywhere is the center, and
the anisotropy depends upon velocity, not position.
Jonathan Doolin
Trying not to "re-invent the the wheel" as they say.
I will do the research, but I will continue to check back here.
"Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PNTG7.27982$hZ.25...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Jonathan Doolin
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@MOVEnetcom.ca> wrote in message
news:HnUG7.10270$dJ3.6...@wagner.videotron.net...
A mis-statement on my part. We would not have needed to collide with
another galaxy YET to see observable effects of our acceleration towards it.
Bill Hewitt
rotation, look here...
http://www.maa.mhn.de/Messier/E/More/mw.html
...Bill
"Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_VVG7.28246$hZ.26...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
George Dishman
> George, I've got a few questions about this, if you don't mind. Repeating
> from another post of mine (11/6 11:23pm)...
> >> Regarding the universe being infinite... What exactly is it that's
> infinite?
> >> Its mass? Its matter (i.e. the number of atoms it contains)? Its length
For an open universe, mass, volume, length etc., number of
particles would all be infinite. It would have no edge or
centre. Beyond the limit of what we can observe would be
just more of the same on average. Of course there will be
some random variation similar to what we can see. The
structures of walls and sheets of galaxies interspersed
with void would also be universal. All that 'infinite'
means is that no matter how ar you go, there is always
more of the same further on.
>...(However, the
> >> surface of the earth has no edge, yet it has a finite surface area.)
For a closed universe, that would hold. No edge or centre
but finite volume.
I think of the distinction as analogous to an orbit: too
little energy and it is an ellipse with finite length.
More than enough and it is a hyperbola with infinite
length. At the critical energy the path is a parabola
which is also infinite in length. Density is the equivalent
key factor for the universe.
> Also, please see other questions below.
>
[big snip]
>
> I understand how you could start "here", and travel "straight" in one
> direction all the way back to "here", but it might take trillions of
years.
> By then, "here" wouldn't be at the same place anymore. Does this make
sense?
Certainly. IIRC, GR predicts that if you started moving
at the speed of light, you get all the way round at
exactly the moment the universe collapses in the 'big
crunch'.
> Isn't it true that we actually have no idea how far it really is all the
way
> straight "through" a closed universe and back to "here"? It could even be
> some seemingly ridiculous distance, like 10^100 light years, couldn't it?
I
> think we have no idea how big, beyond the 15 billion light years, the
> universe actually extends (due to inflation), correct?
Scientifically, I would say that we can never know the
answer to what lies beyond the region we can observe by
definition. However, we can infer from what we do see. I
think I remember seeing an estimate based on the
deceleration parameter that suggested the size would be at
least 10^92 times larger than the observed volume which
would be around 10^101 light years, but that it was more
likely to be very much larger than that. My memory may be
faulty on this though.
> Also, imagine you placed a "rubber meter stick" in the universe early in
the
> inflationary period, when it was not much larger than a meter in diameter.
> Did it have infinite volume and matter then (yet a surface area of only a
> few square meters)? Wouldn't that "rubber meter stick" still be only 1
meter
> long today? (As measured at any local point, that is?)
I have no real knowledge on the workings of the inflationary
period but AFAIK physical objects would not be affected by
expansion. Discussing the old question of why expansion does
not affect the size of galaxies, someone described it as the
remnant ballistic motion from the expansion of the early hot
gas. Your "rubber meter stick" would have been thrown away
from another similar stick some distance away, but would
not have been affected itself (okay, if it was rubber, it
would expand slightly as the pressure of the surrounding
plasma fell).
> I don't understand how volume and mass could be infinite (based on big
bang
> & inflation as assumed in this conversation). Is it infinite only when
> measured in spacetime (4-dimension)?
No, density is finite but varies with the age of the universe.
Volume is 3D and is infinite, and mass is infinite at any
particular age.
> Does it even make sense to speak of "diameter", "volume", "area",
"distance
> between galaxies", when measuring at the scale of the universe (billions
of
> light years)? Aren't these measurements misleading, because there are four
> dimensions in every meaningful measurement at such large distances?
We have to be very careful and I think most press releases you
see in sci.astro where I am reading this should be more careful
to qualify what they mean. Diameter and volume refer to the
small sphere we can see. Area usually refers to a solid angle
as in "the area of the Hubble Deep Field". Distances are
particularly difficult and the best way to discuss them is in
terms of the redshift 'z'. Ned Wright's tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
has an excellent section on distance at
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm
which may help. There is also a calculator for
translating distances at
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
Compare the angular size distance and luminosity distance
values to see the problem when press releases just give a
simple unqualified figure!
> For example, we may say galaxy "x" is 12 billion light years from earth,
but
> it really isn't. Galaxy "x" isn't there anymore! It has either moved, or
> disappeared, or evolved, or whatever, but it certainly isn't still the
same
> as what we are seeing right now in a telescope. We'd actually need two
> dimensions: length (12 billion light years away), and time (12 billions
> years past).
The most distant known object (from Ned's page) is at z=6.28.
Using H_0 = 72 (the best current measurement) and Omega_m = .3
and Omega_vac=0.7 (to give a flat universe) the calculator says
the light left the quasar 0.8 Gyr after the BB, the travel time
was 12.25 Gyr (age about 13.1 Gyr). Since then the distance has
as you say increased and the Hubble distance is now 27.3 Gyr.
See part 2 of Ned's tutorial for an explanation of Hubble
distance. At the time of course, the quasar was much closer to
our location. The diagram in the "Many Distances" paragraph at
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm#md
should explain it better than I can in words. Distance then,
distance now and light travel time are all different so there
are at least three involved, even using a single definition.
> George, do you agree?
Absolutely!
George Dishman
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1005251915.25510....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > diameter. Could you tell if the 100m radius patch you could
> > see was near the centre or just 500m from the edge? Every
> > observation you could make would be the same in both cases.
>
>
> I suppose you are correct. We can only see to the edge of the visible
> universe.
> Curious that it appears as a wall of black-body radiation.
Rather than do another ASCII art picture, I will borrow
this diagram
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/horizon.gif
The vertical scale is a slightly stretched version of the time
since the BB and the horizontal scale is similarly stretched
distance. The top of the red cone is us, now. The red lines are
paths of photons we can see from opposite ends of the visible
universe. The early universe was much denser and like the
surface of the Sun, opaque and glowing. As the universe matured,
the density and temperature fell until it became cool and
transparent. The blue line represents the time when that
happened. We see the CMBR coming from the intersection of the
red and blue lines in all directions. It peaks in the microwave
region since the gas at that distance was moving away at almost
the speed of light.
The diagram is taken from page three of this tutorial:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
by Prof. Ned Wright. It is probably the most often quoted on
this subject and really does explain things well if you take
the time to study it.
> > Where we are is the geometric centre and centre of mass of
> > the tiny fraction we can see, but the same could be said by
> > an alien living in a galaxy at the limits of our vision. He
> > would see other galaxies further on in that direction whose
> > light has not yet reached us, while we see some in the
> > opposite direction that he cannot. So it goes on:
> >
> > X Us Alien A B C
> > |<-------------->|
> > Our limits of view
> >
> > We can see X but the alien cannot. He can see A but we
> > cannot. An observer at A could see the alien and B and
> > another observer at B could see the galaxies at A and C.
> >
>
> I think I'll make it clear that I subscribe to the flat space-time model.
> It's boring but simple.
I think you may not mean the same as me by the term 'flat'. The
critical density, inifinite universe I was describing is also flat.
> CMR X Us Alien RD1 CMR A B C
> FarPhoton| nothing
> |<------------------------------------->|
> Our limits of view
> ------------------------The
> Universe--------------------------------------------->|
>
>
> RD1 is the furthest known galaxy, CMR is the source of the Cosmic
Microwave
> Radiation.
> A, B and C are regions that we believe to be filled with diffuse particles
> at temperatures above 3000K
A, B and C would be below the blue line in the above diagram.
> FarPhoton is a photon at the very edge of the explosion which created the
> big bang.
> Beyond that is pure nothingness extending for infinity (unless there are
> other universes, created by other big bangs.)
I understand what you say but it is not like any of the
currently proposed models. There is no reason from what we
observe to think there is a region of 'pure nothingness'
into which anything could extend. Of course there are large
'voids' inthe universe, areas emtpty of galaxies, but these
are just bubbles in the overall scheme of things.
> > Now I have to ask you to do something hard - try to change
> > the way you think of "the universe". Try to extend the
> > picture you have of the fog to something like a dust storm
> > on Mars. Imagine the fog covering the whole planet. Think
> > only of the surface of the planet - is there any point on
> > the surface that you could say was the centre of the fog?
> > Don't get misled by thinking about the center of the planet,
> > I am trying to draw a sort of 2D analogy to our 3D universe.
> >
>
> Okay, I did not realize you were into the wrap-around universe theory, but
> I'll give it a shot.
> Be warned, I will be looking for flaws. It makes for great sci-fi, but I
> feel like ripping it up
> with Occam's Razor.
Don't make the mistake of thinking I believe this represents
our universe. It is one of two possibilities which I described
only so you would see that neither has a center. As I said
later, the evidence suggests the universe is open, not closed.
> > There is no point on the surface that is more central than
> > any other, and there is no location in the universe that is
> > more central than any other. Please try to understand what
> > I am saying here, especially if you disagree, or we will
> > end up arguing past each other.
> >
>
> I will, for the moment, suspend disbelief. I have been searching for the
> source of the idea of a wraparound spacetime but I have not found it yet.
> Maybe you know why people believe this wierd thing.
General Relativity gives an equation for the amount by
which light is deflected when passing a mass. It is twice
what is predicted by the Newtonian law and was confirmed by
Eddington around 1920 (I forget the exact year). It also
explains gravitational lensing and we observe instances of
the 'Einstein Cross' so it is well supported. Use the search
engines to find more on these topics. If we apply that same
equation to the universe, GR predicts that there will be a
big crunch in the future and the universe wraps round if the
mean density is greater than a critical value. It predicts
the universe is open, infinite and no crunch, if the density
is less than critical. If the density is exactly on the
critical value, the universe is open and also flat! See
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#sc
for an explanation of what that means.
You said in a follow up:
"Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:CCNG7.26699$S4.24...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> *sigh* crap.
>
> I got it.
> Occam's Razor seems to be edging over to destroy the flat universe theory.
Not true, it is getting more likely that it is flat.
> I only need one more thing to be fully convinced.
>
> Is the center of the milky-way completely stationary in the Cosmic
Microwave
> Background Radiation?
See below, after the bits on curvature and anisotropy.
> > What I have described (crudely) is called a closed universe
> > (no doubt any real cosmologists will be wincing at that but
> > it is close enough for the moment). The planet with the fog
> > has a finite surface area but no edge and by analogy the
> > universe would have a finite volume but no boundary and no
> > no centre. If you set off in any direction in a straight
> > line, you would eventually return to the starting point
> > and the patch of universe you could see would look basically
> > the same everywhere, always uniform and always with you at
> > the centre. On the other hand, you could also imagine that
> > the universe was infinite by thinking of the diagram above
> > and extending the chain of alien galaxies unendingly. All
> > volumes would have roughly the same number of galaxies at
> > large enough scales so the density is fairly uniform. That
> > is an open universe and again has no boundaries or centre.
> >
>
> This has always been the point that I have had trouble with.
> The actual mass of the universe causes space-time to curve
> all the way around into a sphere in your model?
It could in theory but observation suggests there is not
enough to do this.
> > The dividing line between these two possibilities is the
> > value of the density. At the moment, the best measurements
> > suggest the universe is in fact open but it seems likely
> > the value of density will be almost exactly on the critical
> > value.
>
> So you're saying if we've got the right amount of mass
> at the proper densities, all around the universe, then
> the universe will bend back around on itself,
> no question, proven beyond all reasonable doubt?
> Did this model come from the theory or did the theory
> come from the model?
From a model which has been verified against thousands
of observations in a wide range of situations over the
last 80 years.
> > > However, the color scheme has me confused. The blue is bigger than
> > > the red... I think the larger section should be red-shifted.
> >
> > The distortions can be misleading when projections of a sphere
> > are involved and it depends on what shade of purple represents
> > zero shift. You also said in another post:
> >
>
> Yeah, it's a mercator projection. I wasn't confused.
I noticed your mention of your flash pages on relativity.
I haven't had a chance to look yet but consider what effect
transverse Doppler would had have on the diagram. In practice
I think the effect is too small to be visible but it is worth
a few moments thought.
> There is still no doubt in my mind that we are traveling
> with respect to the cosmic background radiation.
> It's just that I'm starting now to think that this could be explained
> by another phenomenon than I had originally thought.
> For instance, the earth HAS been under a lot of acceleration since the
> beginning of the universe.
> I am very curious which section of the sky the red area in the picture
> represents.
The Milky Way is the horizontal line across the centre. The
direction of maximum blue shift is well away from this.
> If it is straight toward the center of the milky-way then the difference
in
> redshift
> probably can be explained by our fall towards the milky way.
We are in orbit roughly around the centre of the Milky Way as are
all the other stars forming it (allowing for local disturbances
by other passing stars - a galaxy is a dynamic place). We orbit
about every 200 Myr IIRC and have gone round about 40 times since
the Sun formed.
The dipole anisotropy is caused by a combination of our orbital
speed around the centre of the Milky Way, the galaxy's motion
within the local cluster of galaxies, the motion of the cluster
towards something called the Great Attractor and any motion that
might have relative to the CMBR. Use the search engines for more
on these topics.
> If it is straight along the tangent of our path around the milky way, then
> it should increase or
> decrease as the earth circles the galaxy.
I am sure it does. Check back with me in 100 million years.
I am reading the thread in sci.astro which is probably
where you will find most relevant information.
George Dishman
news:KwUF7.18543$S4.17...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...> news:1005031018.15469....@news.demon.co.uk...> > > news:wtIF7.17118$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > Thus we must be VERY near the center of the universe.
> > > >
>
> > Go outside on a foggy night when, say, you cansee 100m in
> > every direction. Now walk 50m forward. You can still see
> > 100m in every direction. It doesn't matter where you are,
> > you seem to be in the centre of a circle.
>
> beyond the reaches of the observable universe. In this case we don't need
> the expansion of space, don't need the Big Bag, don't need a point of
> origin, don't need to wonder about flatness of space, etc, etc.
Expansion explains the redshift of the CMBR and of nearby galaxies
supernovae and everything else we see. The question of flatness
comes from the observation of the bending of light by the Sun as
described by the equations of GR.
> All we need to do is to reinterpret our plethora of astro/cosmo
> measurements and data and resynthesize it into an updated modernized,
> static cosmology, where there is One universe in normal large scale flat
3D
> space, which reaches much, much farther then the observable limits, where
> the observed “edge” is simply the distance , no matter wherefrom it is
> measured, from which the photon energy has weakened to the point where it
> is the same as the background energy, (your fog barrier), and can no
> longer be distinguished from the back ground, hence the apparent, yet not
> real limit of a flat 3D Universe, but denoting OUR LIT UP SPHERE in the
> grand, infinite and eternal cosmic fog …
There are other indicators that distant objects are moving away
from us. The Doppler effect caused by that motion matches the
observed redshift extremely well so there is no need for further
energy loss by photons. See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382
for example.
> I think an update to an eternal, infinite and static cosmos describes
> nature at large in a more palatable way, certainly preferable over the
> current story which is essentially nothing more than a convoluted rewrite
> of the biblical fantasy which says: ”Let there be light.
The BB describes the expansion of the universe from a moment after
the start. "The First Three Minutes" is an old but good book to read
on this. For a description of earlier times, we will have to wait for
a workable theory of quantum gravity before we can make any predictions.
> It is interesting to note that ever since Gamov and cronies promulgated
> their “Let there be light” BBT, the grants for astronomy and astrophysics
> flowed much more freely…….. “and the pope and his bible beating flock
> smiled benignly and saw that it was good and threw a purse full of shekels
> their way……and God was pleased that his children obeyed and did his
> will…….” Right? Right. Of course. Right. Right?
Your rant suggests to me only that you cannot find any real flaws
in the observations or the theory to which they point. The values
obtained by measurements are not dependent on the source of funds.
If you want to criticise, show where the errors lie in the paper
I cited above.
Paul F. Dietz
> If the curved-space-time model is correct AND the Milky Way has not COLLIDED
> with other galaxies in the history of the universe, the dipole anisotropy
> should match our direction of travel around the galaxy.
This is not the case. The Milky Way can be moving w.r.t.
the CMB without having actually collided with anything
(it could have been accelerated by the gravity of
large masses, like superclusters, at considerable distance.)
Paul
Bill Hewitt
all of this. --Bill
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1005386053.16956....@news.demon.co.uk...
Jonathan Doolin
Sorry I haven't responded sooner, because I've been focused on putting a new
demo on my website
http://home.earthlink.net/~spencerdoolin/relativity/wavereflect.htm
(Shameless plug)
You have a lot of really helpful information here. And I wanted to clarify
that I didn't know
that "flat" universe had a different technical meaning. It is apparently
different than what I meant
though I am still not quite clear on what it is.
My working definition until I experienced the vertigo of comprehending the
curved universe was
that the diameter of the universe equals 2*Age*c, where Age=the Age of the
universe, and c is
the speed of light. I figured since everything came from the same place at
the same time, and nothing can go faster than the speed of light, that was a
safe assumption.
The curved universe theory allows for particles to originate at the same
place at the same time, and yet
end up further away than 2*Age*c, by way of traveling through a fourth
dimension. This makes it quite possible for the universe to be completely
infinite. (However, I have been unable to envision completely infinite
geometries without strange cusps, and I can see how people decide to just
make it wrap into a donut to make it simple.)
I still don't quite see how gravity causes this. If light dips into a
gravitational field, it has to come up out of the gravitational field too,
right? It should come out with it's speed through space equal to what it
was before, but just in a different direction. The curved space idea seems
to imply that once a beam of light goes in and out of a gravitational field,
it is permanently moving through space-time at an angle. Then when it goes
through the next gravitational field it comes out at yet a steeper angle.
Are there some gravitational fields that are asymmetrical this way?
I also wanted to mention a couple of findings that I've made.
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/GtAttractor.html
Says that we are running into the "Great Attractor" traveling toward it at 1
million miles an hour.
Also says "gigantic unseen mass" which suggest two possibilities to me.
1) There's nothing there.
2) There is a black hole there which would have had to have existed since
before the big bang for there not to be stars still being sucked into it.
3) Dark Matter? Substance that doesn't catch fire when it reaches
incredible densities? Who knows? I wouldn't have thought of this one
myself, but there are a lot better minds than mine out there.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_04.htm
Says that we are traveling with respect to the CMBT at 370 km/sec.
This is 828,000 miles per hour, which is about the same as our approach to
the "Great Attractor"
Now, I can only guess that the idea for the Great Attractor came from the
speed in the CMBT.
I hope I am wrong, because there's a much simpler explanation for the speed
in the CMBT which doesn't need Dark Matter or Black Holes.
Just needs a simple 3-dimensional explosion.
Well maybe I look out at the horizon and say "there's the end of the earth,"
while
you know there's a lot more out there.
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1005391147.19522....@news.demon.co.uk...
George Dishman
> This is very helpful information.
>
> Sorry I haven't responded sooner, because I've been focused on putting a
new
> demo on my website
> http://home.earthlink.net/~spencerdoolin/relativity/wavereflect.htm
> (Shameless plug)
I looked yesterday and sent some comments. What package do you use
to write it?
> You have a lot of really helpful information here. And I wanted to
clarify
> that I didn't know
> that "flat" universe had a different technical meaning. It is apparently
> different than what I meant
> though I am still not quite clear on what it is.
You are getting beyond the area where I can help. You need to find
out about curvature in GR, especially since you have a web site on
the subject. Perhaps the denizens of s.p.r might point you at some
suitable resources. I am only reading sci.astro.
> My working definition until I experienced the vertigo of comprehending the
> curved universe was
> that the diameter of the universe equals 2*Age*c, where Age=the Age of the
> universe, and c is
> the speed of light. I figured since everything came from the same place
at
> the same time, and nothing can go faster than the speed of light, that was
a
> safe assumption.
First problem: if the universe is infinite now, it was always infinite
so the assumption that everything came from the same place is incorrect.
The diameter 2*age*c is the region we can see, but there is no reason why
matter that was further away than that at the start souldn't have made
galaxies by now too. We will have to wait longer for the light from them
to reach us.
> The curved universe theory allows for particles to originate at the same
> place at the same time, and yet
> end up further away than 2*Age*c, by way of traveling through a fourth
> dimension. ..
There is no fourth spatial dimension involved, only bending of the
usual three. See below:
> .. This makes it quite possible for the universe to be completely
> infinite. (However, I have been unable to envision completely infinite
> geometries without strange cusps, and I can see how people decide to just
> make it wrap into a donut to make it simple.)
>
> I still don't quite see how gravity causes this. If light dips into a
> gravitational field, it has to come up out of the gravitational field too,
> right? It should come out with it's speed through space equal to what it
> was before, but just in a different direction. The curved space idea
seems
> to imply that once a beam of light goes in and out of a gravitational
field,
> it is permanently moving through space-time at an angle. Then when it
goes
> through the next gravitational field it comes out at yet a steeper angle.
> Are there some gravitational fields that are asymmetrical this way?
One way to think of curvature of space is to consider a circle.
I expect you have seen the 'rubber sheet' representation of the
effect of gravity used to show how the path of a photon can be
bent. Think of a circle drawn on the sheet. If there is no central
mass, the sheet is flat and the circumference is given by pi*D.
Now add a mass at the centre of the circle. The diameter is now
measured into the dip so it must be greater but the cirumference
is substantially unchanged. The same thing applies on cosmological
scales large enough for the effects of structures of galaxies to
average out. AIUI, the circumference might be more or less than
pi*D depending on the sign of the curvature and is exactly pi*D
if the universe is flat.
That is very crude and I could easily be misleading you so please
do check what I said and look up the definition of curvature in GR.
Ned's tutorial has some on this at
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm#gr
but especially follow the set of links at the bottom of the page.
> I also wanted to mention a couple of findings that I've made.
> http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/GtAttractor.html
> Says that we are running into the "Great Attractor" traveling toward it at
1
> million miles an hour.
> Also says "gigantic unseen mass" which suggest two possibilities to me.
> 1) There's nothing there.
> 2) There is a black hole there which would have had to have existed since
> before the big bang for there not to be stars still being sucked into it.
> 3) Dark Matter? Substance that doesn't catch fire when it reaches
> incredible densities? Who knows? I wouldn't have thought of this one
> myself, but there are a lot better minds than mine out there.
Much simpler. It lies in the plane of the milky way and although
it is much further away, it is hidden by the dust in the core of
our galaxy. Read the first three paragraphs of this for more:
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1098issue/1098laham.html
It could be a black hole but we know it is there because we see
whole galaxies being sucked towards it. This has more details:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/gclusters/attractor.html
Also see
http://library.thinkquest.org/12659/outer_space/great_attractor.html
which mentions that some galaxies further away than the GA have
been found which are moving rapidly towards us.
--> --> ? <--
Us Virgo GA others
Cluster
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_04.htm
> Says that we are traveling with respect to the CMBT at 370 km/sec.
> This is 828,000 miles per hour, which is about the same as our approach to
> the "Great Attractor"
> Now, I can only guess that the idea for the Great Attractor came from the
> speed in the CMBT.
> I hope I am wrong, because there's a much simpler explanation for the
speed
> in the CMBT which doesn't need Dark Matter or Black Holes.
>
> Just needs a simple 3-dimensional explosion.
You are wrong. The existence and mass estimates for the Great
Attractor come from observation of a general flow of distant
galaxies toward that location.
> Well maybe I look out at the horizon and say "there's the end
> of the earth," while you know there's a lot more out there.
Exactly.
Bart P. Jaszcz
> "Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7UrH7.32232$S4.28...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > curved universe was
> > that the diameter of the universe equals 2*Age*c, where Age=the Age of the
> > universe, and c is
> > the speed of light. I figured since everything came from the same place
> at
> > the same time, and nothing can go faster than the speed of light, that was
> a
> > safe assumption.
>
> First problem: if the universe is infinite now, it was always infinite
> so the assumption that everything came from the same place is incorrect.
> The diameter 2*age*c is the region we can see, but there is no reason why
> matter that was further away than that at the start souldn't have made
> galaxies by now too. We will have to wait longer for the light from them
> to reach us.
You're right, there was no center of the big bang, because the
universe was always infinite. Basicly, at time zero, the universe
was a solid block of matter, with infinite sides, then empty space "bubbles"
started to appear throughout the entire block of matter at the same
time, and the universe started to experience the "rising bread" phenomenon.
I believe the popular term is the "swiss cheese universe".
--bart
hanson
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:KwUF7.18543$S4.17...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
> > It is interesting to note that ever since Gamov and cronies promulgated
> > their “Let there be light” Big Bang theory, the grants for astronomy
> > and astrophysics flowed much more freely…….. “and the pope
> > and his bible beating flock smiled benignly and saw that it was
> > good and threw a purse full of shekels their way……and God was
> > pleased that his children obeyed and did his will"…
> > Right? Right. Of course. Right. Right?….. “Let there be light”
[George]
> Your rant suggests to me only that you cannot find any real flaws
> in the observations or the theory to which they point. The values
> obtained by measurements are not dependent on the source of funds.
> If you want to criticise, show where the errors lie in the paper
> I cited above.
> George Dishman
> The arrow of time points in many directions.
So, George, after some 50 or so posts in this thread you ruefully and
unfulfilled do retun back to me, to accuse me of ranting and
criticizing and tell me to read a book............?
I am not surprised, George. For all 50 reasons.
George, try to acquire the sentience for harboring the bigger pix
in a wide angle view. You then will realize that, (especially if you
are professional astrophysicist,) you and 100’ 000 of others got
interesting and gainful employment because of Gamov’s gig.
Gamov’s “Let there be light” scenario was a stroke of SOCIAL brilliance.
----- SOCIAL genius , George, not scientific.
Do you get it?
Cordially,
hanson
"If I only knew what I was talking about. Just once." -- Einstein on his
death bed, 18 April 1955. ……………….. still plagiarizing…..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1005393055.20373....@news.demon.co.uk...
George Dishman
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1005393055.20373....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> > news:KwUF7.18543$S4.17...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
>
> > > It is interesting to note that ever since Gamov and cronies
promulgated
> > > their “Let there be light” Big Bang theory, the grants for astronomy
> > > and astrophysics flowed much more freely…….. “and the pope
> > > and his bible beating flock smiled benignly and saw that it was
> > > good and threw a purse full of shekels their way……and God was
> > > pleased that his children obeyed and did his will"…
> > > Right? Right. Of course. Right. Right?….. “Let there be light”
>
> [George]
> > Your rant suggests to me only that you cannot find any real flaws
> > in the observations or the theory to which they point. The values
> > obtained by measurements are not dependent on the source of funds.
> > If you want to criticise, show where the errors lie in the paper
> > I cited above.
> > George Dishman
> > The arrow of time points in many directions.
>
> So, George, after some 50 or so posts in this thread you ruefully and
> unfulfilled do retun back to me, to accuse me of ranting and
> criticizing and tell me to read a book............?
> I am not surprised, George. For all 50 reasons.
I only saw one post from your replying to mine and I answered
it. If you sent another 49, they did not make it to my ISP.
> George, try to acquire the sentience for harboring the bigger pix
> in a wide angle view. You then will realize that, (especially if you
> are professional astrophysicist,) you and 100’ 000 of others got
> interesting and gainful employment because of Gamov’s gig.
> Gamov’s “Let there be light” scenario was a stroke of SOCIAL
brilliance.
> ----- SOCIAL genius , George, not scientific.
> Do you get it?
Of course I get it. You don't like the idea of the current
expansion-based model of the universe and wish to denigrate
the published papers containing the evidence for expansion.
That is why you ignored the substantive parts of my post and
instead tried to misrepresent my invitation to post your
scientific criticisms of a recent relevant paper.
If you feel I am being unfair, I invite you again to criticise
the contents of the paper I cited as an example of the
observational evidence for motion-induced Doppler red-shift:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382
I find that evidence compelling, but I am not a professional
astrophysicist, just a communications engineer with too much
curiosity.
> Cordially,
best regards
hanson
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:XtIH7.34831$hZ.32...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1005393055.20373....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> > > news:KwUF7.18543$S4.17...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
> >
> > > > It is interesting to note that ever since Gamov and cronies
> > > > promulgated
> > > > their “Let there be light” Big Bang theory, the grants for
astronomy
> > > > and astrophysics flowed much more freely…….. “and the pope
> > > > and his bible beating flock smiled benignly and saw that it was
> > > > good and threw a purse full of shekels their way……and God was
> > > > pleased that his children obeyed and did his will"…
> > > > Right? Right. Of course. Right. Right?….. “Let there be light”
> >
> > [George]
> > > Your rant suggests to me only that you cannot find any real flaws
[hanson]
> > George, try to acquire the sentience for harboring the bigger pix
> > in a wide angle view. You then will realize that, (especially if you
> > are professional astrophysicist,) you and 100’ 000 of others got
> > interesting and gainful employment because of Gamov’s gig.
> > Gamov’s “Let there be light” scenario was a stroke of SOCIAL
> > brilliance. ----- SOCIAL genius , George, not scientific.
> > Do you get it?
>
[George]
> Of course I get it.
[hanson]
Congratulations, George! That's all that matters!
The rest is playing games with data/measurements. Just like when
interpreting holy or unholy scriptures. Telling or retelling the resulting,
perceived story ***AND*** four dollars will get you a cup of coffee at
Starbucks.
> > Cordially,
> best regards
> George Dishman
Yes, certainly and like wise, with thanks,
hanson
James Hunter
hanson wrote:
>
>
> [George]
> > Of course I get it.
>
> [hanson]
> Congratulations, George! That's all that matters!
> The rest is playing games with data/measurements. Just like when
> interpreting holy or unholy scriptures. Telling or retelling the resulting,
> perceived story ***AND*** four dollars will get you a cup of coffee at
> Starbucks.
No, it's playing games with *datum*, that's obviously
what the symmetrically religious can't understand about science.
George Dishman
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1005595178.12460....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> > news:XtIH7.34831$hZ.32...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > Your rant suggests to me only that you cannot find any real flaws
>
> [hanson]
> Congratulations, George! That's all that matters!
Nice of you to admit it.
> The rest is playing games
Isn't it just.
hanson
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:16XH7.36384$hZ.33...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > > Your rant suggests to me only that you cannot find any real flaws
> [in the observations or the theory to which they point.]
> >
> > [hanson]
> > Congratulations, George! That's all that matters!
> > four dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
>
> Nice of you to admit it.
[hanson]
Certainly, George. You give me your four dollars, and I’ll admit to any
cosmo story you want to tell me and I will even nod, approvingly.
Go, have the last word, George. (Make it a good one!)
hahahahahahanson
EL
> I think an update to an eternal, infinite and static cosmos describes
> nature at large in a more palatable way, certainly preferable over the
> current story which is essentially nothing more than a convoluted rewrite
> of the biblical fantasy which says: "Let there be light".
>
> flowed much more freely.... "and the pope and his bible beating flock
> smiled benignly and saw that it was good and threw a purse full of shekels
> will...."Right? Right. Of course. Right. Right?
>
> hanson
>
[EL]
Hey, I said this. :)
I said: "And let there be light", when I was holding out my cigar. <g>
And there was light (held by a pretty girl from the hostess bar).
And I saw that the light was good, as I pulled a long breath of life,
which mingled with the "spirit". :):):)
And it was at the end of a hard-working day. :):):)
I am very happy that the obvious became obvious to those who seek the
obvious by making their hands busy with anything else than blocking
there their sight.
Hence I say.
"And let there be enlightenment."
And there was enlightenment (as Hans posted his revelations). :)
And EL saw that enlightenment was good.
And it was the beginning and the end of a black-day. :):):):):)
Ehehel.
hanson
news:7563cb80.01111...@posting.google.com...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<KwUF7.18543$S4.17...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > I think an update to an eternal, infinite and static cosmos describes
> > nature at large in a more palatable way, certainly preferable over the
> > current story which is essentially nothing more than a convoluted
> > rewrite of the biblical fantasy which says: "Let there be light".
> >
> > It is interesting to note that ever since Gamov and cronies promulgated
> > their "Let there be light" BBT, the grants for astronomy and
> > smiled benignly and saw that it was good and threw a purse full of
> > shekels their way....and God was pleased that his children obeyed
> > and did his will...."Right? Right. Of course. Right. Right?
> >
> > hanson
> >
> [EL]
> Hey, I said this. :)
> obvious by making their hands busy with anything else than blocking
> there their sight.
[hanson]
Yo-uuuuuuuhh, young man!. I am so glad that this makes you happy.
I am not so glad that you said, what I said, you said you say, that you
said it first.
The reason for my just said argument in a 4G1P-say dimensional
analysis is that the four dollars which George Dishman ows me,
potentially, (to use enviromental jargon) will now have to go to you.
This is of course an utter financial disaster for me, considering that I
still give a total fuck which story is being told, but $4 = 4$. Heavy!
But foregoing a good Starbuck brew, that hurts.
My dear YBBB, wanna share?
YBBOB,
hanson
"If I only knew what I was talking about. Just once." -- Einstein on his
death bed, 18 April 1955. ........ still plagiarizing...
hanson
news:22544-3BF...@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Herbie, don't cut NG's from the headers. I almost lost you. A thread is a
great collection of opinions. Let them sing! All of them! Including you!
It's a beautiful choir!
You posted the 2 items of yours (below) into 2 different NGs and subjects
and you gave yourself terrific answers in the second post to your questions
in the first one.
There is only one question remaining. The important one:
Explain, what do the letters in G=EMC^2 stand for. Please.
We will not argue for the moment about:
> > That is why G=EMC^2 makes an equation for the reality of the universe
............just what do the letters in your equation G=EMC^2 stand for?
G = Newton's Grav. const, g0 earth grav. pull, or.....?
E = Energy (massergy, pot/kin), Electric charge, or.....?
M = any mass, a specific mass, or......?
c^2 = light speed squared, or.......?
Is it in the normal form as G = E*M*C*C, the standard multiplication or a
new type of Herbian algebra?
hanson
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22544-3BF...@storefull-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> lets go with our position to the Milky Way center. Hmmmm we are 25,000
> LY from it Are we moving in towards the galatic center and the great
> concentration of stars at the center(NO)Is any part of the galaxy
> falling into its center(NO) What is the reason for that? Why is
> everything in the universe(all stars) in lock step? Lets take this
> thought to all the galaxies within a radius of 7 billion LY from
> us.These galaxies are in lock step to each other. After that things are
> not in lock step,but space is expanding and the galaxies are racing away
> from each other. WHY? Why is the universe change at great distances.If
> there is an earth type planet that far from us they would think our part
> of the universe is speeding up.(relativity) Well if anyone can
> give a great answer to these why's I'll personally give you the Nobel.
> Best regards to all Herb.PS the best answer I can give for the why's is
> gravity.It is always gravity from top to bottom
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19607-3BE...@storefull-137.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Re: Is matter ultimately composed of light? No The Graviton
> The photon structure is two gravitons with a wave between them.The
> electron is seen more of a particle,for it is composed of photons
> (Weinberg) Going into the nuclei we go back to gravitons as the
> structure of Quarks,gluons,and photons. Nature only needed one force,and
> in the micro realm gravity used the graviton,the same way it uses the
> photon in the macro realm. The graviton is to particles and
> energies,as inertia is to all objects. For inertia and gravity are the
> same thing.Since its gravity all the way down,things start looking
> more,and more alike. That is why G=EMC^2 makes an equation for the
> reality of the universe. Best regards Herb
EL
And it was the beginning and the end of a black-day. :):):):):)
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:<oj1I7.37203$hZ.34...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
hanson
news:7563cb80.01111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote > >
> > My dear YBBB, wanna share?
> >
> [EL]
> And it was the beginning and the end of a black-day. :):):):):)
> EheheL
[hanson]
Which?
......the black Starbuck coffee, or before the beginning and after the
end, when Gamov said "Let there be light"?
> > "If I only knew what I was talking about. Just once." -- Einstein on
his
> > death bed, 18 April 1955. ........ still plagiarizing...
If I only knew what YOU was talking about --- hanson over his coffee,
13 November 2001 ............. still wondering .........
YBBOB
hanson
G=EMC^2 Glazier
so it could see itself. Man is the greatest object that the universe
created. Nature would not treat its greatest attraction without giving
it center stage. Best regards to all Herb
hanson
I really do thank you. Your post explains to me your G=EMC^2 equation and
your personal situation and you can be proud of yourself. Please, forgive
me, Herbie, for having kicked your ass needlessly, unduly and perhaps even
unjustly.
The only excuse I have to offer to you is, that I do not study the archives
of posters.
So, much of what you have said here is new to me.
You are a good man, Herbie.
Take care, and best regards to you, Herbie.
hanson
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21179-3B...@storefull-137.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Well Hanson I get e-mail from all over the world asking me what the
> equation means,and have been on this news group for four years,and have
> posted what the equation means about ten times.I also got your e-mail.
> If a person is very religious the "G" stands for God. If they are not
> very religious the "G" stands for gravity. I took a picture of
> my equation off a barn in Bartow Florida,and it was put there by a very
> religious people that had a horse ranch. The point I'm making this was
> not the case when I came up with this equation in 1946.(was laughed at.)
> In the past 20 years no one is laughing. I was told that I could just
> have the "E"or "M" but I don't think energy and mass are exactly the
> same.Equivalent yes.I use the C^2 the same way Einstein used it,as a
> big number to show great power(energy) I had this equation before the
> string theory,and that theory has gravity 1000 times stronger than the
> strong force,(microscopic level) We now know the compression force of
> gravity evolved everything is the macro level. I always knew this to be
> true before it was even talked about. If you Type G=EMC^2 into
> Google that is all you have to do to see all my posts. Well I'm an old
> man and every night for 60 years I've tried to come up with the place
> that gravity comes from and space is the place I came up with.
> We are immersed in the gravity of space,as a fish is immersed in
> water.As water shapes the fish gravity shapes the objects immersed in
> its field. It gives objects there force of inertia.It gives light its
> speed in a vacuum.It changes the energy of light. You see to me it is
> gravity all the way down. Best regards to all Herb PS I've added the
> picture of the equation on the side of the barn
>
hanson
Herbie, thanks for responding. Your views are certainly shared widely in
non secular quarters where they do have profoundly reassuring effects and
values for man's existence.
You are a good man, Herbie!
hanson
hanson
The distance from light wall to the light wall, D, and the age, T= 1/H, of
the observable universe are inferred numerical quantities.
For these conditions, by the same token, we can infer a maximum , vmax, and
a minimum velocity, vmin, applicable to this universe. If you traverse the
distance D of the observable universe in Planck time, t , you have, by
definition, a maximum speed vmax = D/t. If you take a Hubble time, T= 1/H,
to cross the distance of a Plank length, l, you have, by definition, a
minimum speed, vmin = l*H.
Apply these 2 velocity limit axioms, vmax & vmin, instead of c, to
relativity and you get,……….wow!!!!!….. well, we have so many GR/SR
specialists in these NG…..gentlemen, please. Not only me but a lot of
readers would be delighted with in your findings.
Both these limits may NOT have any physical reality, but the sqrt of (vmax
* vmin) implies a shock front velocity in this universe’s vacuum, namely c,
for the transfer of waves and matter. Now, besides relativistic
implications, we may have to look at the possibility that there maybe
speeds possible exceeding that of c. ---- Instead of the usual quick
no-nos, let’s ask: What physically real entities or processes are there
which would need to be transmitted/transferred at speeds >c? Is perhaps
gravitation a process, which because of its apparently continuous/non
quantifyable nature does need velocities >c? Or are there non at all? Is
c a limit for physical reality, just as there are only 3 real physical
spatial/orthogonal dimensions possible to physical reality?
Similar, with vmin. What relationship and interpretation does this Tmin
have to the CMVB, and it’s temperature, Tb?. Tb which can be associated
with the typical H-Bohr model characteristics per Tb = 2/(3k) * (a^2)/4 *
(e^2)/r = 2.79°K and its Lyman series limit frequency , fL, as fb = fL
*a^2/2, or a radiation wavelength of 3.42 mm.
Any bold folks around here or just parakeets and god invokers?
hanson
nospam thanks
>Grav. speed/light speed and max/min speeds.
[snip]
> Is perhaps
>gravitation a process, which because of its apparently continuous/non
>quantifyable nature does need velocities >c?
[snip]
The following link provides a visual example of how the speed of
gravity is important. This is a schematic of how gravity mapping
satellites work.
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/MGG/images/predict/figure05.gif
You will notice that h and h' differ due to the effect of gravity on
the reflected beam. The gravity source is the ocean bottom so if
gravity travels >c we have a FTL signal. This point has allready been
made elsewhere in the newsgroup, but this might be a good place to
start for beginners,
*Steve*
George Dishman
> Grav. speed/light speed and max/min speeds.
>
> The distance from light wall to the light wall, D, and the age, T= 1/H, of
> the observable universe are inferred numerical quantities.
>
> For these conditions, by the same token, we can infer a maximum , vmax,
and
> a minimum velocity, vmin, applicable to this universe.
No that would be related to the distance across the whole
universe (assuming it is closed), not just the tiny fraction
we can see.
> Both these limits may NOT have any physical reality,
Quite likely, since the distance we can see varies with the
age of the universe. If you did the same calculation in a
billion years time, you get a different limit.
> .. Is perhaps
> gravitation a process, which because of its apparently continuous/non
> quantifyable nature does need velocities >c? ..
The measurements by Hulse and Taylor are consistent with
gravitational waves propagating at c as predicted by GR. It
is indirect evidence but the best data we have so far.
>.. Or are there non at all? Is
> c a limit for physical reality, just as there are only 3 real physical
> spatial/orthogonal dimensions possible to physical reality?
c appears to be nothing more than a conversion factor
between units: 1 second is the same as 299792458 m. Only
convention says we express separation in the four dimensions
we experience using different units.
Oriel36
> Any bold folks around here or just parakeets and god invokers?
> hanson
Hanson,
You of all people would go down that slippery slope and find yourself
a parakeet when it comes invoking divine things and accepting
definitions of God that belong in the playground.
My complaint has been that the scientific community have conveniently
diluted the concept of divine things to the level of superstition in
order to set up an artificial conflict that calls itself
science/religion. The Pascal's, Kepler's and Faraday's were all 'god
invokers' just as the Beethoven's and the Van Gogh's were, but
certainly not in the way you or the general standard of participants
are used to thinking about it. It is a liability nowadays to invoke
the same experience that they had of divine things and the motivation
that spurred them on to create the works they did ,in this respect
Baudelaire prayed to God that he could write better than any other
man so he could show that he loved Him more than any other .Likewise,
all of a sudden the efforts of all civilisations to present their
ideas of the Cause of all things is consigned to superstition and
ignorance so that you can be justified. Believe me ,I thought your
postings were among the best in this group in that you seemed immune
to intellectual intimidation or less likely to be fooled into
following the route where articulate insults disguise hopelessly
absurd concepts.
It is said that the best things cannot be expressed and the second
best can be expressed but are often misunderstood , and truly this is
so. William Blake noted that there was no distinction between a
prophet and a poet and the terms that these prophets used were never
meant to be translated into the manner you adopt as ‘god invoking'.In
the dead eyes of many here, there is little dispute that in an attempt
to deflect attension from any Cause (which the ancients knew as
God),the sourse of all creativity gets cut off, at least in the sense
that those great benefactors of mankind understood the Cause as God
and true religion to be and how they translated their perceptions into
a particular avenue (literary , artistic, musical ,study of natural
phenomena and all the greatest masterpieces down to the smallest
kindness) but in the shrivelled up Universe that filters all things
through logic, I'm afraid that contemporary understanding becomes
devoid of the creative ground that acknowledges that to create
something (or it's poor relation,to understand something) you do have
to believe in something other than what you can check up in books .
A genius is only somebody who creates something where nothing was
there before so the study of natural phenomena is a poor relation to
those creative endeavors that do bring to life elements that mirror
the harmony in nature. Unfortunately, most participants here would
consider everything outside physics as a by-product and it seems that
you restrict yourself also to this view and become another form of
uncle al in a world that sees far too many of them.
I posted an excerpt from a highly regarded Christian writer before
(and will expand slightly on that excerpt) in reaction to the
appalling lack of depth that constitutes the description of the Cause
of all things by members of this forum.The religious temperament
recognises that 'god invoking' in regard to natural phenomena,is not
seperate from nor in conflict with the construction of the 3D
cosmos,to this end it was Dante who wrote that it was " Love that
moved the Sun and the other stars",Kepler put this in objective form
but we no longer celebrate the harmony of the cosmos,we only celebrate
our own cleverness.When you use the phrase 'god invoking' again,see if
it matches up with what the excerpt keeping in mind the heading of
that chapter.
Dionysius the Areopagite (circa 5th century)
'The pre-eminent Cause of all things sensibly perceived is not itself
any of those things'
"We therefore maintain that the Universal Cause of all things is
neither without being nor without life,nor without reason or
intelligence;nor has it form or shape,quality,quantity or weight,nor
has it any localised,visible or tangible existence,it is not sensible
or perceptible,nor is it subject to any disorder or inordination,nor
influenced by any earthly passion,neither is it rendered impotent
through the effects of material causes and events,it needs no light,it
suffers no change,corruption,division,privation or flux,none or these
things can either be identified with or attributed to it "
hanson
news:273f8e06.01111...@posting.google.com...
> "hanson"
> > Any bold folks around here or just parakeets and god invokers?
> > hanson
"Oriel36"
> You of all people would go down that slippery slope and find yourself
> a parakeet when it comes invoking divine things and accepting
> definitions of God that belong in the playground.
Yo, Gerald,
Could you perhaps, in few sentences, clarify what you meant by your
statement above. I do not see what thought you wanted to convey to me with
your statement. I don't know whether you are sarcastic in your 3 liner or
what. Please clarify.
Where did I invoke God or any definition thereof?
Au contraire, I wanted to hear from folks who push the envelope about
effects of velocity max/mins and it's projections and speculations in
physical 3 DT reality.
I wanted to filter out a priory those endless parakeeting repeats about
whose SR/GR dick is shorter and how badly bent it is. I wanted to avoid
hearing from those who call upon deities to adjudicate the issue I raised.
Otherwise, on a quite different level, your post is quite interesting and I
gladly give you my take on it and tell you where I come from, once I do
know what you meant to tell me in your 3 lines.
hanson
PS:
I know it is extremely difficult to convey any nuances or accuracy of/in
info exchange in this forum. --- The first response I received to my post
was from Steve. It could have easily prompted me to give the following
response below. But again, I have no idea whether Steve was sincere, tried
to help, was a deliberate crank, or whether I simply did not get the
message he wanted to transmit. So I decided not to send it, but I post it
here now anyway for the reason just mentioned.
"nospam thanks" <nos...@nospamthanks.org> wrote in message
news:3bf59ec8...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:57:44 GMT, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > we have so many GR/SR specialists in these NGs...gentlemen, please.
> > Not only me but a lot of readers would be delighted with in your
> > findings.
[Steve]
> The gravity source is the ocean bottom so if
> gravity travels >c we have a FTL signal.
How instructive. And how profound! How sweet. How kind.
The recommendation from Steve, a beginner who doesn't know where to start.
Thank you, Stevey pooh.
hanson
PS: Is this an example of "GR/SR specialists in these NGs"?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------- Original message -------
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.01111...@posting.google.com...
Oriel36
> "Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:273f8e06.01111...@posting.google.com...
>
> > "hanson"
> > > Any bold folks around here or just parakeets and god invokers?
> > > hanson
>
> "Oriel36"
> > You of all people would go down that slippery slope and find yourself
> > a parakeet when it comes invoking divine things and accepting
> > definitions of God that belong in the playground.
>
> Yo, Gerald,
> Could you perhaps, in few sentences, clarify what you meant by your
> statement above. I do not see what thought you wanted to convey to me with
> your statement. I don't know whether you are sarcastic in your 3 liner or
> what. Please clarify.
Where did I invoke God or any definition thereof?
Hanson,
The point is that there is no one-size-fits-all definition for me or
anyone else,unfortunately the contemporary scientific view imposes a
definition of 'god' as a seperate entity and violently opposes any
view that suggests otherwise.I am coming from the view that the great
scientists held their intuitions of the visible Universe as
contemplating God and not something that is seperate to existence and
my dissapointment with that phrase you used was partly that it
borrowed from those minds here who are entirely devoid of this
intuition.
Review the Old Man's original postings on cranks and you will see a
mind that lives in a shrivelled up Universe and listen to the parrots
that follow him.In a sense the purpose and meaning of the old texts
that invoke God are beyond these men,as James Joyce remarked; "Poetry
seems to speak of what seems unreal to those who have lost the simple
intuitions which are the test of reality".The great scientists grasped
something of that reality and put it into mathematical form just as
the poets and composers put it into their particular form,but one was
never in conflict with or a by-product of the other,at least up to
recent times.
I guess it is an appeal to be flexible on your part where too
often,others are careless and lazy.I hope you will repost the original
message and I apologise for this digression in the line of thought you
are following with the 3D cosmos
hanson
[Oriel36]
> I am coming from the view that the great scientists held their
> intuitions of the visible Universe as contemplating God
[hanson]
Cool. Maybe they did. Maybe they pandered. Maybe the lied. However,
classical and contemproary physics, by defintion, does not deal with
metaphysical and paranormal aspects. That belongs to religion and theology.
[Oriel36]
> and not something that is seperate to existence and
[hanson]
That is just an assertion, Oriel/Gerald, a belief, but not a measurable
fact. Your God/Cosmology mixing belongs to religion and theology.
[Oriel36]
> my dissapointment with that phrase you used was
> partly that it borrowed from those minds here who
> are entirely devoid of this intuition.
[hanson]
Don't be disappointed. I have to live with that, not you. Don't nail
yourself to the cross for me. It wouldn't do me any good, Gerald.
But thanks for your compassion anyway.
BTW, what phrase was that and where did I borrow it from?
[Oriel36]
> Review the Old Man's original postings on cranks and
> you will see a mind that lives in a shrivelled up Universe
> and listen to the parrots that follow him.
[hanson]
Gerald, no. I don't want to spend time on that. I rarely read the Old Man's
stuff, not because of his mind is shriveled or something, he just has a
different take on things and has different interests than I do. When I run
into him I usually have great fun, because he is so crankable and so easy
to wind up. I know it's not nice to make fun of people, but a man's gotta
do what a man's gotta do. The Old Man is probably a retired school teacher
who still wants to hang in there and has not discovered yet the joys of
freedom his retirement can bring him.
[Oriel36]
> In a sense the purpose and meaning of the old texts
> that invoke God are beyond these men,
[hanson]
Beyond? Why should they be interested in "the purpose and meaning of the
old texts that invoke God" in the first place. So, you Gerald, did you just
drop the other shoe? Are a proselytizing bible beater, a theist or a
religious person?. Great Gerald! All the power to you. Live it and enjoy
it. Be proud of it and cherish it.
Now, try to understand that there are other people who regard religion and
theism of any kind as a shackle and restraint to their being and existence.
They are proud of having freed themselves from dogma in old texts, which
are really nothing more then re-warmed National Inquirer issues, written by
some schmuck some 2-3000 years ago.
Why would you wanna convince me/them to see it your way? Are you not so
sure about the veracity of YOUR OWN inner convictions? If so, go ask your
god to remove your angsts. See whether he'll do it.
I have no problem whatsoever to live with doubts and uncertainty. I think
it's bitch'n! It's exhilarating. It's fantastic and so intriguingly
interesting. Always something to be checked out, always something new, even
death........."it" lives, "it" evolves, "it" goes on!
If this "it" is the definition or concept of your god, then great! Would
that make you happy? If so, then why do you are argue the issue? Enjoy and
be happy!
[Oriel36]
> as James Joyce remarked; "Poetry seems to speak of
> what seems unreal to those who have lost the simple
> intuitions which are the test of reality".The great scientists grasped
> something of that reality and put it into mathematical form just as
> the poets and composers put it into their particular form,but one was
> never in conflict with or a by-product of the other,at least up to
> recent times.
[hanson]
Poetry is anything which turns you on, ANYTHING!. But everybody gets turned
on by something else. One man’s poetry is an otherone’s curse!
And there is a very profound reason for that, a reason which transcends the
realm of the living.
[Oriel36]
> I guess it is an appeal to be flexible on your part where too
> often,others are careless and lazy.
[hanson]
Realize, Gerald, that your proselytizing, or "appealing" is quite useless
and futile. Especially, when you say that folks who don't see it your way
are "careless and lazy". Don't expect any converts.
Bad sales strategy, bad, Gerald.
[Oriel36]
> I hope you will repost the original message and
> I apologise for this digression in the line of thought you
> are following with the 3D cosmos
[hanson]
Gerald, you don't need to apologize. What for? What did you do wrong?
However, I will not repost the start of this thread because, nobody took
any interest in what consequences do occur, when one compares the maximum
conceptual velocity, being a crossing of the distance of the measurable
universe in Planck time , --- and the minimum possible cosmic velocity
being the move of one Planck length during one Hubble time --- which turns
out to yield the speed of light "c". Nobody seems to be intersted in a
reason why "c" is of "c"'s numerical quantity.
Hey, some few folks are interested in new things, but most of'em like to
parakeet and parrot as instructed under Albert’s street lamp, comparing the
relativistic length of their dicks and then fight over who is right.
C'est la view, Gerald, and remember:
For he who fucketh is happy an blessed
For she who gets eaten shall never go hungry
And for he who gets blown shall never have asthma.
"The Tantralea, #69, verse 71=69+2 people watching; 6969 BC"
hahahahahahanson
Oriel36
> "Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:273f8e06.0111...@posting.google.com...
> [Oriel36]
> > I am coming from the view that the great scientists held their
> > intuitions of the visible Universe as contemplating God
>
> [hanson]
> Cool. Maybe they did. Maybe they pandered. Maybe the lied. However,
> classical and contemproary physics, by defintion, does not deal with
> metaphysical and paranormal aspects. That belongs to religion and theology.
If I point out to you or Franz that the laws of physics allied with
observation produce certain conclusions that are hard to ignore ,I get
the same "it must be metaphysics " response when clearly it is not.I
am not arguing from a metaphysical or theological standpoint even if
you insist that I am and there is little difference between calling it
ignorance and superstition and calling it religion and theology as it
represents the same bias or prejudice.
> [Oriel36]
> > and not something that is seperate to existence and
>
> [hanson]
> That is just an assertion, Oriel/Gerald, a belief, but not a measurable
> fact. Your God/Cosmology mixing belongs to religion and theology.
It seems that the veneer of your open outlook dissapears and the
grubby little prejudices emerge once you decide that God/cosmology are
two different things.I said that contemplating nature is contemplating
God,if you insist on setting a boundary and call it religion and
theology then it is you who have a problem.
> [Oriel36]
> > my dissapointment with that phrase you used was
> > partly that it borrowed from those minds here who
> > are entirely devoid of this intuition.
>
> [hanson]
> Don't be disappointed. I have to live with that, not you. Don't nail
> yourself to the cross for me. It wouldn't do me any good, Gerald.
> But thanks for your compassion anyway.
> BTW, what phrase was that and where did I borrow it from?
Then it was me who made the mistake and I would'nt do it again.At
least I know where I stand with those who consider older generations
ignorant and superstitious and I would provide opposition to this view
however your view belongs to the same people you excoriate.My
objection to the dilution of 'religious' concepts is well founded
especially the idea that the religious temperament does not question
anything.I have kept strictly to the study of natural phenomena with
not a biblical quotation in sight and where I can I provide historical
support through insights left by scientists,of course I don't expect
anyone to accept what they say as being the final word,however I do
wish to remind you that the foundations of modern science emerged from
individuals who were more flexible with concepts that you now shove
into religion and theology.Push me far enough and I don't even
recognise any boundaries but you will make sure that they will remain.
> [Oriel36]
> > Review the Old Man's original postings on cranks and
> > you will see a mind that lives in a shrivelled up Universe
> > and listen to the parrots that follow him.
>
> [hanson]
> Gerald, no. I don't want to spend time on that. I rarely read the Old Man's
> stuff, not because of his mind is shriveled or something, he just has a
> different take on things and has different interests than I do. When I run
> into him I usually have great fun, because he is so crankable and so easy
> to wind up. I know it's not nice to make fun of people, but a man's gotta
> do what a man's gotta do. The Old Man is probably a retired school teacher
> who still wants to hang in there and has not discovered yet the joys of
> freedom his retirement can bring him.
Maybe the Old Man was right on one score and he will get the last
laugh
> [Oriel36]
> > In a sense the purpose and meaning of the old texts
> > that invoke God are beyond these men,
>
> [hanson]
>
> Beyond? Why should they be interested in "the purpose and meaning of the
> old texts that invoke God" in the first place. So, you Gerald, did you just
> drop the other shoe? Are a proselytizing bible beater, a theist or a
> religious person?. Great Gerald! All the power to you. Live it and enjoy
> it. Be proud of it and cherish it.
Wait a friggin minute.I would put the same question to you about every
point being the valid center from the moment of expansion and would
expect an answer that is clear and to the point.I would also ask you
how you can add the time dimension to 2D seeing that you are
interested in 3D cosmos.If I insist that studying the cosmos is
studying God you need'nt bother with calling me one thing or
another,granted I gained much by studying how the older scientists
viewed the relationship between God and the cosmos (and invariably
they were influenced by the texts) but that is as far as it goes.I can
stand on my own intellect and the observations provided up to the
present and so far the other participants have failed miserably in
answering questions that are strictly logical.I can go on and provide
my own view on the 3D cosmos but what's the point when there are so
many accepted errors that the best I can do is point out the
absurdities.
> Now, try to understand that there are other people who regard religion and
> theism of any kind as a shackle and restraint to their being and existence.
> They are proud of having freed themselves from dogma in old texts, which
> are really nothing more then re-warmed National Inquirer issues, written by
> some schmuck some 2-3000 years ago.
> Why would you wanna convince me/them to see it your way? Are you not so
> sure about the veracity of YOUR OWN inner convictions? If so, go ask your
> god to remove your angsts. See whether he'll do it.
Fuck you and your dogma,you are just rewriting the old falsehoods.The
nice thing about the Book of Job is that the author never justifies
the existence of good and evil even if he does recognise it.Who said
anything about inner convictions,if you are willing to grovel at the
feet of those whoes convictions of the visible cosmos is barely
rational,I doubt if you could face what the author of Job meant in
terms of facing nature at it's rawest.I don't believe in a god that
removes angst or any other psychobabble,if I want to remove anything I
will deal with it myself,that is why you would not last 5 minutes with
a religious temperament because it is so busy struggling to put
intuitions into form that it has no time for the absolute shit that
nowadays passes itself off as the study of the human mind.
> I have no problem whatsoever to live with doubts and uncertainty. I think
> it's bitch'n! It's exhilarating. It's fantastic and so intriguingly
> interesting. Always something to be checked out, always something new, even
> death........."it" lives, "it" evolves, "it" goes on!
> If this "it" is the definition or concept of your god, then great! Would
> that make you happy? If so, then why do you are argue the issue? Enjoy and
> be happy!
You are the one who imposes religion and theology on my view.Creating
is the true form of man and God and I know of no other God.
> [Oriel36]
> > as James Joyce remarked; "Poetry seems to speak of
> > what seems unreal to those who have lost the simple
> > intuitions which are the test of reality".The great scientists grasped
> > something of that reality and put it into mathematical form just as
> > the poets and composers put it into their particular form,but one was
> > never in conflict with or a by-product of the other,at least up to
> > recent times.
> [Oriel36]
> > I guess it is an appeal to be flexible on your part where too
> > often,others are careless and lazy.
>
> [hanson]
> Realize, Gerald, that your proselytizing, or "appealing" is quite useless
> and futile. Especially, when you say that folks who don't see it your way
> are "careless and lazy". Don't expect any converts.
> Bad sales strategy, bad, Gerald.
Fuck you again Hanson if you think I came here to sell something,I do
mind that others are being sold on ideas that do not work with a huge
knock-on effect on areas far removed from physics.Maybe I would like
someone to look at my ideas on non-periodic geometry but the only game
in town is spacetime,Bh,BB ect,fair enough,but if that's the way it
is,I will show just exactly what conclusions emerge from accepting
spacetime.
> [Oriel36]
> > I hope you will repost the original message and
> > I apologise for this digression in the line of thought you
> > are following with the 3D cosmos
>
> [hanson]
> Gerald, you don't need to apologize. What for? What did you do wrong?
>
> However, I will not repost the start of this thread because, nobody took
> any interest in what consequences do occur, when one compares the maximum
> conceptual velocity, being a crossing of the distance of the measurable
> universe in Planck time , --- and the minimum possible cosmic velocity
> being the move of one Planck length during one Hubble time --- which turns
> out to yield the speed of light "c". Nobody seems to be intersted in a
> reason why "c" is of "c"'s numerical quantity.
There is no effective opposition to ideas that everybody accepts but
nobody understands.You may not have noticed but most of my energy is
given towards pointing out observational shortcomings with current
theories (nothwithstanding that many others try this avenue also) and
unless these shortcomings are addressed how can you proceed with a
workable model for the 3D cosmos ?.
> Hey, some few folks are interested in new things, but most of'em like to
> parakeet and parrot as instructed under Albert’s street lamp, comparing the
> relativistic length of their dicks and then fight over who is right.
There always comes a time to leave this stuff be and I look forward to
leaving it for a very long time.
hanson
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:<eEAK7.1261$lg5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
[Gerald]
> If I point out to you or Franz that the laws of physics allied
> with observation produce certain conclusions that are hard
> to ignore , I get the same "it must be metaphysics" response
[hanson]
Yo, Franzl !!!.....
.....look! .... we have something in common...after all
.....Gerald, the great authority, said so.
[hanson >> ]
> > there are other people who have freed
> > themselves from dogma in old texts, which
> > are really nothing more then re-warmed National
> > Inquirer issues, written by some schmuck some 2-3000 years ago.
> > ...ask your god to remove your angsts. See whether he'll do it.
[Gerald]
> Fuck you ...if you are willing to grovel at the feet of those
> whoes convictions of the visible cosmos is barely rational....
[hanson]
My, my! Aren't you an excitable old crooner. Easy to wind up and great to
have fun with. Now listen, adjust your pace maker now, before we proceed
and then never mind the groveling, instead tell me whose feet you think
they are. === To your utter surprise and in all fairness it should be
pointed out that barley rational behavior is known to happen for very
many reasons, and in particular and most commonly is exhibited by
believers on your Hallelujah trail.
[Gerald]
> you would not last 5 minutes with a religious
> temperament because it is so busy struggling to put
> intuitions into form that it has no time for the absolute shit that
> nowadays passes itself off as the study of the human mind.
[hanson]
Your words Gerald, YOUR words:... what I read you say here is:
" a religious temperament is the absolute shit of the human mind".
Well, Gerald you shouldn’t denigrate yourself down to this level for me.
Do it in front of a mirror. To yourself. It does NOT turn me on.
Your behavior borders onto groveling at my feet. Don't do that. I can't
stand your self-flagellation.
Besides, we are "studying" physics here and not the human mind.
UNLESS, Gerald, you are willing to address the following, with cool
determination:
"Why and how is a specific architecture of polycondensates of simple
amino acids capable to contemplate and to comprehend events in remote
xDyT domains?. At which level of complexity does this phenomenon of
'remote contemplation' (not just sensing) occur for the first time?"
> > [hanson]
> > Gerald, your proselytizing is quite futile.
> > Bad sales strategy, bad, Gerald.
>
[Gerald]
> Fuck you again Hanson
[hanson]
Bad sales strategy, bad, bad, bad, Gerald. With honey you catch flies, not
with a fuck, unless one never bathes, like you….
bathe, bathe, bathe….Gerald, bathe.
[Gerald]
> Maybe I would like someone to look at my ideas
> on non-periodic geometry but the only game
> in town is spacetime, I will show just exactly
> what conclusions emerge from accepting spacetime.
[hanson]
Absolutely. Show them to me. Equations and numbers only.
But NO, absolutely no explanations, just equations, solution and numbers.
I then will ask the questions.
Fair?
> > [Gerald / Oriel36]
> > > I hope you will repost the original message and
> > > I apologise for this digression in the line of thought you
> > > are following with the 3D cosmos
> >
> > [hanson]
> > Gerald, nobody took any interest in what consequences
> > do occur, when one compares the maximum conceptual velocity
> >, being a crossing of the distance of the measurable
> > universe in Planck time , --- and the minimum possible cosmic velocity
> > being the move of one Planck length during one Hubble time --- which
> > turns out to yield the speed of light "c". Nobody seems to be intersted
> > in a reason why "c" is of "c"'s numerical quantity.
[Gerald]
> my energy is given towards can you proceed with a
> workable model for the 3D cosmos ?.
[hanson]
I posted a thread few days ago asking why material, physical reality seems
to be confined to exactly 3 spatial dimensions, not more and not less. But
I didn't see any arresting, profound nor convincing answer from you about
it.
[hanson]
> > Hey, some few folks are interested in new
> > things, but most of'em like to parakeet and parrot
> > as instructed under Albert's street lamp, comparing the
> > relativistic length of their dicks and then fight over who is right.
>
[Gerald]
> There always comes a time to leave this stuff
> be and I look forward to leaving it for a very long time.
[hanson]
Yo ! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert!
To all humanitarians and social workers!!
I think Gerald just posted a suicide note!
Help, Gerald! Help him! HELP! HELP! HELP! HELP!
hanson
Paul Mays
hanson wrote:
> "Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:273f8e06.01112...@posting.google.com...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:<eEAK7.1261$lg5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
> [Gerald]
> > If I point out to you or Franz that the laws of physics allied
> > with observation produce certain conclusions that are hard
> > to ignore , I get the same "it must be metaphysics" response
Easy to ignore if you understand the physic and the observation
is non repeatable and non verifiable....
>
>
> [hanson]
> Yo, Franzl !!!.....
> .....look! .... we have something in common...after all
> .....Gerald, the great authority, said so.
Cloning maybe?
>
>
> [hanson >> ]
> > > there are other people who have freed
> > > themselves from dogma in old texts, which
> > > are really nothing more then re-warmed National
> > > Inquirer issues, written by some schmuck some 2-3000 years ago.
> > > ...ask your god to remove your angsts. See whether he'll do it.
>
> [Gerald]
> > Fuck you ...if you are willing to grovel at the feet of those
> > whoes convictions of the visible cosmos is barely rational....
Not a nice nor rational response....... Because you cannot
comprehend complex thought, does not mean its not valid....
>
>
> [hanson]
> My, my! Aren't you an excitable old crooner. Easy to wind up and great to
> have fun with. Now listen, adjust your pace maker now, before we proceed
> and then never mind the groveling, instead tell me whose feet you think
> they are. === To your utter surprise and in all fairness it should be
> pointed out that barley rational behavior is known to happen for very
> many reasons, and in particular and most commonly is exhibited by
> believers on your Hallelujah trail.
>
> [Gerald]
> > you would not last 5 minutes with a religious
> > temperament because it is so busy struggling to put
> > intuitions into form that it has no time for the absolute shit that
> > nowadays passes itself off as the study of the human mind.
Sounds a bit like your on the unstable side of the mental health issue...
Do you actually believe that you put your intuitions into physical form?
Its that like bending a spoon with your mind? .... By the way...
Has never been done... either of them...
>
>
> [hanson]
> Your words Gerald, YOUR words:... what I read you say here is:
>
> " a religious temperament is the absolute shit of the human mind".
>
> Well, Gerald you shouldn’t denigrate yourself down to this level for me.
> Do it in front of a mirror. To yourself. It does NOT turn me on.
> Your behavior borders onto groveling at my feet. Don't do that. I can't
> stand your self-flagellation.
> Besides, we are "studying" physics here and not the human mind.
> UNLESS, Gerald, you are willing to address the following, with cool
> determination:
>
> "Why and how is a specific architecture of polycondensates of simple
> amino acids capable to contemplate and to comprehend events in remote
> xDyT domains?. At which level of complexity does this phenomenon of
> 'remote contemplation' (not just sensing) occur for the first time?"
>
> > > [hanson]
> > > Gerald, your proselytizing is quite futile.
> > > Bad sales strategy, bad, Gerald.
> >
> [Gerald]
> > Fuck you again Hanson
Nice logical argument for your position... god's gona get ya for that ....
>
>
> [hanson]
> Bad sales strategy, bad, bad, bad, Gerald. With honey you catch flies, not
> with a fuck, unless one never bathes, like you….
> bathe, bathe, bathe….Gerald, bathe.
>
> [Gerald]
> > Maybe I would like someone to look at my ideas
> > on non-periodic geometry but the only game
> > in town is spacetime,
Maybe because the only place "non-periodic geometry" is anything
other than math is in your mind and space / time is the reality you
seem to have lost track of....
> I will show just exactly
> > what conclusions emerge from accepting spacetime.
When.... I've heard many come in with "proof","evidence"
and "truth"... and to date all the theist that start from that
position end up only displaying that they have no idea what
constitutes "Proof","Evidence" and "Truth"....
But give it a shot... I don't want numbers... Just your version
of reality....
I said cause there are only 3 ... so some of us were interested....
>
>
> [hanson]
> > > Hey, some few folks are interested in new
> > > things, but most of'em like to parakeet and parrot
> > > as instructed under Albert's street lamp, comparing the
> > > relativistic length of their dicks and then fight over who is right.
> >
> [Gerald]
> > There always comes a time to leave this stuff
> > be and I look forward to leaving it for a very long time.
Tell ya what ...when ya get to the "other side" send me a note
and tell me how wrong I've been...... Hate to see ya leave
but heck with 40 virgins and ultimate splendor I might want
to go too.....
BTW.... is your heaven anywhere near Valhalla? Or in the same
region of the universe as the muslims heaven? And is it anywhere
near Mt. Olympus where thors heaven was? And how do you know
you won't end up in muslim heaven and not christs heaven? And is god like
the mayor of christian heaven or like the president of a Country of heavens?
EL
> C'est la view, Gerald, and remember:
> For he who fucketh is happy an blessed
> For she who gets eaten shall never go hungry
> And for he who gets blown shall never have asthma.
> "The Tantralea, #69, verse 71=69+2 people watching; 6969 BC"
>
> hahahahahahanson
[EL]
Hans!
No.
Not yet another religion!
But if I am forced to choose one any way, then THAT one is not bad.
Forget about "reading" its verses, and hasten with the "mass". :)
EheheL
EL
<snip>
>I said that contemplating nature is contemplating God,
[EL]
And I say that what you said is bullshit.
Nature is not a fiction of a man who hates to be alone without a
woman, and has issues with nakedness, serpents and trees.
Wake up Gerald, pretending that you can call nature by nicknames and
that one of those names is God, is YOUR problem and not others'.
The famous three religions' God is a subset of the concept of
divinity, which descends from tribal dominance, fear, and a mixture of
ignorance of causes in natural phenomena etc.
The problem is not in the fact that natural disastrous phenomena had
been attributed to a divine deity, nor is it in the fact that sexual
needs, conflicts and frustrations are behind the projections
attributed to the descriptions of a God; the problem is in the attempt
to contemplate nature as contemplating a God.
So, NO; it is not a fact Mr. Gerald that "contemplating nature is
contemplating God", but the fact is that IF contemplating nature was
erroneously taken as contemplating God, superstition shall replace
science. So take your shit somewhere and hide it. You might have
wanted to say that those who were contemplating God could not find
one, and had to delude themselves that natural phenomena and
psychological projections could be attributed to the image of a divine
diety.
> Fuck you and your dogma, you are just rewriting the old falsehoods. The
> nice thing about the Book of Job
[EL]
Is that it is stolen directly from the Ancient Egyptian library of
tradition stories.
It teaches a man to persevere against disastrous events and that life
must go on.
So what did you learn from that Great Robery?
>is that the author never justifies
> the existence of good
[EL]
There is no god to begin with, so why would the need to justify the
existence of what exists not should arise?
Yet, "GOOD" is very personal, thus, only an idiot would waste the time
for justifying things for the self.
The death of the son of my enemy is Good in my eyes but Evil in the
eyes of my enemy, even though it is one and the same event.
Here, justification would be useless.
>and evil even if he does recognise it.
[EL]
Good and bad, God and Evil?
Symbols for rounding up the evaluation of events affecting he who
evaluates?
Error is detected; "God" is not equal to "Good".
Besides having to O's not one "Good" does not get angry or jealous,
and does not kill with justification.
Goods do not have sons from virgins and run away, letting other men
raise their children.
> Fuck you again Hanson if you think I came here to sell something,I do
> mind that others are being sold on ideas that do not work with a huge
> knock-on effect on areas far removed from physics.Maybe I would like
> someone to look at my ideas on non-periodic geometry but the only game
> in town is spacetime,Bh,BB ect,fair enough,but if that's the way it
> is,I will show just exactly what conclusions emerge from accepting
> spacetime.
[EL]
What a bad mouth you have there Gerald, or was that a "Good" mouth?
;-)
Please Keep Your Theological Garbage to yourself, but bring your
non-periodic geometry for discussion.
If the level of your geometry is equal to or below the level of your
theology, we shall shred them to pieces.
If you happen to have a valuable geometry, we may learn something from
you.
What shall it be?
EL
hanson
[hanson]
Forget the mass
Go for her ass!
Yes, you do have class, EL
hanson
So then, my friends, have you learned something, now?
hanson
> >I said that contemplating nature is contemplating God,
> [EL]
> And I say that what you said is bullshit.
> Please Keep Your Theological Garbage to yourself, but
> bring your non-periodic geometry for discussion.
> If the level of your geometry is equal to or below the
> level of your theology, we shall shred them to pieces.
> If you happen to have a valuable geometry, we may
> learn something from you. --- What shall it be?
[hanson]
Yo, younger cyberbro,
Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt, because he might have
malfeasantly mislead us with his secret Geraldene doctrine, by purposely
misspelling "Theology", but actually meaning "Teleology",
1 a : the study of evidences of design in nature
b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature
c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes
2 : the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of
being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose
3 : the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena
Consider too, that his handle, "oriel36", is actually a magic locus.
It's the 6^2rd lookout window, the preferred viewer's porch to survey the
cosmos. Gerald's deholyed ejaculate might prove to be interesting.
But equations and numbers only because oriel tends to be unnecessarily
oral.
hahahahanson
Oriel36
>
> > > > are following with the 3D cosmos
> > >
> > > [hanson]
> > > Gerald, nobody took any interest in what consequences
> > > do occur, when one compares the maximum conceptual velocity
> > >, being a crossing of the distance of the measurable
> > > universe in Planck time , --- and the minimum possible cosmic velocity
> > > being the move of one Planck length during one Hubble time --- which
> > > turns out to yield the speed of light "c". Nobody seems to be intersted
> > > in a reason why "c" is of "c"'s numerical quantity.
>
> [Gerald]
> > my energy is given towards can you proceed with a
> > workable model for the 3D cosmos ?.
>
> [hanson]
> I posted a thread few days ago asking why material, physical reality seems
> to be confined to exactly 3 spatial dimensions, not more and not less. But
> I didn't see any arresting, profound nor convincing answer from you about
> it.
I was the one asking the question of the 3D model from the moment of
expansion,are you too now going to skirt the issue.If you check my
posting history,you will find a symmetry from the moment of expansion
to the present and the present back to the moment of expansion without
having to shift perspectives.I don't say that our point as the center
as being less valid,what I do say is that it is an individual
perspective symmetrical to a Universal perspective that acknowledges a
common center for the all expansion in such a manner that the only
actual time that every point was the center was at the moment of
expansion.
I can see how current perspectives, that propose a no boundary
Universe, arrive at their picture.They do by a sleight of hand that
changes perspective at the early cosmos going from outside observers
viewing the BB event to the every point is the center perspective and
it is not altogether sincere.Do you see this or not ?.
> [hanson]
> > > Hey, some few folks are interested in new
> > > things, but most of'em like to parakeet and parrot
> > > as instructed under Albert's street lamp, comparing the
> > > relativistic length of their dicks and then fight over who is right.
> >
> [Gerald]
> > There always comes a time to leave this stuff
> > be and I look forward to leaving it for a very long time.
>
> [hanson]
> Yo ! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert! Alert!
> To all humanitarians and social workers!!
> I think Gerald just posted a suicide note!
> Help, Gerald! Help him! HELP! HELP! HELP! HELP!
Hanson,You do not understand that there is more to life than the
pursuit of knowledge,in the long run it amounts to trivia to me
despite the fact that most here consider it to be the true worth of
humanity.The twin disciplines of physics and psychology try to break
the cosmos and man down into divisible parts and that is fine so long
as it is not for it's own sake and as long as both do not try to ape
finality (and some propose that they can).In the end it is not a
question that is addressed but a person and I never forget this
unfortunately for all the accumulation of 'facts',and some of these
are dubious,you would seem to believe that it matters for most people
in their daily lives,but the truth is that it does'nt and certainly
not for me.
The last part of my post is an acknowledgement that all I can do is
repeat myself and recycle the arguments over and over again until it
becomes boring,that's all !.I have no intention of being a fixture
here and it would be foolish of me to set myself up as an opponent to
the scientific discipline when clearly my intention was to suggest
that for the most part,participants are extremely lazy and careless
with material both inside and outside physics in such a way that it
seems only equations matter and not the intuitions that try to make
sense of physical phenomena.You,of course,got my statement wrong as
usual and even if it was a shortcoming on my part,I doubt if you could
understand that I do actually mean that there is more to existence
then living inside your head.
Paul Mays
EL wrote:
> geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.01112...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
> >I said that contemplating nature is contemplating God,
>
> [EL]
> And I say that what you said is bullshit.
Direct, to the point, expressive and contains insight.... My compliments
on a view well stated EL...........
Oriel36
> Tell ya what ...when ya get to the "other side" send me a note
> and tell me how wrong I've been...... Hate to see ya leave
> but heck with 40 virgins and ultimate splendor I might want
> to go too.....
>
> BTW.... is your heaven anywhere near Valhalla? Or in the same
> region of the universe as the muslims heaven? And is it anywhere
> near Mt. Olympus where thors heaven was? And how do you know
> you won't end up in muslim heaven and not christs heaven? And is god like
> the mayor of christian heaven or like the president of a Country of heavens?
You see I do not make the mistake dividing God,Heaven ,Hell into any
divisible realm.You have a cardboard cut out view of all this and
cannot bring yourself to think differently even when works like
Dante's Divine Comedy uses descriptions of heaven and hell for the
purpose of describing intellectual error.In this,I am no different and
I use Pascal effective expression of the difference between the
mathematical and the intuitive to expand on contemplation of what
constitutes the cosmos and God simultaneously insofar as the study of
natural phenomena is a facet of God.
There is little point taking this any further (as I noted in the
posting to Hanson) as everybody seems to have made up their minds that
spiritual concepts are seperate to natural ones and obviously you
prefer to keep them that way.Mind you it will not always remain like
this.
Paul Mays
Oriel36 wrote:
So you say but cannot demonstrate..... You have made up our mind to beleave
in fairies, ghost and goblins... Your reality is illusion..... sorry bout
that....
Tom Roberts
> Grav. speed/light speed and max/min speeds.
> Apply these 2 velocity limit axioms, vmax & vmin, instead of c, to
Not "wow" -- using your "vmax" as the invariant speed of Lorentz
transforms you get a theory which is wildly inconsistent with actual
observations. Yes, relativity has a local maximum speed, but it must
be determined experimentally, and is found to be equal to the speed
of light (within experimental resolutions of ~0.1% or so).
> Similar, with vmin. What relationship and interpretation does this Tmin
> have to the CMVB, and it?s temperature, Tb?.
What is "CMVB"? Do you mean the cosmic-ray microwave background
radiation (CMBR)? If so, then I have no idea why you think some sort
of "minimum speed" would affect it or its temperature; especially
such a _tiny_ speed as your "vmin" which is vastly smaller than the
typical quantum zitterbewegung.
Classically there is no minimum speed, and neither is there a minimum
is relativity. In quantum physics there is a minimum speed for
situations in which speed makes sense....
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Oriel36
> Please Keep Your Theological Garbage to yourself, but bring your
> non-periodic geometry for discussion.
> If the level of your geometry is equal to or below the level of your
> theology, we shall shred them to pieces.
> If you happen to have a valuable geometry, we may learn something from
> you.
> What shall it be?
EL,
Not once has any person here discussed the issue of non-periodic
geometry,no matter how many times I brought it up.In considering any
approach to the topic it is unsuitable with a model of a no boundary
Universe,this is due to the fact that the shifting perspective which
current theories adopt in putting every point as the center from the
moment of expansion creates a principle of ignorance.The non-periodic
tiling patterns of a combination of 4 angles (Penrose tiles) suggest
otherwise, in that the the structures associated with phi tend towards
an initial geometric condition that is provisionally described as
infinite density/zero volume.A singularity represents a limitation of
logic however an indirect approach using non-periodic geometry can
mathematically, if not aesthetically,discern a single representation
(incorporating 3 dimensions into a single 'prime' dimension) that is
derived from multiple forms in nature.Rather than create a principle
of ignorance,a balance between mathematics and forms that resonate
with man emerge in such a manner that all the elements of the
unfolding cosmos are contained in a geometry that will remain outside
observation and direct intellectual perception,again we can only
perceive the initial geometry indirectly.In this respect,intuition
plays an equal role to mathematics insofar as the intuition relies in
the appreceation of phi and it's presence in the 3D cosmos without
appealing to time as a consideration.There is enough uncommented
material in my posting history to expand on this and I will not repeat
it.Additional material can be found at -
http://members.tripod.com/~amselvam/
I am prepared to leave all this rest for some time in order to
assimilate what I have learned here over the past few months here in
the forum and leave all those prejudices behind,at least the ones that
are appaling for someone who really does not have any.Again,my
objection is that the range of human understanding is not subservient
to the physics discipline or indeed any discipline whether it calls
itself theology or psychology besides there is more to life than
logic,indeed the better things in life (at least as I understand
them)can't be pidgeonholed and then broken down into divisible parts.I
guess that is the major difference between your understanding and
mine.
hanson
news:3BFDA304...@avenew.com...
> hanson wrote:
> > Grav. speed/light speed and max/min speeds.
> > If you traverse the distance D of the observable
> > universe in Planck time, t , you have, by definition,
> > a maximum speed vmax = D/t.
> > If you take a Hubble time, T= 1/H, to cross the distance
> > of a Plank length, l, you have, by definition,
> > a minimum speed, vmin = l*H.
> > Apply these 2 velocity limit axioms, vmax & vmin, instead of c, to
> > relativity and you get,???.wow!!!!!?..
>
[Tom]
> Not "wow" -- using your "vmax" as the invariant speed of Lorentz
> transforms you get a theory which is wildly inconsistent with actual
> observations. Yes, relativity has a local maximum speed, but it must
> be determined experimentally, and is found to be equal to the speed
> of light (within experimental resolutions of ~0.1% or so).
[hanson]
Really?..... for instance, when "vmax" = D/t is applied with some small
measure of ingenuity the entire mass spectrum for particles (in form of
multiples of the electron's mass) shows up. I may post it again, one day.
Phipps from the Naval Observatory worked on this extensively in the
mid 70's. --- Besides, these 2 conceptual cosmic velocity limits harbor
far more info then first meets the eye. Perform some inner reflection
upon it, and you'll be astonished.
[hanson]
> > Similar, with vmin. What relationship and interpretation does this Tmin
> > have to the CMVB, and it?s temperature, Tb?.
[Tom]
> What is "CMVB"? Do you mean the cosmic-ray microwave background
> radiation (CMBR)? [Yes] If so, then I have no idea why you think some
> sort of "minimum speed" would affect it or its temperature; especially
> such a _tiny_ speed as your "vmin" which is vastly smaller than the
> typical quantum zitterbewegung.
>
> Classically there is no minimum speed, and neither is there a minimum
> is relativity. In quantum physics there is a minimum speed for
> situations in which speed makes sense....
> Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
[hanson]
Really? Tiny ? Tom, you are right "classically", but the news is that
when you make a zittermove of vmin involving the estimated mass of
the observable universe M, then particles do show up. One can easily
and intuitively grasp such expected events as relations in equations like
M *vmin = m_pl *c
M *vmin = hbar / l_pl, ......etc, ect.......(numbers and dimensions match)
where m_pl & l_pl are Planck units, standardly convertible into atomic
units for e charge and electron mass amounts or Tmin/Tb via Bohr
Harttree ---- century old stuff..
Surprising? Not to me. So, Tom, ....doesn't that grab your attention and
interest...for you to say at least "Wait a minute.... what's going on
here?"
"......hanson says "when the universe trembles particles get born" .... or
"when a particle vibrates the whole universe shakes".... ? Look at the
equations again. Ain't it clear? At least in principle, that the conceptual
cosmic velocity limits, vmax & vmin, must have a profound impact onto any
cosmological pix?
Can't you see that the basic large scale structure is simple and that
scale-down ratios/properties must be the same as a consequence the
self-similarity?
It's just like Penrose tilings or Fractals. Here, instead of individual
tiles with corners and shapes, I use entities with dimensions and numbers.
Same game. Same picture we are describing......
It's the operations of the ever smaller reiterations/scaling value
additions to the next larger tile set which give the QM vs GR guys their
grief. And even with this tiling style here still plenty of complicated
math work is required in the translations from one system/size description
to an other. Such translation work lays beyond my current interest and ken.
Let "them" deal with the devil in the details.
If you can't see that, Tom, then by all means do stay glued to and remain
confined by GR/SR/QM and be happy.
hanson
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.01112...@posting.google.com...
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:<eEAK7.1261$lg5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >
> > > C'est la view, Gerald, and remember:
> > > For he who fucketh is happy an blessed
> > > For she who gets eaten shall never go hungry
> > > And for he who gets blown shall never have asthma.
> > > "The Tantralea, #69, verse 71=69+2 people watching; 6969 BC"
> > >
> > > hahahahahahanson
> >
> > [EL]
> > Hans!
> > No.
> > Not yet another religion!
> > But if I am forced to choose one any way, then THAT one is not bad.
> > Forget about "reading" its verses, and hasten with the "mass". :)
> > EheheL
>
> [hanson]
> Forget the mass
> Go for her ass!
>
Mass as in Christmas, like a ceremony. <g>
> Yes, you do have class, EL
> hanson
> So then, my friends, have you learned something, now?
[EL]
Everyday something new. :)
EL
EL
> EL wrote:
>
> > geraldk...@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.01112...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > >I said that contemplating nature is contemplating God,
>
> >
> > [EL]
> > And I say that what you said is bullshit.
>
> Direct, to the point, expressive and contains insight.... My compliments
> on a view well stated EL...........
>
Thank you Paul, and I knew I can trust a man who knows how to wind his coils. <g>
Best regards.
EL
EL
>
> > Please Keep Your Theological Garbage to yourself, but bring your
> > non-periodic geometry for discussion.
> > If the level of your geometry is equal to or below the level of your
> > theology, we shall shred them to pieces.
> > If you happen to have a valuable geometry, we may learn something from
> > you.
> > What shall it be?
>
>
> EL,
>
> Not once has any person here discussed the issue of non-periodic
[EL]
Well, here you have a chance to discuss it with whom CAN discuss it.
So let me see you not in retreat.
>In considering any
> approach to the topic it is unsuitable with a model of a no boundary
> current theories adopt in putting every point as the center from the
> moment of expansion creates a principle of ignorance.
Then bring your "improved" model with you and stop whining.
>The non-periodic
> tiling patterns of a combination of 4 angles (Penrose tiles) suggest
> otherwise,
Penrose is a genius, but "non-periodic" here, was in what sense?
What was that otherwise?
>in that the the structures associated with phi tend towards
> an initial geometric condition that is provisionally described as
> infinite density/zero volume.
Who said THAT! Penrose?
>A singularity represents a limitation of
> logic however an indirect approach using non-periodic geometry can
> (incorporating 3 dimensions into a single 'prime' dimension) that is
> of ignorance, a balance between mathematics and forms that resonate
> with man emerge in such a manner that all the elements of the
> unfolding cosmos are contained in a geometry that will remain outside
> perceive the initial geometry indirectly. In this respect, intuition
> plays an equal role to mathematics insofar as the intuition relies in
> the appreceation of phi and it's presence in the 3D cosmos without
> appealing to time as a consideration.
I do not believe in any physical "singularities", as it is pure
NONSENSE.
I do understand what singular and plural are, and I master
mathematics.
An infinite "density" per zero volume is empirically defined as
"CHICKEN SHIT STEW".
Density can only be infinite when we describe the dens minds who
suggested the possibility that a primitive concept relating mass to
volume can stand without volume.
Any mass and I mean any and whatever that mass may be arbitrated to
be, shall never exist in zero volume and therefore, density could
never be infinite.
Mass is not a divine magic, but it is equivalent to inertia and it
must have a shape (any shape), and its center is where the virtual
gravitation express itself.
I do not care how many Nobel prizes a fraud may take (although such an
event is less than likely) but such a contradicting mentality should
go back to school first before redefining our settled impervious
knowledge.
There is no such thing as zero volume containing any mass whatsoever,
because it is against the very definition of the words.
Density is a logical concept of a quantity in a volume, and it follows
that in zero volume the quantity must be a zero, because there is no
space for any.
If you are against the drool of singularities then we do agree.
>There is enough uncommented
> material in my posting history to expand on this and I will not repeat
> it.
[EL]
Please, do not repeat any thing.
Genuinely express your self in better words.
A man who could not do better would usually do worse.
>Additional material can be found at -
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~amselvam/
[EL]
Nice site, but be more specific please.
I am certain that you live on Earth, but is that your best address?
>
> I am prepared to leave all this rest for some time in order to
> assimilate what I have learned here over the past few months here in
> the forum and leave all those prejudices behind, at least the ones that
> are appaling for someone who really does not have any. Again, my
> objection is that the range of human understanding is not subservient
> to the physics discipline or indeed any discipline whether it calls
> itself theology or psychology besides there is more to life than
> logic,
[EL]
If you are evaluating the sentient ponderable logic as a property of
living biological structures,
then we do agree that the number of life forms, which do not apply
logical meditations and evaluations should certainly exceed those that
do.
That is why the few who do ponder logic are very valuable.
A lemming would care less to know why it should fall into the sea and
drown, it just does.
>indeed the better things in life (at least as I understand
> them) can't be pidgeonholed and then broken down into divisible parts. I
> guess that is the major difference between your understanding and
> mine.
[EL]
I do understand that my understanding must differ from yours
qualitatively and quantitatively.
What I do not understand is your daring comparison.
If the non-periodical geometry belongs to Penrose, then why do you
pretend that it is yours?
If it is yours, then why do you bring Penrose into it.
Do you know what is the meaning of "non periodical".
If you know the meaning, then tell me what geometry can you teach us
from chaos?
Is there any specific chaotic geometry?
Give me two examples of any two chaotic distinctive geometries.
EL
Herman Trivilino
> Any mass and I mean any and whatever that mass may be arbitrated to
> be, shall never exist in zero volume and therefore, density could
> never be infinite.
A nonzero mass confined to a zero volume would not imply an infinite density.
For such a situation it would not be possible to define density.
Do you think there are fundamental particles? What are they made of? If they
have a size that implies, at least to me, that they have a structure. If they
have a structure they must be composed of something, or at least that's the way
I see it.
Fundamental particles appear to have no size at all.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>
> > Any mass and I mean any and whatever that mass may be arbitrated to
> > be, shall never exist in zero volume and therefore, density could
> > never be infinite.
>
> A nonzero mass confined to a zero volume would not imply an infinite density.
> For such a situation it would not be possible to define density.
>
> Do you think there are fundamental particles? What are they made of? If they
> have a size that implies, at least to me, that they have a structure. If they
> have a structure they must be composed of something, or at least that's the way
> I see it.
>
> Fundamental particles appear to have no size at all.
>
[EL]
In the laboratory, we do not take appearance and disappearance as a
size discriminator.
In chemical reactions a solution could turn clear from opaque states,
but we are sure it still occupies a volume.
It is easy to say "a nonzero mass confined to a zero volume", but can
you produce it in the laboratory with evidence?
Logically, mass is an attribute of order in chaos which is a 4D or
more world by default, and it follows that non-zero mass must be
equivalent to non-zero volume.
Fundamental particles are arbitrated quantifications of wave
functions.
Waves cannot function without motion.
Motion is a phenomenon of displacement over time.
Displacement infers a spatial dimension.
Propagation is 3 over one.
A Standing de Broglie wave is one over three.
A particle is a standing wave.
A standing wave interacts with the chaotic background.
Mass is existence.
No volume is no existence.
what has no place no where at any time is exactly what does not exist.
How can you claim such an extremely contradicting claim?
"Fundamental particles appear to have no size at all." is equivalent
to saying "what appears is what was never there.".
Have a nice day.
EL
c.h.thompson
nospam thanks <nos...@nospamthanks.org> wrote in message
news:3bf59ec8...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> gravity is important. This is a schematic of how gravity mapping
> satellites work.
>
> ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/MGG/images/predict/figure05.gif
>
> You will notice that h and h' differ due to the effect of gravity on
> the reflected beam.
Hmm ... but why does the sea rise up in a hump? Surely it is assumed that
the hump at the bottom of the sea is more dense than water so the gravity
above it is stronger. So if anything the sea will be pulled down more
strongly above it and will therefore tend to DIP?
Another strange thing about that diagram is that we have a geostationary
satellite yet its trajectory is shown as if it moves relative to the sea ...
> The gravity source is the ocean bottom so if
> gravity travels >c we have a FTL signal.
How is the speed of gravity relevant here? We are dealing with a static
situation in which it has all the time in the world to act.
> This point has allready been
> made elsewhere in the newsgroup, but this might be a good place to
> start for beginners,
Looking at the rest of this thread, I doubt if this is a good place for
anything!
Caroline
Jonathan Doolin
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3BE9EBA8...@hate.spam.net...
> Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > My problem is different. Unless you assume the mass of the universe is
> > INFINITE,
> > there must be ONE particle which is further north (beyond the north
star)
> > than any other particle
> > (as measured from earth), and ONE particle which is further south than
any
> > other particle. From their own perspective, those particles are STILL
at
> > the geometric
> > center of the universe, but they are NOT at the Center Of Mass, but at
the
> > very
> > EDGE of MASS.
>
> Bullshit. All points in your universe are at its center. All points
> are equidistant from the Big Bang. All four(pi) steradian directions
> point exactly at the Big Bang. That is how the geometry is plumbed.
> Pookie pookie.
>
> [snip]
>
> > In other words, CBT ranged between 2.723K and 2.727 K.
> > which means that the blackbody radiation at one end of the sky has a
> > frequency
> > 0.2% faster than the other. Which means that we are within .002d of the
> > center of
> > mass of the universe, where d is the diameter of the universe, but we
are
> > not AT the
> > center of mass of the universe.
>
> You don't know what you are talking about. Might the tiny glimmer
> enter your fevered brain that if there were such a justifiable
> explanation for the observation, vast numbers of more educated
> professionals would be rushing to publish?
>
> My forebears at the turn of the century in Eastern Europe were hyped
> with the spew that "America's streets are paved with GOLD!" My great
> grandfather ran home to my great grandmother and couldn't stop
> jabbering, "The streets are paved! The streets are paved!" Things
> went downhill from there.
>
Well, It's been a long time since I've posted here, but today I published
(on my website.)
My hypothesis has undergone some major changes, so I no longer think that we
are anywhere NEAR the center of the universe. However, I still maintain
that there is a center of the universe.
http://home.earthlink.net/~spencerdoolin/relativity/BigBang.htm
My hypothesis is compatible with the following observations and theories.
The homogeneous appearance of the universe
The nearly isotropic appearance of the universe
The dipole anisotropy in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
Hubble's constant, predicting that velocities increase linearly with
distance.
The barely noticeable and recently discovered acceleration (the slow
increase in Hubble's constant.)
The Theory of Special Relativity.
The Theory of General Relativity as it applies to light falling toward
masses.
The Theory of General Relativity as it applies to light losing energy in the
presence of masses.
I humbly await your critique.
--
Jonathan Doolin
Spoonfed Relativity Tutorials
http://home.earthlink.net/~spencerdoolin/relativity/wavereflect.htm
Dale A Trynor
Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>
> My hypothesis has undergone some major changes, so I no longer think that we
> are anywhere NEAR the center of the universe. However, I still maintain
> that there is a center of the universe.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~spencerdoolin/relativity/BigBang.htm
You might like to take a look at the possibility of gravity expanding space. It
would turn out that in such a universe, the hypothetical event horizon, or more
than one depending on where you are in such a universe, would become the center,
or centers, of such of universe using this hypothesis and would appear in the
same way as is described of white holes.
I am more sure than ever that gravity should expand space. Another way of
examining why this should be, is by comparing with how for example, a 1 cm pulse
of light should contract with individual photons becoming closer as it enters a
lens, slowing its speed. So should matter contract as it passes by a
gravitational body with relative slower time. It would be unreasonable to assume
that the atoms in a solid rod should behave any differently that atoms in a
relativistic particle stream or photons in a light pulse. The main difference
becomes one of time effecting all of ones measurement references so one is
unable to compare such changes without outside references.
The black hole that caused the time dilation is however unchanged and should as
a result measure far larger to our astronauts prospective .
Rushtown
>From: Dale A Trynor da...@nbnet.nb.ca
>Date: 12/5/2001 5:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3DF02F56...@nbnet.nb.ca>
>
>
>
>Jonathan Doolin wrote:
>
>>
>> My hypothesis has undergone some major changes, so I no longer think that
>we
>> are anywhere NEAR the center of the universe
Everywhere's the center. Just like spots on an expanding balloon, each can
claim centerhood or centricity.
Richard Bullock
"Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9jYO7.561$714....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I've always heard that a good way to picture the universe is to look at it
like a balloon. As time goes on, the balloon gets bigger and all points on
the surface of the balloon (space) get further away. Place 2 dots on a
balloon and blow the balloon up further and the distance between the dots
increases. A dot twice the distance away (measuring around the edge of the
ballon) actually moves about twice as fast etc. The centre of the universe
is somewhere outside of actual space which is where all points of the
universe were at the big bang.
Ric
Dale A Trynor
Richard Bullock wrote:
[snip]
>
> I've always heard that a good way to picture the universe is to look at it
> like a balloon. As time goes on, the balloon gets bigger and all points on
> the surface of the balloon (space) get further away. Place 2 dots on a
> balloon and blow the balloon up further and the distance between the dots
> increases. A dot twice the distance away (measuring around the edge of the
> ballon) actually moves about twice as fast etc. The centre of the universe
> is somewhere outside of actual space which is where all points of the
> universe were at the big bang.
>
> Ric
If you have seen many of my postings you would know about my arguing for the
idea that gravity should expand space, in at least a relative way. What might be
interesting on this is when you look at how the creation of a black hole from
neutron stars would resemble a big bang if it could be viewed from inside. What
would happen is that the neutron stars would instantly go from kilometers
diameter to light years diameter at the instant they became a black hole. If its
as such an instant , this also means that each individual neutron is suddenly
surrounded by so much space as to give no chance of any smaller black holes, a
chance to form.
The main point I am trying to make to your posting, is that in this model, the
big bang would look like it had started from many small points and all at the
same time. Each individual neutron would see its point as being the singularity
that the big bang had came from.
The universes diameter might have been vast but each neutron could in theory,
only be able to measure the size of its universe depending on how long the speed
of light has had time to do its work of communicating this size.
Paul Mays
Richard Bullock wrote:
> "Jonathan Doolin" <spence...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:9jYO7.561$714....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
<SNIPPED>
>
> > I humbly await your critique.
> >
>
> I've always heard that a good way to picture the universe is to look at it
> like a balloon. As time goes on, the balloon gets bigger and all points on
> the surface of the balloon (space) get further away. Place 2 dots on a
> balloon and blow the balloon up further and the distance between the dots
> increases. A dot twice the distance away (measuring around the edge of the
> ballon) actually moves about twice as fast etc. The centre of the universe
> is somewhere outside of actual space which is where all points of the
> universe were at the big bang.
>
> Ric
I think you'll better visualize the universe if you can conceive of that
balloon as having the skin on the inside. With every dot connected
to every other dot by the skin..... And that the "skin" is easier to
stretch the farther you stretch it.....
Jonathan Doolin
"Richard Bullock" <richard...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:eFTP7.6166$ez6.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Well, Ric,
That's what I've always heard too. It's a lovely concept, complete with
parallel universes, wormholes, and all kinds of neat stuff. However I've
still not heard any motivation for the idea, and I tend to disagree with it.
Thanks for reading.
Jonathan Doolin
"Dale A Trynor" <da...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:3DF18554...@nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>
> Richard Bullock wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
> > I've always heard that a good way to picture the universe is to look at
it
> > like a balloon. As time goes on, the balloon gets bigger and all points
on
> > the surface of the balloon (space) get further away. Place 2 dots on a
> > balloon and blow the balloon up further and the distance between the
dots
> > increases. A dot twice the distance away (measuring around the edge of
the
> > ballon) actually moves about twice as fast etc. The centre of the
universe
> > is somewhere outside of actual space which is where all points of the
> > universe were at the big bang.
> >
> > Ric
>
> If you have seen many of my postings you would know about my arguing for
the
> idea that gravity should expand space, in at least a relative way.
Yes, I suppose I should look at that, since the idea of 'expanding space' is
rather unclear in my mind. I have mostly been working with Special
Relativity, and there is no equivalent in SR.
>What might be
> interesting on this is when you look at how the creation of a black hole
from
> neutron stars would resemble a big bang if it could be viewed from inside.
Hmmm, you are assuming that the particles reach the speed of light at the
event horizon and accelerate further into the black hole, forcing them to go
backward through time? So from their perspective it looks like the big bang
is a black hole going the other way? I don't know for sure whether this is
mathematically plausible or not, but it is nevertheless an interesting idea.
> What
> would happen is that the neutron stars would instantly go from kilometers
> diameter to light years diameter at the instant they became a black hole.
I suppose if a neutron star was almost to the point of becoming a black
hole, and it ate dessert, it would suddenly become a black hole. However, I
don't think it would suddenly form an event horizon light years away, as you
say. In fact, I believe the event horizon would appear at exactly the
radius of the last object that fell in. From that point on, since time is
halted at the event horizon, nothing will ever fall into that particular
event horizon. Only, new event horizons can form as massive objects fall
toward the black hole until they are so dense they form another event
horizon. Eventually, a massive black hole, light years apart could form.
>If its
> as such an instant , this also means that each individual neutron is
suddenly
> surrounded by so much space as to give no chance of any smaller black
holes, a
> chance to form.
>
I see. You were saying that from the perspective of the neutron, things
look a little different. While the neutron sinks toward the event horizon,
its clock slows down. Of course from its perspective, the speed of its
clock is not slowed. Everything within reach of the black hole seems to
come crashing down at once from the perspective of a neutron falling in.
Now, when the neutron reaches the event horizon, it is traveling at the
speed of light. (Can this be?) At such time as a particle actually reaches
the speed of light, it no longer progresses through time, and all other
particles could never be reached. Am I anywhere close to what you mean by
"surrounded by so much space?"
However, the gravitational effect of the particles in front would still be
present, causing these neutrons to soon continue accelerating beyond the
speed of light. At this time they would be reversed in time, so instead of
thinking of themselves as being pulled forward toward a black hole, they
would instead think they were being pulled back toward a big bang.
Particles in front of them would continue to appear from the original
universe, as they spontaneously appear by slowing from the speed of light.
> The main point I am trying to make to your posting, is that in this model,
the
> big bang would look like it had started from many small points and all at
the
> same time.
Hmm, then I've accidentally modified your theory. To get it to make some
small amount of sense to me, I have made it many small points around the
edge, spontaneously appearing at different points in time.
However, now that I think about it, since these are different points in time
AND space, there might be some way to establish a central inertial reference
frame from where it appears that all of the particles appear simultaneously.
> Each individual neutron would see its point as being the singularity
> that the big bang had came from.
>
But shouldn't there at least be some asymmetry caused by the presence of the
black hole, which is passed on to the particles?
> The universes diameter might have been vast but each neutron could in
theory,
> only be able to measure the size of its universe depending on how long the
speed
> of light has had time to do its work of communicating this size.
Right.
I don't know if I understood your ideas completely, but you are making me
think a lot more.