Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Big Bang conundrum
58 views
Skip to first unread message
JAAKKO KURHI
Apr 5, 2013, 11:06:45 AM4/5/13
to
A Big Bang conundrum
I�ve been interested in theories related to the origin of the universe
for quite some time, and have spent hours consuming information on the
subject through newspaper clippings, television shows and the wealth of
knowledge offered online. I often find presented theories to be flawed,
and have trouble reconciling some perceived problems. I�ve collected the
topics that I take issue with in this essay and would like to hear your
thoughts -- it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate the
long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the
popular Big Bang model.
The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what
happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it is
now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded. What
astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it was
at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
ago. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-years-old light rays
can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from
the observer�s position within the Milky Way galaxy. But that doesn�t
jibe with the expansion time line. During 13 billion years of expansion,
the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the location
of the young and small universe. Now, in the present location, observers
are looking back to where the Milky Way came from and seeing light rays
from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far,
this can still make sense, as long as the Milky Way was traveling near
parallel to the light and at a velocity near the speed of light, just to
stay ahead, and 13 billion years later, intercept the somewhat older
light beams from the emitting galaxy -- which I�ll call "Galaxy A" for
illustrative purposes.
Let�s go back and take a look at deep field space as a spherical entity,
with observers on Earth in center of this sphere, with seen objects
extending out in all directions. Looking toward Galaxy A, the observed
light originates from a time when the universe was relatively young and
small. But looking in the opposite direction from Galaxy A, observers
also see 13-billion-years-old galaxies which originated from the same
small Big Bang. There is no experimental nor logical explanation for the
above event to happen within the Big Bang model, and the phrase; "The
Big Bang happened everywhere" does not seem to explain it either. Hence,
it stands to reason that objects opposite from Galaxy A are actually 26
billion light years away from the compact small universe.
But that doesn�t make sense and here�s why. Let�s examine the galaxy,
the one blasted far ahead of the Milky Way, and call it "Galaxy X." The
light rays coming from Galaxy X are coming back toward our observing
Milky Way while the Milky Way is at the same time hurtling toward the
rays. So if the Milky Way has traveled 13 billion light years from the
infant universe, and the observed light from Galaxy X is 13 billion
years old when seen by astronomers, X and its neighbors must be 26
billion light years away from the young and small universe. Those
galaxies have traveled twice as far as the Milky Way has traveled from
the small universe. How did Galaxy X and it�s neighbors get way out
there in 13 billion years if they are from the small confined entity of
galaxies? They would have to travel far faster than the speed of light
to do so.
Let�s also examine the validity of the red shift observation, the one
that scientists used to reinforce and ultimately validate the Big Bang
theory. It�s a generally accepted concept that the universe is larger
than what the observed view indicates. The Milky Way is not in the
center of the universe but rather in the middle of the observable
section of universe. Hence, its inevitable that relative to the observer
the view of galaxies in expanding motion are not only moving away but
also moving sideways. This extra motion may add an uncounted factor to
the true meaning of the red shift observation.
Also, those 13-billion-year-old light rays that are being observed have
traveled an incredibly long distance -- through cosmic dust and
gravitational fields, including neighboring galaxies and finally
penetrate the denser interstellar system of the Milky Way. Add to the
distortion related to the light�s origin the fact that on the receiving
end, observers are also in linear and rotational motion, via the nature
of the Milky Way, the our solar system and the earth itself. While the
adapted tracking system used by scientists is designed to guarantee a
steady image via long exposure, data collected from a spectrometer does
not benefit from a similar treatment. It stands to reason that all of
the above factors independently or combined may alter the
interpretation of the red shift phenomenon, and one day that may change
the understanding of the universe..
--
JAAKKO KURHI
dlzc
Apr 5, 2013, 4:55:44 PM4/5/13
to
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the
> universe lies in what happened after the
> universe formed, when it was much smaller
> than it is now, and contained about 80 billion
> young galaxies as it expanded. What astronomers
> see in deep field space is the observable
> universe as it was at the time when light rays
> were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
> ago.
Not when they are looking at galaxies, they aren't. They are looking on this side of the CMBR curtain.
> According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-
> years-old light rays can be seen looking in all
> directions from any point on the globe from
> the observer's position within the Milky Way
> galaxy.
Yes, just like any direction around a ball, ends up back at your starting point, perhaps many times.
> But that doesn't jibe with the expansion time
> line.
Yes, it does.
> During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky
> Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from
> the location of the young and small universe.
No. The Milky Way moved at a speed of 300 km/sec over most of its history. How far light traveled, and how long the Milky Way aged are two very different things.
> Now, in the present location, observers are
> looking back to where the Milky Way came from
No, we cannot see ourselves in the past, nor the backs of our heads. Initial inflation prevented that. There is no pattern "left" that matches "right", no matter how far out we look.
> and seeing light rays from galaxies that were
> also located in that small universe. So far,
> this can still make sense,
No, you misunderstanding does not make any sense.
Rather than do a blow by blow, correcting your myriad mistakes in logic, let me direct you to a source for the Standard Model, and observations that make the Big Bang the only theory that seems to fit the Universe displayed:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
... four parts. Also:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#bestfit
... and:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence
David A. Smith
On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> it seems to me that observations of deep space
> indicate the long-discounted steady-state
> universe theory makes more sense than the
> popular Big Bang model.
How do you reconcile the iron problem, and the necessary loss of entropy?
> indicate the long-discounted steady-state
> universe theory makes more sense than the
> popular Big Bang model.
> The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the
> universe lies in what happened after the
> universe formed, when it was much smaller
> than it is now, and contained about 80 billion
> young galaxies as it expanded. What astronomers
> see in deep field space is the observable
> universe as it was at the time when light rays
> were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
> ago.
> According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-
> years-old light rays can be seen looking in all
> directions from any point on the globe from
> the observer's position within the Milky Way
> galaxy.
> But that doesn't jibe with the expansion time
> line.
> During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky
> Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from
> the location of the young and small universe.
> Now, in the present location, observers are
> looking back to where the Milky Way came from
> and seeing light rays from galaxies that were
> also located in that small universe. So far,
> this can still make sense,
Rather than do a blow by blow, correcting your myriad mistakes in logic, let me direct you to a source for the Standard Model, and observations that make the Big Bang the only theory that seems to fit the Universe displayed:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
... four parts. Also:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#bestfit
... and:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence
David A. Smith
JAAKKO KURHI
Apr 7, 2013, 1:39:26 PM4/7/13
to
dlzc;1243757 Wrote:
> Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
>
> On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> it seems to me that observations of deep space
> indicate the long-discounted steady-state
> universe theory makes more sense than the
> popular Big Bang model. -
> indicate the long-discounted steady-state
> universe theory makes more sense than the
>
> How do you reconcile the iron problem, and the necessary loss of
> entropy?
> -
> How do you reconcile the iron problem, and the necessary loss of
> entropy?
> The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the
> universe lies in what happened after the
> universe formed, when it was much smaller
> than it is now, and contained about 80 billion
> young galaxies as it expanded. What astronomers
> see in deep field space is the observable
> universe as it was at the time when light rays
> were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
> ago.-
> universe lies in what happened after the
> universe formed, when it was much smaller
> than it is now, and contained about 80 billion
> young galaxies as it expanded. What astronomers
> see in deep field space is the observable
> universe as it was at the time when light rays
> were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
>
> Not when they are looking at galaxies, they aren't. They are looking on
> this side of the CMBR curtain.
> -
> Not when they are looking at galaxies, they aren't. They are looking on
> this side of the CMBR curtain.
> According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-
> years-old light rays can be seen looking in all
> directions from any point on the globe from
> the observer's position within the Milky Way
> galaxy.-
> years-old light rays can be seen looking in all
> directions from any point on the globe from
> the observer's position within the Milky Way
>
> Yes, just like any direction around a ball, ends up back at your
> starting point, perhaps many times.
> -
> Yes, just like any direction around a ball, ends up back at your
> starting point, perhaps many times.
> But that doesn't jibe with the expansion time
> line.-
>
> Yes, it does.
> -
> During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky
> Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from
> the location of the young and small universe.-
> Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from
>
> No. The Milky Way moved at a speed of 300 km/sec over most of its
> history. How far light traveled, and how long the Milky Way aged are
> two very different things.
> -
> No. The Milky Way moved at a speed of 300 km/sec over most of its
> history. How far light traveled, and how long the Milky Way aged are
> two very different things.
> Now, in the present location, observers are
> looking back to where the Milky Way came from-
>
> No, we cannot see ourselves in the past, nor the backs of our heads.
> Initial inflation prevented that. There is no pattern "left" that
> matches "right", no matter how far out we look.
> -
> No, we cannot see ourselves in the past, nor the backs of our heads.
> Initial inflation prevented that. There is no pattern "left" that
> matches "right", no matter how far out we look.
> and seeing light rays from galaxies that were
> also located in that small universe. So far,
> this can still make sense,-
> also located in that small universe. So far,
>
> No, you misunderstanding does not make any sense.
>
> Rather than do a blow by blow, correcting your myriad mistakes in logic,
> let me direct you to a source for the Standard Model, and observations
> that make the Big Bang the only theory that seems to fit the Universe
> displayed:
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
> .... four parts. Also:
> No, you misunderstanding does not make any sense.
>
> Rather than do a blow by blow, correcting your myriad mistakes in logic,
> let me direct you to a source for the Standard Model, and observations
> that make the Big Bang the only theory that seems to fit the Universe
> displayed:
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#bestfit
> .... and:
I think your analyses are a bit hasty, if you read it again and more
thoughtfully the outcome may be different.
JK
--
JAAKKO KURHI
dlzc
Apr 7, 2013, 9:23:58 PM4/7/13
to
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Sunday, April 7, 2013 10:39:26 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> if you read it again and more thoughtfully the
> outcome may be different.
No, I think you are yet another person who is more interested in your misunderstandings, than in answering the "questions" you raise, about topics you clearly are not interested in researching.
David A. Smith
On Sunday, April 7, 2013 10:39:26 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> I think your analyses are a bit hasty,
I think you lied when you presented this as a question or conundrum.
> if you read it again and more thoughtfully the
> outcome may be different.
David A. Smith
JAAKKO KURHI
Apr 9, 2013, 8:48:35 PM4/9/13
to
dlzc;1243867 Wrote:
> Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
>
> On Sunday, April 7, 2013 10:39:26 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> -
> I think your analyses are a bit hasty,-
>
> I think you lied when you presented this as a question or conundrum.
> -
> I think you lied when you presented this as a question or conundrum.
> if you read it again and more thoughtfully the
> outcome may be different. -
>
> No, I think you are yet another person who is more interested in your
> misunderstandings, than in answering the "questions" you raise, about
> topics you clearly are not interested in researching.
>
> David A. Smith
The observer cannot see a 13 billion years-old light unless the observer
> No, I think you are yet another person who is more interested in your
> misunderstandings, than in answering the "questions" you raise, about
> topics you clearly are not interested in researching.
>
> David A. Smith
is located 13 billion light- years-away from the point the light was
emitted. How this event works with the Big-Bang model, where the
emitted light and the observer originated from the same young and small
universe. Theoretically, it can work if the Milky-Way as an observer and
the emitted light rays traveled near same speed and near parallel
paths, until 13 billion years later the Milky-Way is observing these
old lights. This event is not happening. The Milky-Way travels only 300
km/sec. In the environment of the Big-Bang model, this speed is not
enough to reach the position for observing 13 billion years old light
rays. Therefore, those observed 13 billion years-old lights are not
coming from the small, young and compact universe.
Jaakko Kurhi
--
JAAKKO KURHI
dlzc
Apr 9, 2013, 10:31:23 PM4/9/13
to
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5:48:35 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> Theoretically, it can work if the Milky-Way as an
> observer and the emitted light rays traveled near
> same speed and near parallel paths, until 13
> billion years later the Milky-Way is observing
> these old lights.
"Only" way? No, clearly you operate from complete ignorance. You choose to spout, rather than learn.
> This event is not happening. The Milky-Way travels
> only 300 km/sec. In the environment of the Big-Bang
> model, this speed is not enough to reach the
> position for observing 13 billion years old light
> rays.
"Conundrum", no.
> Therefore, those observed 13 billion years-old
> lights are not coming from the small, young and
> compact universe.
So sad you spend time justifying, rather than learning.
David A. Smith
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5:48:35 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> The observer cannot see a 13 billion years-old light
> unless the observer is located 13 billion light-years
> unless the observer is located 13 billion light-years
> away from the point the light was emitted. How this
> event works with the Big-Bang model, where the
> emitted light and the observer originated from the
> same young and small universe.
The CMBR light was emitted from a nearly fully -ized Universe. Inflation lets you outrun the light. Besides, the light could go round and round a closed Universe.
> event works with the Big-Bang model, where the
> emitted light and the observer originated from the
> same young and small universe.
> Theoretically, it can work if the Milky-Way as an
> observer and the emitted light rays traveled near
> same speed and near parallel paths, until 13
> billion years later the Milky-Way is observing
> these old lights.
> This event is not happening. The Milky-Way travels
> only 300 km/sec. In the environment of the Big-Bang
> model, this speed is not enough to reach the
> position for observing 13 billion years old light
> rays.
> Therefore, those observed 13 billion years-old
> lights are not coming from the small, young and
> compact universe.
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
Apr 10, 2013, 8:56:15 PM4/10/13
to
On 05/04/2013 11:06 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> A Big Bang conundrum
>
> I�ve been interested in theories related to the origin of the universe
> illustrative purposes.
What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original
Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What
the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.
The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by
the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
*faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is
224 times the speed of light!
After Inflation was over, the expansion slowed down to less than or
equal to the speed of light. Any little fluctuations in the density of
the universe prior to Inflation got expanded out to huge proportions
after Inflation. So this is how large scale structures came into being
inside the universe, because per-Inflationary bubbles became too big
after Inflation to be affected by anything travelling at the speed of light.
Yousuf Khan
> A Big Bang conundrum
>
> I�ve been interested in theories related to the origin of the universe
> for quite some time, and have spent hours consuming information on the
> subject through newspaper clippings, television shows and the wealth of
> knowledge offered online. I often find presented theories to be flawed,
> and have trouble reconciling some perceived problems. I�ve collected the
> subject through newspaper clippings, television shows and the wealth of
> knowledge offered online. I often find presented theories to be flawed,
> topics that I take issue with in this essay and would like to hear your
> thoughts -- it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate the
> long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the
> popular Big Bang model.
>
> The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what
> happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it is
> now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded. What
> astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it was
> at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
> ago. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-years-old light rays
> can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from
> the observer�s position within the Milky Way galaxy. But that doesn�t
> thoughts -- it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate the
> long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the
> popular Big Bang model.
>
> The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what
> happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it is
> now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded. What
> astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it was
> at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years
> ago. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-years-old light rays
> can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from
> jibe with the expansion time line. During 13 billion years of expansion,
> the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the location
> of the young and small universe. Now, in the present location, observers
> are looking back to where the Milky Way came from and seeing light rays
> from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far,
> this can still make sense, as long as the Milky Way was traveling near
> parallel to the light and at a velocity near the speed of light, just to
> stay ahead, and 13 billion years later, intercept the somewhat older
> light beams from the emitting galaxy -- which I�ll call "Galaxy A" for
> the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the location
> of the young and small universe. Now, in the present location, observers
> are looking back to where the Milky Way came from and seeing light rays
> from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far,
> this can still make sense, as long as the Milky Way was traveling near
> parallel to the light and at a velocity near the speed of light, just to
> stay ahead, and 13 billion years later, intercept the somewhat older
> illustrative purposes.
What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original
Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What
the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.
The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by
the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
*faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is
224 times the speed of light!
After Inflation was over, the expansion slowed down to less than or
equal to the speed of light. Any little fluctuations in the density of
the universe prior to Inflation got expanded out to huge proportions
after Inflation. So this is how large scale structures came into being
inside the universe, because per-Inflationary bubbles became too big
after Inflation to be affected by anything travelling at the speed of light.
Yousuf Khan
JAAKKO KURHI
Apr 12, 2013, 11:48:20 AM4/12/13
to
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
> ;1244039']On 05/04/2013 11:06 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:-
> A Big Bang conundrum
>
> I�ve been interested in theories related to the origin of the universe
> for quite some time, and have spent hours consuming information on the
> subject through newspaper clippings, television shows and the wealth
> of
> knowledge offered online. I often find presented theories to be
> flawed,
> and have trouble reconciling some perceived problems. I�ve collected
> subject through newspaper clippings, television shows and the wealth
> of
> knowledge offered online. I often find presented theories to be
> flawed,
> the
> topics that I take issue with in this essay and would like to hear
> your
> thoughts -- it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate
> the
> long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the
> popular Big Bang model.
>
> The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what
> happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it
> is
> now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded.
> What
> astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it
> was
> at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion
> years
> ago. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-years-old light rays
> can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from
> the observer�s position within the Milky Way galaxy. But that doesn�t
> topics that I take issue with in this essay and would like to hear
> your
> thoughts -- it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate
> the
> long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the
> popular Big Bang model.
>
> The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what
> happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it
> is
> now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded.
> What
> astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it
> was
> at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion
> years
> ago. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-years-old light rays
> can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from
> jibe with the expansion time line. During 13 billion years of
> expansion,
> the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the
> location
> of the young and small universe. Now, in the present location,
> observers
> are looking back to where the Milky Way came from and seeing light
> rays
> from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far,
> this can still make sense, as long as the Milky Way was traveling near
> parallel to the light and at a velocity near the speed of light, just
> to
> stay ahead, and 13 billion years later, intercept the somewhat older
> light beams from the emitting galaxy -- which I�ll call "Galaxy A" for
> expansion,
> the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the
> location
> of the young and small universe. Now, in the present location,
> observers
> are looking back to where the Milky Way came from and seeing light
> rays
> from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far,
> this can still make sense, as long as the Milky Way was traveling near
> parallel to the light and at a velocity near the speed of light, just
> to
> stay ahead, and 13 billion years later, intercept the somewhat older
> illustrative purposes.-
>
> What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original
>
> Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What
>
> the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
> the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
> energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.
>
> The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
> out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by
>
> the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
> *faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
> to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is
>
> 224 times the speed of light!
>
> After Inflation was over, the expansion slowed down to less than or
> equal to the speed of light. Any little fluctuations in the density of
> the universe prior to Inflation got expanded out to huge proportions
> after Inflation. So this is how large scale structures came into being
> inside the universe, because per-Inflationary bubbles became too big
> after Inflation to be affected by anything travelling at the speed of
> light.
>
> Yousuf Khan
When the Big-Bang model was found to be problematic, instead of
> What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original
>
> Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What
>
> the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
> the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
> energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.
>
> The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
> out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by
>
> the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
> *faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
> to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is
>
> 224 times the speed of light!
>
> After Inflation was over, the expansion slowed down to less than or
> equal to the speed of light. Any little fluctuations in the density of
> the universe prior to Inflation got expanded out to huge proportions
> after Inflation. So this is how large scale structures came into being
> inside the universe, because per-Inflationary bubbles became too big
> after Inflation to be affected by anything travelling at the speed of
> light.
>
> Yousuf Khan
scratching off the idea, the patch-up work was done, resulting in a new
inflationary model. In this version, the numbers for the workings of
this system grew to the level of imaginary events, well beyond logical
comprehension. Back to the original model, I am still skeptical about
the initial expansion process. In the materialistic world, where
behaviors of matter in most forms of application are well experimented
and documented for future applications. However, when it comes to
applying this knowledge to the Big-Bang model its completely ignored.
For the universe that existed as a small entity, that was set to
expanding motion by extremely fast explosive force. During the first
fraction from the second of this event, there is bound to be a change
in order of the density and set the direction for matter to expand. The
following may be a most suitable illustration: The imaginary picture of
the big-bang universe should resample a Galaxy, having the hollow
center and the density of the matter is distributed unevenly, being
denser close to the hallow and thinning toward the edge. This is a
perfect example for the foot print of the motion set by an explosive
action.
bil...@microsoft.com
Apr 12, 2013, 6:02:50 PM4/12/13
to
>> A Big Bang conundrum
Think of it like this. When the big bang "banged" it did not start
from single point.
Think of it like this. When the big bang "banged" it did not start
from single point.
Yousuf Khan
Apr 16, 2013, 1:07:43 AM4/16/13
to
On 12/04/2013 11:48 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
is because it is space itself that is expanding, not the stuff in it.
The stuff in it just gets carried along with it. The speed of light
limit only applies to particles travelling from one point in space to
another point, however if the points of space itself are moving there's
no such speed limit.
The reason the original Big Bang model didn't get scrapped was because
it did explain most of the unanswered questions about the observations
seen in the universe. For example it explained the leftover Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), and its current temperature of
about 2.7 Kelvin. The only thing that it didn't explain perfectly was
why the Universe was lumpy. In other words, if the Big Bang happened at
or below the speed of light, then the Universe would be just a
collection of evenly distributed gas, and there would be no
conglomerations of stars and galaxies, because everything would be too
even. When they added Inflation into the Big Bang, they could make
individual quantum fluctuations in the gas stretch out to large knots
and gaps, which can then become stars and galaxies and voids.
> For the universe that existed as a small entity, that was set to
> expanding motion by extremely fast explosive force. During the first
> fraction from the second of this event, there is bound to be a change
> in order of the density and set the direction for matter to expand. The
> following may be a most suitable illustration: The imaginary picture of
> the big-bang universe should resample a Galaxy, having the hollow
> center and the density of the matter is distributed unevenly, being
> denser close to the hallow and thinning toward the edge. This is a
> perfect example for the foot print of the motion set by an explosive
> action.
The shape of a spiral galaxy forms over the course of millions of years,
which is pretty fast, but still not fast enough. You won't see that kind
of shape form in a split second, the amount of time that the Big Bang
happened.
Yousuf Khan
>
> 'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
>> What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original
>>
>> Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What
>>
>> the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
>> the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
>> energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.
>>
>> The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
>> out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by
>>
>> the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
>> *faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
>> to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is
>>
>> 224 times the speed of light!
>
> 'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
>> What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original
>>
>> Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What
>>
>> the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
>> the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
>> energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.
>>
>> The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
>> out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by
>>
>> the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
>> *faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
>> to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is
>>
>> 224 times the speed of light!
>
> When the Big-Bang model was found to be problematic, instead of
> scratching off the idea, the patch-up work was done, resulting in a new
> inflationary model. In this version, the numbers for the workings of
> this system grew to the level of imaginary events, well beyond logical
> comprehension. Back to the original model, I am still skeptical about
> the initial expansion process. In the materialistic world, where
> behaviors of matter in most forms of application are well experimented
> and documented for future applications. However, when it comes to
> applying this knowledge to the Big-Bang model its completely ignored.
The reason that the expansion can happen faster than the speed of light
> scratching off the idea, the patch-up work was done, resulting in a new
> inflationary model. In this version, the numbers for the workings of
> this system grew to the level of imaginary events, well beyond logical
> comprehension. Back to the original model, I am still skeptical about
> the initial expansion process. In the materialistic world, where
> behaviors of matter in most forms of application are well experimented
> and documented for future applications. However, when it comes to
> applying this knowledge to the Big-Bang model its completely ignored.
is because it is space itself that is expanding, not the stuff in it.
The stuff in it just gets carried along with it. The speed of light
limit only applies to particles travelling from one point in space to
another point, however if the points of space itself are moving there's
no such speed limit.
The reason the original Big Bang model didn't get scrapped was because
it did explain most of the unanswered questions about the observations
seen in the universe. For example it explained the leftover Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), and its current temperature of
about 2.7 Kelvin. The only thing that it didn't explain perfectly was
why the Universe was lumpy. In other words, if the Big Bang happened at
or below the speed of light, then the Universe would be just a
collection of evenly distributed gas, and there would be no
conglomerations of stars and galaxies, because everything would be too
even. When they added Inflation into the Big Bang, they could make
individual quantum fluctuations in the gas stretch out to large knots
and gaps, which can then become stars and galaxies and voids.
> For the universe that existed as a small entity, that was set to
> expanding motion by extremely fast explosive force. During the first
> fraction from the second of this event, there is bound to be a change
> in order of the density and set the direction for matter to expand. The
> following may be a most suitable illustration: The imaginary picture of
> the big-bang universe should resample a Galaxy, having the hollow
> center and the density of the matter is distributed unevenly, being
> denser close to the hallow and thinning toward the edge. This is a
> perfect example for the foot print of the motion set by an explosive
> action.
which is pretty fast, but still not fast enough. You won't see that kind
of shape form in a split second, the amount of time that the Big Bang
happened.
Yousuf Khan
dlzc
Apr 16, 2013, 10:04:51 AM4/16/13
to
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Friday, April 12, 2013 8:48:20 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> In this version, the numbers for the workings of
> this system grew to the level of imaginary events,
> well beyond logical comprehension.
Since it plumbs a solution space we can never observe, what can you expect?
> Back to the original model, I am still skeptical
> about the initial expansion process. In the
> materialistic world, where behaviors of matter in
> most forms of application are well experimented
> and documented for future applications.
Expansion is well documented. We have 13+ billion years of it displayed. We even observe that objects in the early Universe appear to be larger than they are today... because they subtend a larger angle in a smaller Universe.
> However, when it comes to applying this knowledge
> to the Big-Bang model its completely ignored.
Again, had you studied, you would realize this was not the case.
> For the universe that existed as a small entity,
> that was set to expanding motion by extremely fast
> explosive force.
No. Wrong. Uninformed. Blatantly uninformed. Acceleration of expansion, expansion, and inflation require NO force. The Big Bang was not an explosion in pre-existing space. The past is in every direction we look, and we are not moving anywhere fast enough to reach it (again).
> During the first fraction from the second of this
> event, there is bound to be a change in order of
> the density and set the direction for matter to
> expand.
Density, yes. Hence the global "time rate" will accelerate. "Direction for matter", no.
Interlock the fingers of your two hands, and move your palms together so the fingers wrap around the outside of the opposing hand. As tight as you can get. Now move your hands apart, allowing your fingers to stay interlocked as long as possible. The matter that was moving "left" stayed moving left. The contents of the galaxies today, was moving in roughly the same direction, or they would not have ended up together.
> The following may be a most suitable illustration:
> The imaginary picture of the big-bang universe
> should [resemble] a Galaxy, having the hollow
> This is a perfect example for the foot print
> of the motion set by an explosive action.
Says a self-limited mind, about the toy model of the Big Bang that Jaakko set up, so Jakkoo is competent to tear down. Fortunately, cosmology never used such a model, because they were not interested in masturbatory exercises.
Please understand that this forum is archived for years. Your insistence to stay uninformed will be on record for years. I provided these links before, so you can find out about the *actual* Big Bang model, and it is clear you did not read them. Let us try this again:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#bestfit
David A. Smith
On Friday, April 12, 2013 8:48:20 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> When the Big-Bang model was found to be problematic,
> instead of scratching off the idea, the patch-up
> work was done, resulting in a new inflationary model.
The model *was* made to fit the observations. That is how Science works.
> instead of scratching off the idea, the patch-up
> work was done, resulting in a new inflationary model.
> In this version, the numbers for the workings of
> this system grew to the level of imaginary events,
> well beyond logical comprehension.
> Back to the original model, I am still skeptical
> about the initial expansion process. In the
> materialistic world, where behaviors of matter in
> most forms of application are well experimented
> and documented for future applications.
> However, when it comes to applying this knowledge
> to the Big-Bang model its completely ignored.
> For the universe that existed as a small entity,
> that was set to expanding motion by extremely fast
> explosive force.
> During the first fraction from the second of this
> event, there is bound to be a change in order of
> the density and set the direction for matter to
> expand.
Interlock the fingers of your two hands, and move your palms together so the fingers wrap around the outside of the opposing hand. As tight as you can get. Now move your hands apart, allowing your fingers to stay interlocked as long as possible. The matter that was moving "left" stayed moving left. The contents of the galaxies today, was moving in roughly the same direction, or they would not have ended up together.
> The following may be a most suitable illustration:
> The imaginary picture of the big-bang universe
> center and the density of the matter is
> distributed unevenly, being denser close to the
> hallow and thinning toward the edge.
Because you have no interest in actually thinking about the Universe displayed, why do you think this fantasy is even close? The Universe *HAS NO EDGE*. Nothing expanded into pre-existing space.
> distributed unevenly, being denser close to the
> hallow and thinning toward the edge.
> This is a perfect example for the foot print
> of the motion set by an explosive action.
Please understand that this forum is archived for years. Your insistence to stay uninformed will be on record for years. I provided these links before, so you can find out about the *actual* Big Bang model, and it is clear you did not read them. Let us try this again:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#bestfit
David A. Smith
JAAKKO KURHI
Apr 17, 2013, 11:19:26 AM4/17/13
to
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
> ;1244399']On 12/04/2013 11:48 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:-
>
> 'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:-
> What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic
> original
>
> Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model.
> What
>
> the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
> the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
> energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.
>
> The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
> out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years
> by
>
> the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
> *faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
> to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which
> is
>
> 224 times the speed of light!-
> original
>
> Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model.
> What
>
> the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
> the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
> energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.
>
> The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
> out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years
> by
>
> the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
> *faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
> to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which
> is
>
>
> When the Big-Bang model was found to be problematic, instead of
> scratching off the idea, the patch-up work was done, resulting in a
> new
> inflationary model. In this version, the numbers for the workings of
> this system grew to the level of imaginary events, well beyond
> logical
> comprehension. Back to the original model, I am still skeptical about
> the initial expansion process. In the materialistic world, where
> behaviors of matter in most forms of application are well
> experimented
> and documented for future applications. However, when it comes to
> applying this knowledge to the Big-Bang model its completely ignored.-
> When the Big-Bang model was found to be problematic, instead of
> scratching off the idea, the patch-up work was done, resulting in a
> new
> inflationary model. In this version, the numbers for the workings of
> this system grew to the level of imaginary events, well beyond
> logical
> comprehension. Back to the original model, I am still skeptical about
> the initial expansion process. In the materialistic world, where
> behaviors of matter in most forms of application are well
> experimented
> and documented for future applications. However, when it comes to
>
> The reason that the expansion can happen faster than the speed of light
>
> is because it is space itself that is expanding, not the stuff in it.
> The stuff in it just gets carried along with it. The speed of light
> limit only applies to particles travelling from one point in space to
> another point, however if the points of space itself are moving there's
>
> no such speed limit.
>
> The reason the original Big Bang model didn't get scrapped was because
> it did explain most of the unanswered questions about the observations
> seen in the universe. For example it explained the leftover Cosmic
> Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), and its current temperature of
> about 2.7 Kelvin. The only thing that it didn't explain perfectly was
> why the Universe was lumpy. In other words, if the Big Bang happened at
>
> or below the speed of light, then the Universe would be just a
> collection of evenly distributed gas, and there would be no
> conglomerations of stars and galaxies, because everything would be too
> even. When they added Inflation into the Big Bang, they could make
> individual quantum fluctuations in the gas stretch out to large knots
> and gaps, which can then become stars and galaxies and voids.
> -
> The reason that the expansion can happen faster than the speed of light
>
> is because it is space itself that is expanding, not the stuff in it.
> The stuff in it just gets carried along with it. The speed of light
> limit only applies to particles travelling from one point in space to
> another point, however if the points of space itself are moving there's
>
> no such speed limit.
>
> The reason the original Big Bang model didn't get scrapped was because
> it did explain most of the unanswered questions about the observations
> seen in the universe. For example it explained the leftover Cosmic
> Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), and its current temperature of
> about 2.7 Kelvin. The only thing that it didn't explain perfectly was
> why the Universe was lumpy. In other words, if the Big Bang happened at
>
> or below the speed of light, then the Universe would be just a
> collection of evenly distributed gas, and there would be no
> conglomerations of stars and galaxies, because everything would be too
> even. When they added Inflation into the Big Bang, they could make
> individual quantum fluctuations in the gas stretch out to large knots
> and gaps, which can then become stars and galaxies and voids.
> For the universe that existed as a small entity, that was set to
> expanding motion by extremely fast explosive force. During the first
> fraction from the second of this event, there is bound to be a
> change
> in order of the density and set the direction for matter to expand.
> The
> following may be a most suitable illustration: The imaginary picture
> of
> the big-bang universe should resample a Galaxy, having the hollow
> center and the density of the matter is distributed unevenly, being
> denser close to the hallow and thinning toward the edge. This is a
> perfect example for the foot print of the motion set by an explosive
> action.-
> expanding motion by extremely fast explosive force. During the first
> fraction from the second of this event, there is bound to be a
> change
> in order of the density and set the direction for matter to expand.
> The
> following may be a most suitable illustration: The imaginary picture
> of
> the big-bang universe should resample a Galaxy, having the hollow
> center and the density of the matter is distributed unevenly, being
> denser close to the hallow and thinning toward the edge. This is a
> perfect example for the foot print of the motion set by an explosive
>
> The shape of a spiral galaxy forms over the course of millions of years,
>
> which is pretty fast, but still not fast enough. You won't see that kind
>
> of shape form in a split second, the amount of time that the Big Bang
> happened.
>
> Yousuf Khan
�The space itself that is expanding.� - It never occurred to me that
> The shape of a spiral galaxy forms over the course of millions of years,
>
> which is pretty fast, but still not fast enough. You won't see that kind
>
> of shape form in a split second, the amount of time that the Big Bang
> happened.
>
> Yousuf Khan
the inflating big-bang event included creation of the water and the
bucket. The space is the place where events happen. In the
three-dimensional sense, the space in between four or more particles of
matter is just a space, nothing else. So, how is this space that has no
dimensions and does not exist as an entity is required to play the part
of an inflating universe?
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, this concept seems to carry a
lot of support for the big-bang model. However, the CMBR data may not
be an exclusive property of the big-bang model. The obtained data may be
the result of the general radiated noise coming from every direction.
However, not necessarily from the edge or beginning of the ever
evolving universe.
How does the galaxies form should be debatable question. In the
environment of fast inflating universe, the matter is moving away from
each other. Therefore, making it practically impossible for cumulation
and clumping. Faster the expansion speed more force of gravity is needed
for commutative action.
Yousuf Khan
Apr 19, 2013, 3:06:58 PM4/19/13
to
On 17/04/2013 11:19 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> “The space itself that is expanding.” - It never occurred to me that
Actually, you can even say that the Big Bang also created water-ice
floating on top of the water.
If you consider space to be like flowing water, then matter would be
little bits of crushed ice floating on top of the water, made of the
same material as the water, but just appearing in a different state
(solid rather than liquid). Most next generation physics theories (such
as Superstring theory, or Loop-Quantum Gravity) are zeroing in on the
idea that space itself as made of a substance. And that matter is simply
made up of the same substance that makes up space, but organized into
knots. So every little particle of matter (from quarks all of the way
upto galaxies) would be solidified bits of space, just like ice is
solidified bits of water.
> The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, this concept seems to carry a
> lot of support for the big-bang model. However, the CMBR data may not
> be an exclusive property of the big-bang model. The obtained data may be
> the result of the general radiated noise coming from every direction.
> However, not necessarily from the edge or beginning of the ever
> evolving universe.
So if you believe in an "ever evolving universe", then that
automatically means that you don't believe in the Static Universe, by
definition. So any universe that is ever evolving will show signs of a
CMBR. If for example the universe were flowing through a tube, rather
than expanding in every direction, then we'd see a CMBR in the starting
direction of the tube, and ending direction of the tube, but not towards
the sides. If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it
started in a single point and is expanding out in all directions. You
will always see some form of CMBR in an evolving universe, but not in a
static universe.
> How does the galaxies form should be debatable question. In the
> environment of fast inflating universe, the matter is moving away from
> each other. Therefore, making it practically impossible for cumulation
> and clumping. Faster the expansion speed more force of gravity is needed
> for commutative action.
The secret of Inflation is to have it stop at a certain point in time.
If Inflation started, but never stopped, then the Universe would simply
expand out beyond the ability to any matter to accumulate together
again. All matter would be carried away from each other beyond their
ability to send force signals to each other (since Inflation happens
faster than lightspeed). So what happened is that Inflation happened,
and then it stopped. There was just enough Inflation to separate out the
particles just enough, such that they can't simply refill the container
evenly in all directions in a timely fashion, so instead they form
clumps with each of their nearest neighbours. It's kind of even, yet
uneven at the same time. The clumps are evenly distributed throughout
the universe, but between the clumps you have voids, which are also
evenly distributed throughout the universe.
Yousuf Khan
> “The space itself that is expanding.” - It never occurred to me that
> the inflating big-bang event included creation of the water and the
> bucket. The space is the place where events happen. In the
> three-dimensional sense, the space in between four or more particles of
> matter is just a space, nothing else. So, how is this space that has no
> dimensions and does not exist as an entity is required to play the part
> of an inflating universe?
Yes, the bucket and the water both got created by the Big Bang.
> bucket. The space is the place where events happen. In the
> three-dimensional sense, the space in between four or more particles of
> matter is just a space, nothing else. So, how is this space that has no
> dimensions and does not exist as an entity is required to play the part
> of an inflating universe?
Actually, you can even say that the Big Bang also created water-ice
floating on top of the water.
If you consider space to be like flowing water, then matter would be
little bits of crushed ice floating on top of the water, made of the
same material as the water, but just appearing in a different state
(solid rather than liquid). Most next generation physics theories (such
as Superstring theory, or Loop-Quantum Gravity) are zeroing in on the
idea that space itself as made of a substance. And that matter is simply
made up of the same substance that makes up space, but organized into
knots. So every little particle of matter (from quarks all of the way
upto galaxies) would be solidified bits of space, just like ice is
solidified bits of water.
> The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, this concept seems to carry a
> lot of support for the big-bang model. However, the CMBR data may not
> be an exclusive property of the big-bang model. The obtained data may be
> the result of the general radiated noise coming from every direction.
> However, not necessarily from the edge or beginning of the ever
> evolving universe.
automatically means that you don't believe in the Static Universe, by
definition. So any universe that is ever evolving will show signs of a
CMBR. If for example the universe were flowing through a tube, rather
than expanding in every direction, then we'd see a CMBR in the starting
direction of the tube, and ending direction of the tube, but not towards
the sides. If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it
started in a single point and is expanding out in all directions. You
will always see some form of CMBR in an evolving universe, but not in a
static universe.
> How does the galaxies form should be debatable question. In the
> environment of fast inflating universe, the matter is moving away from
> each other. Therefore, making it practically impossible for cumulation
> and clumping. Faster the expansion speed more force of gravity is needed
> for commutative action.
If Inflation started, but never stopped, then the Universe would simply
expand out beyond the ability to any matter to accumulate together
again. All matter would be carried away from each other beyond their
ability to send force signals to each other (since Inflation happens
faster than lightspeed). So what happened is that Inflation happened,
and then it stopped. There was just enough Inflation to separate out the
particles just enough, such that they can't simply refill the container
evenly in all directions in a timely fashion, so instead they form
clumps with each of their nearest neighbours. It's kind of even, yet
uneven at the same time. The clumps are evenly distributed throughout
the universe, but between the clumps you have voids, which are also
evenly distributed throughout the universe.
Yousuf Khan
JAAKKO KURHI
Apr 21, 2013, 8:45:26 PM4/21/13
to
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
> ;1244611']On 17/04/2013 11:19 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:-
> �The space itself that is expanding.� - It never occurred to me that
> the inflating big-bang event included creation of the water and the
> bucket. The space is the place where events happen. In the
> three-dimensional sense, the space in between four or more particles
> of
> matter is just a space, nothing else. So, how is this space that has
> no
> dimensions and does not exist as an entity is required to play the
> part
> of an inflating universe?-
> bucket. The space is the place where events happen. In the
> three-dimensional sense, the space in between four or more particles
> of
> matter is just a space, nothing else. So, how is this space that has
> no
> dimensions and does not exist as an entity is required to play the
> part
>
> Yes, the bucket and the water both got created by the Big Bang.
> Actually, you can even say that the Big Bang also created water-ice
> floating on top of the water.
>
> If you consider space to be like flowing water, then matter would be
> little bits of crushed ice floating on top of the water, made of the
> same material as the water, but just appearing in a different state
> (solid rather than liquid). Most next generation physics theories (such
>
> as Superstring theory, or Loop-Quantum Gravity) are zeroing in on the
> idea that space itself as made of a substance. And that matter is simply
>
> made up of the same substance that makes up space, but organized into
> knots. So every little particle of matter (from quarks all of the way
> upto galaxies) would be solidified bits of space, just like ice is
> solidified bits of water.
> -
> Yes, the bucket and the water both got created by the Big Bang.
> Actually, you can even say that the Big Bang also created water-ice
> floating on top of the water.
>
> If you consider space to be like flowing water, then matter would be
> little bits of crushed ice floating on top of the water, made of the
> same material as the water, but just appearing in a different state
> (solid rather than liquid). Most next generation physics theories (such
>
> as Superstring theory, or Loop-Quantum Gravity) are zeroing in on the
> idea that space itself as made of a substance. And that matter is simply
>
> made up of the same substance that makes up space, but organized into
> knots. So every little particle of matter (from quarks all of the way
> upto galaxies) would be solidified bits of space, just like ice is
> solidified bits of water.
> The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, this concept seems to carry
> a
> lot of support for the big-bang model. However, the CMBR data may not
> be an exclusive property of the big-bang model. The obtained data may
> be
> the result of the general radiated noise coming from every direction.
> However, not necessarily from the edge or beginning of the ever
> evolving universe.-
> a
> lot of support for the big-bang model. However, the CMBR data may not
> be an exclusive property of the big-bang model. The obtained data may
> be
> the result of the general radiated noise coming from every direction.
> However, not necessarily from the edge or beginning of the ever
>
> So if you believe in an "ever evolving universe", then that
> automatically means that you don't believe in the Static Universe, by
> definition. So any universe that is ever evolving will show signs of a
> CMBR. If for example the universe were flowing through a tube, rather
> than expanding in every direction, then we'd see a CMBR in the starting
>
> direction of the tube, and ending direction of the tube, but not towards
>
> the sides. If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it
> started in a single point and is expanding out in all directions. You
> will always see some form of CMBR in an evolving universe, but not in a
>
> static universe.
> -
> So if you believe in an "ever evolving universe", then that
> automatically means that you don't believe in the Static Universe, by
> definition. So any universe that is ever evolving will show signs of a
> CMBR. If for example the universe were flowing through a tube, rather
> than expanding in every direction, then we'd see a CMBR in the starting
>
> direction of the tube, and ending direction of the tube, but not towards
>
> the sides. If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it
> started in a single point and is expanding out in all directions. You
> will always see some form of CMBR in an evolving universe, but not in a
>
> static universe.
> How does the galaxies form should be debatable question. In the
> environment of fast inflating universe, the matter is moving away from
> each other. Therefore, making it practically impossible for
> cumulation
> and clumping. Faster the expansion speed more force of gravity is
> needed
> for commutative action.-
> environment of fast inflating universe, the matter is moving away from
> each other. Therefore, making it practically impossible for
> cumulation
> and clumping. Faster the expansion speed more force of gravity is
> needed
>
> The secret of Inflation is to have it stop at a certain point in time.
> If Inflation started, but never stopped, then the Universe would simply
>
> expand out beyond the ability to any matter to accumulate together
> again. All matter would be carried away from each other beyond their
> ability to send force signals to each other (since Inflation happens
> faster than lightspeed). So what happened is that Inflation happened,
> and then it stopped. There was just enough Inflation to separate out the
>
> particles just enough, such that they can't simply refill the container
>
> evenly in all directions in a timely fashion, so instead they form
> clumps with each of their nearest neighbours. It's kind of even, yet
> uneven at the same time. The clumps are evenly distributed throughout
> the universe, but between the clumps you have voids, which are also
> evenly distributed throughout the universe.
>
> Yousuf Khan
If the space was created by the inflating big-bang, then where the
> The secret of Inflation is to have it stop at a certain point in time.
> If Inflation started, but never stopped, then the Universe would simply
>
> expand out beyond the ability to any matter to accumulate together
> again. All matter would be carried away from each other beyond their
> ability to send force signals to each other (since Inflation happens
> faster than lightspeed). So what happened is that Inflation happened,
> and then it stopped. There was just enough Inflation to separate out the
>
> particles just enough, such that they can't simply refill the container
>
> evenly in all directions in a timely fashion, so instead they form
> clumps with each of their nearest neighbours. It's kind of even, yet
> uneven at the same time. The clumps are evenly distributed throughout
> the universe, but between the clumps you have voids, which are also
> evenly distributed throughout the universe.
>
> Yousuf Khan
space is inflating into and what was the space before the inflation? I
seem what you are saying is: the space, including the universe, is a
controlled entity somewhere in the border-less place.
The nature has a tendency to evolve in the simplest and most suitable
ways. The explained model of the inflating universe is not even close
to the simplicity, suggesting that only human mind can construct a
possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form of expanding and
inflating motion should show signs of uniformity. In the deep field
images, the galaxies are rather disoriented, suggesting that the
linear motion of the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
motion.
In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am merely suggesting to
go back and see how much the current observation data will fit to the
original models and what modification has to be made to make it work in
the other formats of the universe, vs. one point beginning. Obviously,
in the steady-state model, the motion factor created by the gravity has
to be added, which may lead to the recycling concept of the universe.
�If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it started in a
single point and is expanding out in all directions.� When you observe
the CMBR in every direction, how it�s decided that all radiations
originated from the same point and are of the same age.
dlzc
Apr 22, 2013, 3:32:48 PM4/22/13
to
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:45:26 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> and what was the space before the inflation?
Nothing. Space is a persistent illusion.
> I seem what you are saying is: the space,
> including the universe, is a controlled entity
> somewhere in the border-less place.
>
> The nature has a tendency to evolve in the
> simplest and most suitable ways. The explained
> model of the inflating universe is not even close
> to the simplicity,
It fits observation. Because you cannot yet understand it, is not a failing of Big Bang theory.
> suggesting that only human mind can construct a
> possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form
> of expanding and inflating motion should show signs
> of uniformity.
And it does.
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/cmb.html
... "due to its near perfect uniformity" ...
> In the deep field images, the galaxies are rather
>disoriented, suggesting that the linear motion of
> the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
> motion.
No, this is clearly not true, not what deep surveys show. Galaxies, no matter when their light originated, are being received from galaxies with proper motion similar to our own.
> In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am
> merely suggesting to go back and see how much the
> current observation data will fit to the original
> models
What "original models"? Original steady state? They simply fail to describe this Universe, as already stated. Not enough iron. No way to have uniform recession, at speeds of greater than c (a z greater than 1 means this in a static Universe), in every direction.
> and what modification has to be made to make it
> work in the other formats of the universe, vs.
> one point beginning.
You will have to do the work. And when doing it, you will see trivially why steady state is dead.
> Obviously, in the steady-state model, the motion
> factor created by the gravity has to be added,
> which may lead to the recycling concept of the
> universe.
No.
>> "If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that
>> means it started in a single point and is expanding
>> out in all directions."
>
> When you observe the CMBR in every direction, how
> it's decided that all radiations originated from the
> same point and are of the same age.
They are emitted from the same age. They are emitted from an ancient Universe that we are departing (in a steady state Universe) at more than 1000 times the speed of light.
Please, please stop demanding others do your (trivial) work for you. You hold this religious belief. Only you can either stop asking that it be analyzed by others (acceptance by faith), or you can kill it yourself.
Pick one.
David A. Smith
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:45:26 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> If the space was created by the inflating big-bang,
> then where the space is inflating into
If 1 "inflates" into 2, 2 must have inflated into 4 and so on. The Universe fills all space, and makes more. It displaces nothing.
> then where the space is inflating into
> and what was the space before the inflation?
> I seem what you are saying is: the space,
> including the universe, is a controlled entity
> somewhere in the border-less place.
>
> The nature has a tendency to evolve in the
> simplest and most suitable ways. The explained
> model of the inflating universe is not even close
> to the simplicity,
> suggesting that only human mind can construct a
> possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form
> of expanding and inflating motion should show signs
> of uniformity.
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/cmb.html
... "due to its near perfect uniformity" ...
> In the deep field images, the galaxies are rather
>disoriented, suggesting that the linear motion of
> the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
> motion.
> In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am
> merely suggesting to go back and see how much the
> current observation data will fit to the original
> models
> and what modification has to be made to make it
> work in the other formats of the universe, vs.
> one point beginning.
> Obviously, in the steady-state model, the motion
> factor created by the gravity has to be added,
> which may lead to the recycling concept of the
> universe.
>> "If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that
>> means it started in a single point and is expanding
>> out in all directions."
>
> When you observe the CMBR in every direction, how
> it's decided that all radiations originated from the
> same point and are of the same age.
Please, please stop demanding others do your (trivial) work for you. You hold this religious belief. Only you can either stop asking that it be analyzed by others (acceptance by faith), or you can kill it yourself.
Pick one.
David A. Smith
JAAKKO KURHI
Apr 24, 2013, 11:24:52 AM4/24/13
to
dlzc;1244796 Wrote:
> Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
>
> On Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:45:26 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> If the space was created by the inflating big-bang,
> then where the space is inflating into-
>
> If 1 "inflates" into 2, 2 must have inflated into 4 and so on. The
> Universe fills all space, and makes more. It displaces nothing.
> -
> If 1 "inflates" into 2, 2 must have inflated into 4 and so on. The
> Universe fills all space, and makes more. It displaces nothing.
> and what was the space before the inflation?-
>
> Nothing. Space is a persistent illusion.
> -
> Nothing. Space is a persistent illusion.
> I seem what you are saying is: the space,
> including the universe, is a controlled entity
> somewhere in the border-less place.
>
> The nature has a tendency to evolve in the
> simplest and most suitable ways. The explained
> model of the inflating universe is not even close
> to the simplicity,-
> including the universe, is a controlled entity
> somewhere in the border-less place.
>
> The nature has a tendency to evolve in the
> simplest and most suitable ways. The explained
> model of the inflating universe is not even close
>
> It fits observation. Because you cannot yet understand it, is not a
> failing of Big Bang theory.
> -
> It fits observation. Because you cannot yet understand it, is not a
> failing of Big Bang theory.
> suggesting that only human mind can construct a
> possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form
> of expanding and inflating motion should show signs
> of uniformity.-
> possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form
> of expanding and inflating motion should show signs
> .... "due to its near perfect uniformity" ...
> -
> In the deep field images, the galaxies are rather
> disoriented, suggesting that the linear motion of
> the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
> motion. -
> disoriented, suggesting that the linear motion of
> the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
>
> No, this is clearly not true, not what deep surveys show. Galaxies, no
> matter when their light originated, are being received from galaxies
> with proper motion similar to our own.
> -
> No, this is clearly not true, not what deep surveys show. Galaxies, no
> matter when their light originated, are being received from galaxies
> with proper motion similar to our own.
> In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am
> merely suggesting to go back and see how much the
> current observation data will fit to the original
> models-
> merely suggesting to go back and see how much the
> current observation data will fit to the original
>
> What "original models"? Original steady state? They simply fail to
> describe this Universe, as already stated. Not enough iron. No way to
> have uniform recession, at speeds of greater than c (a z greater than 1
> means this in a static Universe), in every direction.
> -
> What "original models"? Original steady state? They simply fail to
> describe this Universe, as already stated. Not enough iron. No way to
> have uniform recession, at speeds of greater than c (a z greater than 1
> means this in a static Universe), in every direction.
> and what modification has to be made to make it
> work in the other formats of the universe, vs.
> one point beginning.-
> work in the other formats of the universe, vs.
>
> You will have to do the work. And when doing it, you will see trivially
> why steady state is dead.
> -
> You will have to do the work. And when doing it, you will see trivially
> why steady state is dead.
> Obviously, in the steady-state model, the motion
> factor created by the gravity has to be added,
> which may lead to the recycling concept of the
> universe. -
> factor created by the gravity has to be added,
> which may lead to the recycling concept of the
>
> No.
> --
> "If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that
> means it started in a single point and is expanding
> out in all directions."-
> means it started in a single point and is expanding
>
> When you observe the CMBR in every direction, how
> it's decided that all radiations originated from the
> same point and are of the same age.-
> When you observe the CMBR in every direction, how
> it's decided that all radiations originated from the
>
> They are emitted from the same age. They are emitted from an ancient
> Universe that we are departing (in a steady state Universe) at more than
> 1000 times the speed of light.
>
> Please, please stop demanding others do your (trivial) work for you.
> You hold this religious belief. Only you can either stop asking that it
> be analyzed by others (acceptance by faith), or you can kill it
> yourself.
>
> Pick one.
>
> David A. Smith
David, you seem to be fascinated with the small talk, that gets this
> They are emitted from the same age. They are emitted from an ancient
> Universe that we are departing (in a steady state Universe) at more than
> 1000 times the speed of light.
>
> Please, please stop demanding others do your (trivial) work for you.
> You hold this religious belief. Only you can either stop asking that it
> be analyzed by others (acceptance by faith), or you can kill it
> yourself.
>
> Pick one.
>
> David A. Smith
subject nowhere. Perhaps, it would be more advance in the science, if
you could consider the fact, that all models concerning the origin to
the universe are based on interpretations of the obtained data. Hence,
none of the theories have reached the final and confirmed state.
Incidentally, you presented a good example for the miss-interpretation,
�You hold this religious belief.� In fact, quite the contrary is true.
This topic is all about seeking the answers for the questions that arise
from the text books, but are not included.
Your comments, concerning the main items presented in this post seem
very evasive. Suggesting that seeking the true about functions of the
universe, is not your main motivation.
As suggested, I have read the link to CMWR and again, found no link
other than the big-bang model is logically connected with CMWR.
Therefore, I think it�s safe to say that the science has no confirmed
link in between CMWR and the big-bang event.
Next important item, how about the reliability in the red-shift data,
so far no elaborated comment there.
dlzc
Apr 24, 2013, 3:54:06 PM4/24/13
to
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:24:52 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> Perhaps, it would be more advance in the science,
> if you could consider the fact, that all models
> concerning the origin to the universe are based on
> interpretations of the obtained data.
Correct. Which is why I responded with data that obviate any steady state model.
> Hence, none of the theories have reached the final
> and confirmed state.
... and never will. However some theories lay dead and bleeding, and no current scientist pays more than lip service to its mention. Such as steady state.
> Incidentally, you presented a good example for the
> miss-interpretation, "You hold this religious belief."
> In fact, quite the contrary is true. This topic is
> all about seeking the answers for the questions that
> arise from the text books, but are not included.
Cite the textbook please.
Science is about disproof. You hold up a theory or model, and see where it fails. It is *your* responsibility to do this, not ours to tear it down. You seem to hold that theories (such as your clear preference towards steady state) need support, and must not be challenged. Nothing is further from the truth.
> Your comments, concerning the main items presented
> in this post seem very evasive.
Perhaps English is not your first language, and you actually do not know what that word "evasive" means? I have spoken directly to the problems the steady state model has.
> Suggesting that seeking the true about functions of the
> universe, is not your main motivation.
My motivation is to address what you call a "conundrum" in Big Bang theory, which has so far been your lack of research into what Big Bang theory is, and what it successfully addresses.
> As suggested, I have read the link to CMWR and again,
> found no link other than the big-bang model is
> logically connected with CMWR.
Well, since you seem incapable of doing any research without someone else providing support services...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
> Therefore, I think it's safe to say that the science
> has no confirmed link in between CMWR and the
> big-bang event.
I have no idea what you mean by CMWR, perhaps it is what others call Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)?
If so, no one claims that the Big Bang did anything more than provide the initial ionization that kept the emitting medium self-pumped (both absorbing and emitting) until this final glow was emitted.
> Next important item, how about the reliability in
> the red-shift data, so far no elaborated comment there.
Several papers compare distance methods between the various standard candles, and "red shift as Universal expansion" is in good agreement with the three or four other methods. Arxiv.org is a good source for papers, data, and analysis of data.
Some candidates:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.1802
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2989
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4951
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4280
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403024
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205396
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.5416
David A. Smith
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:24:52 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> David, you seem to be fascinated with the small talk,
> that gets this subject nowhere.
I responded with facts, about points you raised. NOT small talk.
> that gets this subject nowhere.
> Perhaps, it would be more advance in the science,
> if you could consider the fact, that all models
> concerning the origin to the universe are based on
> interpretations of the obtained data.
> Hence, none of the theories have reached the final
> and confirmed state.
> Incidentally, you presented a good example for the
> miss-interpretation, "You hold this religious belief."
> In fact, quite the contrary is true. This topic is
> all about seeking the answers for the questions that
> arise from the text books, but are not included.
Science is about disproof. You hold up a theory or model, and see where it fails. It is *your* responsibility to do this, not ours to tear it down. You seem to hold that theories (such as your clear preference towards steady state) need support, and must not be challenged. Nothing is further from the truth.
> Your comments, concerning the main items presented
> in this post seem very evasive.
> Suggesting that seeking the true about functions of the
> universe, is not your main motivation.
> As suggested, I have read the link to CMWR and again,
> found no link other than the big-bang model is
> logically connected with CMWR.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
> Therefore, I think it's safe to say that the science
> has no confirmed link in between CMWR and the
> big-bang event.
If so, no one claims that the Big Bang did anything more than provide the initial ionization that kept the emitting medium self-pumped (both absorbing and emitting) until this final glow was emitted.
> Next important item, how about the reliability in
> the red-shift data, so far no elaborated comment there.
Some candidates:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.1802
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2989
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4951
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4280
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403024
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205396
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.5416
David A. Smith
Yousuf Khan
Apr 25, 2013, 1:56:14 AM4/25/13
to
On 21/04/2013 8:45 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> If the space was created by the inflating big-bang, then where the
> space is inflating into and what was the space before the inflation? I
> seem what you are saying is: the space, including the universe, is a
> controlled entity somewhere in the border-less place.
Well, there are various theories about what was there before the
> If the space was created by the inflating big-bang, then where the
> space is inflating into and what was the space before the inflation? I
> seem what you are saying is: the space, including the universe, is a
> controlled entity somewhere in the border-less place.
universe. There's no time to get into all of them, I'll give you just
some of my favourites.
One idea is that our current universe was created as just a random
quantum fluctuation in a pre-existing primordial universe, which we'll
call the multiverse. The multiverse is just a flat, directionless place
in both space and time. It's directionless in space, because everywhere
you look it looks exactly the same. It's directionless in time, because
every event has no discernible causes and effects: meaning if you ran a
film backwards and watched something happen, you couldn't tell if you
were watching the film played forward or reversed. The quantum
fluctuation that led to our universe set a definitive direction of time
for our universe. It's this direction of time that lets this universe
prefer that certain events (i.e. causes and effects) to occur over their
reverse events. If we had no definite direction of time, then we'd be
just a dead universe, where whenever one random event occurs, a reverse
event occurs to cancel that first event out.
A second idea is that our current universe is just an illusion, that
we're just a simulation of a universe living inside a massive quantum
computer. This is much like the movie, The Matrix. The illusion is that
everything we think of as "stuff" is just a bunch of numbers sitting
inside a memory bank, and we're just interpreting it the way we perceive
it physicality, but it's just a bunch of numbers.
Either could be plausible, but then you have to wonder in both cases, if
that's so, then what is the real universe or the real computer we're
living in, what is it living in?
> The nature has a tendency to evolve in the simplest and most suitable
> ways. The explained model of the inflating universe is not even close
> to the simplicity, suggesting that only human mind can construct a
> possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form of expanding and
> inflating motion should show signs of uniformity. In the deep field
> images, the galaxies are rather disoriented, suggesting that the
> linear motion of the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
> motion.
quantum fluctuations that occurred immediately after the Big Bang from
microscopic to macroscopic. That's why Inflation is important. It takes
a universe that would be completely smooth, and transforms it into
something that's lumpy-smooth. The minor lumpiness leads to galaxies,
stars, planets, people, atoms, etc., etc.
> In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am merely suggesting to
> go back and see how much the current observation data will fit to the
> original models and what modification has to be made to make it work in
> the other formats of the universe, vs. one point beginning. Obviously,
> in the steady-state model, the motion factor created by the gravity has
> to be added, which may lead to the recycling concept of the universe.
you're talking about a universe that goes from the Big Bang and ends in
the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
case, then you've just made case for the Big Bang yourself.
> �If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it started in a
> single point and is expanding out in all directions.� When you observe
> the CMBR in every direction, how it�s decided that all radiations
> originated from the same point and are of the same age.
Simple, you just look at the direction of movement of the galaxies. They
are all flying away from each other in a more or less linear fashion,
straight out, like an explosion had occurred. They rewound the film
backwards and surmised that at some point all of this had to have been
together, just like an explosion leads its way back to a bomb.
Yousuf Khan
JAAKKO KURHI
Apr 29, 2013, 1:39:27 PM4/29/13
to
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
> ;1245003']On 21/04/2013 8:45 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:-
> If the space was created by the inflating big-bang, then where the
> space is inflating into and what was the space before the inflation? I
> seem what you are saying is: the space, including the universe, is a
> controlled entity somewhere in the border-less place.-
> space is inflating into and what was the space before the inflation? I
> seem what you are saying is: the space, including the universe, is a
> The nature has a tendency to evolve in the simplest and most suitable
> ways. The explained model of the inflating universe is not even close
> to the simplicity, suggesting that only human mind can construct a
> possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form of expanding and
> inflating motion should show signs of uniformity. In the deep field
> images, the galaxies are rather disoriented, suggesting that the
> linear motion of the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
> motion.-
> ways. The explained model of the inflating universe is not even close
> to the simplicity, suggesting that only human mind can construct a
> possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form of expanding and
> inflating motion should show signs of uniformity. In the deep field
> images, the galaxies are rather disoriented, suggesting that the
> linear motion of the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
>
> As mentioned before. The Inflation model is smooth, but it stretches out
>
> quantum fluctuations that occurred immediately after the Big Bang from
> microscopic to macroscopic. That's why Inflation is important. It takes
>
> a universe that would be completely smooth, and transforms it into
> something that's lumpy-smooth. The minor lumpiness leads to galaxies,
> stars, planets, people, atoms, etc., etc.
> -
> As mentioned before. The Inflation model is smooth, but it stretches out
>
> quantum fluctuations that occurred immediately after the Big Bang from
> microscopic to macroscopic. That's why Inflation is important. It takes
>
> a universe that would be completely smooth, and transforms it into
> something that's lumpy-smooth. The minor lumpiness leads to galaxies,
> stars, planets, people, atoms, etc., etc.
> In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am merely suggesting to
> go back and see how much the current observation data will fit to the
> original models and what modification has to be made to make it work
> in
> the other formats of the universe, vs. one point beginning.
> Obviously,
> in the steady-state model, the motion factor created by the gravity
> has
> to be added, which may lead to the recycling concept of the universe.-
> go back and see how much the current observation data will fit to the
> original models and what modification has to be made to make it work
> in
> the other formats of the universe, vs. one point beginning.
> Obviously,
> in the steady-state model, the motion factor created by the gravity
> has
>
> I assume when you talk about the "recycling concept of the universe",
> you're talking about a universe that goes from the Big Bang and ends in
>
> the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
> case, then you've just made case for the Big Bang yourself.
> -
> I assume when you talk about the "recycling concept of the universe",
> you're talking about a universe that goes from the Big Bang and ends in
>
> the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
> case, then you've just made case for the Big Bang yourself.
> “If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it started in
> a
> single point and is expanding out in all directions.“ When you observe
> the CMBR in every direction, how it’s decided that all radiations
> originated from the same point and are of the same age.-
>
> Simple, you just look at the direction of movement of the galaxies. They
>
> are all flying away from each other in a more or less linear fashion,
> straight out, like an explosion had occurred. They rewound the film
> backwards and surmised that at some point all of this had to have been
> together, just like an explosion leads its way back to a bomb.
>
> Yousuf Khan
“I assume when you talk about the "recycling concept of the universe",
> Simple, you just look at the direction of movement of the galaxies. They
>
> are all flying away from each other in a more or less linear fashion,
> straight out, like an explosion had occurred. They rewound the film
> backwards and surmised that at some point all of this had to have been
> together, just like an explosion leads its way back to a bomb.
>
> Yousuf Khan
you're talking about a universe that goes from the Big Bang and ends in
the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
case, then you've just made case for the Big Bang yourself’.
the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
Yes, I have made the case for billions of Big-Bangs, and the case for
recycling universe. However, the idea of the recycling universe to work,
the natural cooling process of the matter has to over come obstacles
of the laws of thermodynamics and the equation of E=mc².
This natural cooling theory is based upon the idea that mass is a
permanent entity, and the energy associated with mass is necessary only
for matter that is viable and can be detected. Theoretically, an active
atomic mass can reach the mass only state and exist within the
environment that is out of reach from the environment of the matter.
It’s a result of a simple function of the nature, but big challenge
for the mankind.
When the matter reaches 0 degrees Kelvin, particle activity ceases but
the mass without the energy still exists, hence, makes recycling
process possible. Through the natural process of cooling, The subatomic
particles of an atom – the protons, neutrons and electrons will use up
the available energy and eventually reach 0K. When the matter reaches
0K, the mass of subatomic particles enters a neutral, undetectable
state, having no particles in motion and therefore, no thermal
radiation. In that environment, the mass of an atom remains. And while
it would lack any thermal energy, it would maintain a gravitational
force, and thus a potential source of Kinetic energy.
The matter is always associated with the work=heat state, where the use
of energy is unavoidable action. The conservation of the energy is not
applicable to the system where work =heat is measurable in the form of
temperature of heat. When Albert Einstein was formulating an equation
E=mc² for nuclear fission, he knew that there is a tremendous amount of
energy available in the nuclei of an atom. To complete his mathematical
statement, he needed a substantial number to relate to this huge energy
source. The value of component "c," the speed of light, may have nothing
more to do with mass and energy other than being a suitably constant
large number to use as a multiplier. The point is, when E=mc² is used to
calculate the mass and energy of an elementary sub-atomic particle at
its lowest energy state of near absolute zero; the result may be
misleading. The margin of error is a lot smaller when E=mc² is applied
to the weakest end of the energy spectrum – Hence, the theory obtained
by the equation E=mc² may not be applicable to natural behavior of
matter in an extremely low mass and energy state.
The universe based on cooling cycles of the matter, is simple in
operations. Forming galaxies from inside out is more logical conclusion
vs. Big-Bang based inflating environment, where from the beginning and
constantly, all particles of matter is moving away from each other.
Yousuf Khan
Apr 30, 2013, 9:23:42 PM4/30/13
to
On 29/04/2013 1:39 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> 'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
>> �I assume when you talk about the "recycling concept of the universe",
> 'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
>> you're talking about a universe that goes from the Big Bang and ends in
>>
>> the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
>> case, then you've just made case for the Big Bang yourself�.
>>
>> the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
>
> Yes, I have made the case for billions of Big-Bangs, and the case for
> recycling universe. However, the idea of the recycling universe to work,
> the natural cooling process of the matter has to over come obstacles
> of the laws of thermodynamics and the equation of E=mc�.
> Yes, I have made the case for billions of Big-Bangs, and the case for
> recycling universe. However, the idea of the recycling universe to work,
> the natural cooling process of the matter has to over come obstacles
>
> This natural cooling theory is based upon the idea that mass is a
> permanent entity, and the energy associated with mass is necessary only
> for matter that is viable and can be detected. Theoretically, an active
> atomic mass can reach the mass only state and exist within the
> environment that is out of reach from the environment of the matter.
> It�s a result of a simple function of the nature, but big challenge
> This natural cooling theory is based upon the idea that mass is a
> permanent entity, and the energy associated with mass is necessary only
> for matter that is viable and can be detected. Theoretically, an active
> atomic mass can reach the mass only state and exist within the
> environment that is out of reach from the environment of the matter.
> for the mankind.
I'm afraid you got it backwards. Mass is not the permanent property, it
is energy that is the permanent property, and mass comes from energy,
not vice-versa. E=mc^2 is a statement about how mass comes from energy,
not how energy comes from mass.
When you think about the pantheon of forms of energy that you learned
about in school, you usually hear about kinetic energy (work), potential
energy, and heat. At the same time you are often told that the best form
(highest order) of energy, is that which does pure work (kinetic), and
the lowest order form is heat which does little work. That is because
kinetic energy is highly organized, while heat is highly disorganized.
However, we know from thermodynamics that we can get heat to do some
work for us, but we have to concentrate it into machines that will
concentrate it and organize it well enough to get a little bit of work
done. We may not be able to get the heat organized enough to be 100%
efficient at doing work for us, but we can usually convert somewhere
around 10-30% of the heat into kinetic -- good enough to get some work
done for us.
Think of mass as simply a very special form of energy, a highly
organized form of energy: the highest order energy, even higher order
and more organized than kinetic energy! We've known about kinetic,
potential, and heat energies since the 19th Century, but the 20th
Century taught us that there's one more level of energy which is mass.
At the atomic level, particle masses are even measured with units of
energy, such as the GeV (Giga-electron-Volt), rather than kilograms,
pounds, ounces, etc. Think of mass as a form of energy that's so
organized that it has locked itself up into a single particle. All
particles, including matter particles, are basically pellets of energy.
> When the matter reaches 0 degrees Kelvin, particle activity ceases but
> the mass without the energy still exists, hence, makes recycling
> process possible. Through the natural process of cooling, The subatomic
> the available energy and eventually reach 0K. When the matter reaches
> 0K, the mass of subatomic particles enters a neutral, undetectable
> state, having no particles in motion and therefore, no thermal
> radiation. In that environment, the mass of an atom remains. And while
> it would lack any thermal energy, it would maintain a gravitational
> force, and thus a potential source of Kinetic energy.
0K is impossible to reach because all energy transfers are achieved
> 0K, the mass of subatomic particles enters a neutral, undetectable
> state, having no particles in motion and therefore, no thermal
> radiation. In that environment, the mass of an atom remains. And while
> it would lack any thermal energy, it would maintain a gravitational
> force, and thus a potential source of Kinetic energy.
through the exchange of photons between particles. The universe is a
closed system, so all of the photons that have ever been created are
still inside the universe in some form or another. Either they are being
captured by other particles, or they are still in flight somewhere. At
best you can get closer and closer to 0K, like 0.1K, 0.01K, 0.001K,
0.0001K, etc. but you'll never reach it. It's same as reaching the speed
of light, it gets more and more difficult the closer you get.
So the universe as it expands cools down, because it takes longer for
photons to travel between particles. Also there is a form of movement
that requires no energy, which is quantum movement. In quantum movement,
particles just naturally are squirmy, you can't hold them down to any
particular speed or position, also known as the Uncertainty Principle.
So you'll never get absolutely no movement.
Interestingly though, you're not entirely incorrect about something new
happening as more and more energy is removed from a system, as you reach
absolute zero. Many different particles start to lose their energy-based
movement, but then start to link up their quantum movements together
into a synchronized state. This state is where many atoms start acting
like one big atom, which is known as a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). A
BEC is thought to be what the final state of the universe will be when
the universe has expanded to a size too large for light to travel across
it. Those particles that remain in contact with each other will be
linked up into many individual BECs.
Yousuf Khan
In Fo
Apr 30, 2013, 10:25:19 PM4/30/13
to
JAAKKO KURHI
May 2, 2013, 9:12:56 PM5/2/13
to
In Fo;1245624 Wrote:
> http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/prime137/BigBangDisproven/
>
> In Fo
Thanks for the link. The scientific rendering of the milky way image. If
it represents anywhere close to the actual layout of the milky way
galaxy, then it suggests for one point growth “from inside out”,
instead of the growth by cumulative action. Therefore, more support for
the recycling universe.
dlzc
May 2, 2013, 10:41:57 PM5/2/13
to
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 6:12:56 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> In Fo;1245624 Wrote:
>
> > http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/prime137/BigBangDisproven/
> > In Fo
>
> Thanks for the link. The scientific rendering of
> the milky way image. If it represents anywhere
> close to the actual layout of the milky way
> galaxy,
It doesn't.
> then it suggests for one point growth “from inside
> out”, instead of the growth by cumulative action.
No, the Milky Way is an agglomerate galaxy, based on all the globular clusters orbiting. In 4 billion, we will probably be part of Andromeda...
> Therefore, more support for the recycling universe.
"Artistic effort is support". Great.
You don't get it. Instead of looking for something you can misunderstand as support, you are supposed to be looking at the holes your theory does not cover.
David A. Smith
On Thursday, May 2, 2013 6:12:56 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> In Fo;1245624 Wrote:
>
> > http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/prime137/BigBangDisproven/
> > In Fo
>
> Thanks for the link. The scientific rendering of
> the milky way image. If it represents anywhere
> close to the actual layout of the milky way
> galaxy,
> then it suggests for one point growth “from inside
> out”, instead of the growth by cumulative action.
> Therefore, more support for the recycling universe.
You don't get it. Instead of looking for something you can misunderstand as support, you are supposed to be looking at the holes your theory does not cover.
David A. Smith
JAAKKO KURHI
May 6, 2013, 6:34:59 PM5/6/13
to
dlzc;1245721 Wrote:
> Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
>
> In Fo;1245624 Wrote:
> -
> http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/prime137/BigBangDisproven/
> In Fo-
>
> Thanks for the link. The scientific rendering of
> the milky way image. If it represents anywhere
> close to the actual layout of the milky way
> galaxy,-
> Thanks for the link. The scientific rendering of
> the milky way image. If it represents anywhere
> close to the actual layout of the milky way
>
> It doesn't.
> -
> then it suggests for one point growth �from inside
> out�, instead of the growth by cumulative action.-
>
> No, the Milky Way is an agglomerate galaxy, based on all the globular
> clusters orbiting. In 4 billion, we will probably be part of
> Andromeda...
> -
> No, the Milky Way is an agglomerate galaxy, based on all the globular
> clusters orbiting. In 4 billion, we will probably be part of
> Andromeda...
> Therefore, more support for the recycling universe.-
>
> "Artistic effort is support". Great.
>
>
> You don't get it. Instead of looking for something you can
> misunderstand as support, you are supposed to be looking at the holes
> your theory does not cover.
>
> David A. Smith
> "Artistic effort is support". Great.
>
>
> You don't get it. Instead of looking for something you can
> misunderstand as support, you are supposed to be looking at the holes
> your theory does not cover.
>
> David A. Smith
No, the Milky Way is an agglomerate galaxy, based on all the globular
clusters orbiting. In 4 billion, we will probably be part of
Andromeda...
Milky Way and Andromeda are merging, how can this happen in the
clusters orbiting. In 4 billion, we will probably be part of
Andromeda...
environment where all objects are moving away from each other?
"Artistic effort is support". Great.
partially observable. In the case of the BB, the visual art is applied
extensively to illustrate how the theory may work. In the case of the
Milky Way, the quality of the visual art is based on mapping intensity,
so far, there are enough stars located to confirm that it�s a spiral
galaxy and to illustrate the approximate distribution of its matter. So,
are you implying that the art form is not applicable in the process of
learning secrets of the universe?
�You don't get it. Instead of looking for something you can
misunderstand as support, you are supposed to be looking at the holes
your theory does not cover�.
You still resort to the small talk, instead of pointing to �holes� and
topics that are debatable. For example, besides the laws of the
thermodynamics and E=mc squared, � which I think are not applicable in
this case � how would you conclude that in the system of an elementary
sub atomic particle, the mass is using energy for bonding, yet remain in
the state of equilibrium?
Yousuf Khan
May 8, 2013, 7:14:47 AM5/8/13
to
On 07/05/2013 4:34 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> Milky Way and Andromeda are merging, how can this happen in the
> environment where all objects are moving away from each other?
Because certain galaxies are close enough together that their
> Milky Way and Andromeda are merging, how can this happen in the
> environment where all objects are moving away from each other?
gravitational attraction speed is higher than the universal expansion
speed between them.
Yousuf Khan
oriel36
May 8, 2013, 10:01:42 AM5/8/13
to
Universe directly is either incredibly frightening or totally childish
and the way this conclusion was arrived at would be laughable were
these salaried academics dead serious.
Evolutionary sciences are a great puzzle that should provide endless
fascination for the way they emerged on the scene through Steno's
insight on strata layering and William's Smith's fossil record within
that layering where a timeline of the past and evolution in
geological,biological and sometimes climatological terms is written in
the layers.
This 'big bang' is quite a depravity and that it is packaged to appeal
to a general audience as almost a certainty may be the most
astonishing things about it as though it was the most normal
thing.Personally I treasure what the past was,what the future will be
and my present efforts to recover astronomy and interpretative
sciences where presently there is none.
JAAKKO KURHI
May 13, 2013, 8:53:29 AM5/13/13
to
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
> ;1245979']On 07/05/2013 4:34 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:-
> Milky Way and Andromeda are merging, how can this happen in the
> environment where all objects are moving away from each other?-
>
> Because certain galaxies are close enough together that their
> gravitational attraction speed is higher than the universal expansion
> speed between them.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Galaxies collide, "Because certain galaxies are close enough together
> Because certain galaxies are close enough together that their
> gravitational attraction speed is higher than the universal expansion
> speed between them.
>
> Yousuf Khan
that their gravitational attraction speed is higher than the universal
expansion speed between them."
Astronomers are observing ongoing events of colliding galaxies and your
expansion speed between them."
described scenario, is workable in the environment of the recycling
universe. However, it�s difficult to explain how it can happen in the
concept of the BB universe.
For example, gravity is the weakest among forces at work in an expanding
universe, and would have to overcome the extremely high kinetic energy
of a fast-fast moving galaxy to make it change its course. That�s
logically impossible and can�t be explained by any theoretical idea. In
addition, within the expanding universe -- where all matter was once
confined in the relatively small globe during the Big Bang�s early
stages -- all clumping, accumulation and merging of galaxies would be
more likely when the matter was closer together and within the
influence of gravitational attraction. To say it didn�t happen then, but
rather billions of years later when the matter is more dispersed makes
no sense.
Yousuf Khan
May 18, 2013, 2:05:07 PM5/18/13
to
On 13/05/2013 6:53 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> Galaxies collide, "Because certain galaxies are close enough together
> that their gravitational attraction speed is higher than the universal
> expansion speed between them."
>
> Astronomers are observing ongoing events of colliding galaxies and your
> described scenario, is workable in the environment of the recycling
> universe. However, it�s difficult to explain how it can happen in the
> Galaxies collide, "Because certain galaxies are close enough together
> that their gravitational attraction speed is higher than the universal
> expansion speed between them."
>
> Astronomers are observing ongoing events of colliding galaxies and your
> described scenario, is workable in the environment of the recycling
> concept of the BB universe.
Please show us your calculations as to why you think that is the case!
> For example, gravity is the weakest among forces at work in an expanding
> universe, and would have to overcome the extremely high kinetic energy
> logically impossible and can�t be explained by any theoretical idea. In
> addition, within the expanding universe -- where all matter was once
> confined in the relatively small globe during the Big Bang�s early
> stages -- all clumping, accumulation and merging of galaxies would be
> more likely when the matter was closer together and within the
> influence of gravitational attraction. To say it didn�t happen then, but
> more likely when the matter was closer together and within the
> rather billions of years later when the matter is more dispersed makes
> no sense.
Gravity is not as weak as you think, at least not when it comes to
> no sense.
something as massive as stars or galaxies. The only reason galaxies come
together is because of their gravity, and all of their kinetic energy is
derived from their gravity. The stars inside the galaxy move because of
their gravity. The galaxies move towards each other because of their
gravity as well.
Yousuf Khan
JAAKKO KURHI
May 20, 2013, 11:07:51 PM5/20/13
to
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
> ;1246543']On 13/05/2013 6:53 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:-
> Galaxies collide, "Because certain galaxies are close enough together
> that their gravitational attraction speed is higher than the universal
> expansion speed between them."
>
> Astronomers are observing ongoing events of colliding galaxies and
> your
> described scenario, is workable in the environment of the recycling
> universe. However, it’s difficult to explain how it can happen in
> that their gravitational attraction speed is higher than the universal
> expansion speed between them."
>
> Astronomers are observing ongoing events of colliding galaxies and
> your
> described scenario, is workable in the environment of the recycling
> the
> concept of the BB universe.-
>
> Please show us your calculations as to why you think that is the case!
> -
> Please show us your calculations as to why you think that is the case!
> For example, gravity is the weakest among forces at work in an
> expanding
> universe, and would have to overcome the extremely high kinetic energy
> expanding
> universe, and would have to overcome the extremely high kinetic energy
> of a fast-fast moving galaxy to make it change its course. That’s
> logically impossible and can’t be explained by any theoretical idea.
> In
> addition, within the expanding universe -- where all matter was once
> confined in the relatively small globe during the Big Bang’s early
> addition, within the expanding universe -- where all matter was once
> stages -- all clumping, accumulation and merging of galaxies would be
> more likely when the matter was closer together and within the
> influence of gravitational attraction. To say it didn’t happen then,
> more likely when the matter was closer together and within the
> but
> rather billions of years later when the matter is more dispersed makes
> no sense.-
> rather billions of years later when the matter is more dispersed makes
>
> Gravity is not as weak as you think, at least not when it comes to
> something as massive as stars or galaxies. The only reason galaxies come
>
> together is because of their gravity, and all of their kinetic energy is
>
> derived from their gravity. The stars inside the galaxy move because of
>
> their gravity. The galaxies move towards each other because of their
> gravity as well.
>
> Yousuf Khan
If the combined force of gravity of the independent galaxy system is so
> Gravity is not as weak as you think, at least not when it comes to
> something as massive as stars or galaxies. The only reason galaxies come
>
> together is because of their gravity, and all of their kinetic energy is
>
> derived from their gravity. The stars inside the galaxy move because of
>
> their gravity. The galaxies move towards each other because of their
> gravity as well.
>
> Yousuf Khan
strong that it can influence the behavior of the another galaxy system.
Then, why the milky-way is not collapsing by its one gravity. Our solar
system works and stays together because of the gravity of the sun, and
the kinetic energy of each orbiting object is in balance. So, how can
the combined gravity of the milky-way change the course of another
speeding galaxy that is in the course of moving away. Logically
thinking, the colliding galaxies are independent systems and just
happens to be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is no
problematic in the environment of recycling universe.
dlzc
May 21, 2013, 10:04:07 AM5/21/13
to
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:07:51 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
David A. Smith
On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:07:51 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
...
> If the combined force of gravity of the independent
> galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
> behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
> milky-way is not collapsing by its [own] gravity. Our
> galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
> behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
> solar system works and stays together because of the
> gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
> orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
> combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
> of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
> moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
> galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
> be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
> no problematic in the environment of recycling
> universe.
Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.
> gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
> orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
> combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
> of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
> moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
> galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
> be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
> no problematic in the environment of recycling
> universe.
David A. Smith
JAAKKO KURHI
May 22, 2013, 1:46:23 PM5/22/13
to
dlzc;1246763 Wrote:
> Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
>
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:07:51 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> If the combined force of gravity of the independent
> galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
> behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
> milky-way is not collapsing by its [own] gravity. Our
> solar system works and stays together because of the
> gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
> orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
> combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
> of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
> moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
> galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
> be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
> no problematic in the environment of recycling
> universe.-
> galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
> behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
> milky-way is not collapsing by its [own] gravity. Our
> solar system works and stays together because of the
> gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
> orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
> combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
> of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
> moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
> galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
> be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
> no problematic in the environment of recycling
>
> Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
> proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.
>
> David A. Smith
“Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
> Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
> proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.
>
> David A. Smith
proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.”
Quite a contrary, galaxies are make-up of billions of stars, and in the
observed Milky-Way, stars are self-destructing all the time. Hence,
providing recycling matter for the cooling process. Will galaxies
eventually cease functioning; I found no reference to this fact.
However, the science does not know the extent of the universe beyond
of the observable size, which seems to be limited to buy the current
observing techniques.
Yousuf Khan
May 30, 2013, 12:33:40 PM5/30/13
to
On 20/05/2013 11:07 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> If the combined force of gravity of the independent galaxy system is so
> strong that it can influence the behavior of the another galaxy system.
> Then, why the milky-way is not collapsing by its one gravity. Our solar
> system works and stays together because of the gravity of the sun, and
> the kinetic energy of each orbiting object is in balance. So, how can
> the combined gravity of the milky-way change the course of another
> speeding galaxy that is in the course of moving away. Logically
> thinking, the colliding galaxies are independent systems and just
> happens to be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is no
> problematic in the environment of recycling universe.
> Jaakko Kurhi
The reason the Milky Way isn't collapsing in on itself is for the same
> If the combined force of gravity of the independent galaxy system is so
> strong that it can influence the behavior of the another galaxy system.
> Then, why the milky-way is not collapsing by its one gravity. Our solar
> system works and stays together because of the gravity of the sun, and
> the kinetic energy of each orbiting object is in balance. So, how can
> the combined gravity of the milky-way change the course of another
> speeding galaxy that is in the course of moving away. Logically
> thinking, the colliding galaxies are independent systems and just
> happens to be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is no
> problematic in the environment of recycling universe.
> Jaakko Kurhi
reason that the planets stay in orbit around the Sun, and don't fall in:
they have sufficient lateral velocity to miss the Sun as they fall
towards it, otherwise known as centrifugal force. The stars in the Milky
Way fall towards the centre, but keep missing it, and therefore stay in
orbit around it. If any of these stars were to lose a sufficient amount
of their lateral velocity, then they would fall towards the center.
And it's the same reason why nearby galaxies fall towards each other. If
they have sufficient lateral velocity, then they will fall towards each
other and keep missing, therefore they will enter into orbit around each
other. If the galaxies don't have enough lateral velocity, then they
will fall towards each other and hit each other, and combine together.
BTW, centrifugal force is not a real force, it's really the reactionary
force to the force of gravity. As Newton's Laws said, every action has
an equal and opposite reaction, centrifugal force is the reaction to
gravity.
Yousuf Khan
Yousuf Khan
May 30, 2013, 2:43:25 PM5/30/13
to
On 22/05/2013 1:46 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> dlzc;1246763 Wrote:
>> Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
>>
>> On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:07:51 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
>> ....-
>> If the combined force of gravity of the independent
>> galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
>> behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
>> milky-way is not collapsing by its [own] gravity. Our
>> solar system works and stays together because of the
>> gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
>> orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
>> combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
>> of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
>> moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
>> galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
>> be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
>> no problematic in the environment of recycling
>> universe.-
>>
>> Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
>> proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.
>>
>> David A. Smith
>
> �Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
> dlzc;1246763 Wrote:
>> Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
>>
>> On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:07:51 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
>> ....-
>> If the combined force of gravity of the independent
>> galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
>> behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
>> milky-way is not collapsing by its [own] gravity. Our
>> solar system works and stays together because of the
>> gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
>> orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
>> combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
>> of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
>> moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
>> galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
>> be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
>> no problematic in the environment of recycling
>> universe.-
>>
>> Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
>> proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.
>>
>> David A. Smith
>
> proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.�
>
> Quite a contrary, galaxies are make-up of billions of stars, and in the
> observed Milky-Way, stars are self-destructing all the time. Hence,
> providing recycling matter for the cooling process. Will galaxies
> eventually cease functioning; I found no reference to this fact.
> However, the science does not know the extent of the universe beyond
> of the observable size, which seems to be limited to buy the current
> observing techniques.
Yet again, you're starting to make up your own terminology. First you
> Quite a contrary, galaxies are make-up of billions of stars, and in the
> observed Milky-Way, stars are self-destructing all the time. Hence,
> providing recycling matter for the cooling process. Will galaxies
> eventually cease functioning; I found no reference to this fact.
> However, the science does not know the extent of the universe beyond
> of the observable size, which seems to be limited to buy the current
> observing techniques.
start off by calling the Earth and Moon, stars?!? And now it seems your
definition of a Recycling Universe is simply gases coalescing into stars
within the galaxies, over subsequent generations. Well, yes, the gases
inside a galaxy get recycled into new stars, but that's nothing like a
recyling universe which means a universe that goes from Big Bang, to Big
Crunch, and then back again, over and over again. The whole thing
expands and collapses under its own energy.
If you want to get taken seriously, you can't start making up your own
terminology at random. These terms have well-established meanings.
Yousuf Khan
JAAKKO KURHI
May 31, 2013, 1:01:04 PM5/31/13
to
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
> ;1247374']On 22/05/2013 1:46 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:-
> dlzc;1246763 Wrote:-
> Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
>
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:07:51 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> ....-
> If the combined force of gravity of the independent
> galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
> behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
> milky-way is not collapsing by its [own] gravity. Our
> solar system works and stays together because of the
> gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
> orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
> combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
> of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
> moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
> galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
> be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
> no problematic in the environment of recycling
> universe.-
>
> Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
> proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.
>
> David A. Smith-
>
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:07:51 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> ....-
> If the combined force of gravity of the independent
> galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
> behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
> milky-way is not collapsing by its [own] gravity. Our
> solar system works and stays together because of the
> gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
> orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
> combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
> of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
> moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
> galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
> be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
> no problematic in the environment of recycling
> universe.-
>
> Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
> proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.
>
>
> “Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
> proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.”
>
> Quite a contrary, galaxies are make-up of billions of stars, and in
> the
> observed Milky-Way, stars are self-destructing all the time. Hence,
> providing recycling matter for the cooling process. Will galaxies
> eventually cease functioning; I found no reference to this fact.
> However, the science does not know the extent of the universe beyond
> of the observable size, which seems to be limited to buy the current
> observing techniques.-
> Quite a contrary, galaxies are make-up of billions of stars, and in
> the
> observed Milky-Way, stars are self-destructing all the time. Hence,
> providing recycling matter for the cooling process. Will galaxies
> eventually cease functioning; I found no reference to this fact.
> However, the science does not know the extent of the universe beyond
> of the observable size, which seems to be limited to buy the current
>
> Yet again, you're starting to make up your own terminology. First you
> start off by calling the Earth and Moon, stars?!? And now it seems your
>
> definition of a Recycling Universe is simply gases coalescing into stars
>
> within the galaxies, over subsequent generations. Well, yes, the gases
> inside a galaxy get recycled into new stars, but that's nothing like a
> recyling universe which means a universe that goes from Big Bang, to Big
>
> Crunch, and then back again, over and over again. The whole thing
> expands and collapses under its own energy.
>
> If you want to get taken seriously, you can't start making up your own
> terminology at random. These terms have well-established meanings.
>
> Yousuf Khan
“recycling universe which means a universe that goes from Big Bang, to
> Yet again, you're starting to make up your own terminology. First you
> start off by calling the Earth and Moon, stars?!? And now it seems your
>
> definition of a Recycling Universe is simply gases coalescing into stars
>
> within the galaxies, over subsequent generations. Well, yes, the gases
> inside a galaxy get recycled into new stars, but that's nothing like a
> recyling universe which means a universe that goes from Big Bang, to Big
>
> Crunch, and then back again, over and over again. The whole thing
> expands and collapses under its own energy.
>
> If you want to get taken seriously, you can't start making up your own
> terminology at random. These terms have well-established meanings.
>
> Yousuf Khan
Big
Crunch, and then back again, over and over again.”
I have not referred the Earth and Moon as stars anywhere in this thread,
so something is getting twisted.
In the case, my post; April 29th 13 did not make it clear, concerning
my view of recycling universe; I try to clarify; its based on the
concept where the universal matter is in the natural cooling cycle, from
the hot events to the very absolute zero temperature state, where the
mass of the matter only exists. This postulation is against the current
scientific view, because of the application of laws of the
thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and equation of E=mc squared.
Conclude, that the matter cannot penetrate into the true 0K environment.
My disagreement is based on the fact that none of the above components
are applicable to explain the behavior of sub atomic particles at very
lowest energy and temperature.
Read more: Space Science Misc / Recycling Universe.
Dr J R Stockton
May 31, 2013, 4:47:12 PM5/31/13
to
In sci.astro message <51a77f67$1...@news.bnb-lp.com>, Thu, 30 May 2013
12:33:40, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> posted:
>BTW, centrifugal force is not a real force, it's really the reactionary
>force to the force of gravity. As Newton's Laws said, every action has
>an equal and opposite reaction, centrifugal force is the reaction to
>gravity.
No. For the action of the Earth pulling and accelerating the Moon, the
reaction is the Moon pulling and accelerating the Earth.
The "centrifugal" pseudo-force is what the Earth-facing Lunatic thinks
must be supporting the Earth against the gravity field that he feels
more strongly. The Lunatic, of course, does not perceive the monthly
rotation, except by seeing the Stars move across his sky and the Earth
spinning daily.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
12:33:40, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> posted:
>BTW, centrifugal force is not a real force, it's really the reactionary
>force to the force of gravity. As Newton's Laws said, every action has
>an equal and opposite reaction, centrifugal force is the reaction to
>gravity.
reaction is the Moon pulling and accelerating the Earth.
The "centrifugal" pseudo-force is what the Earth-facing Lunatic thinks
must be supporting the Earth against the gravity field that he feels
more strongly. The Lunatic, of course, does not perceive the monthly
rotation, except by seeing the Stars move across his sky and the Earth
spinning daily.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Yousuf Khan
Jun 2, 2013, 10:15:19 AM6/2/13
to
On 31/05/2013 1:01 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
> 'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
> 'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
> “recycling universe which means a universe that goes from Big Bang, to
> Big
> Crunch, and then back again, over and over again.”
>
> I have not referred the Earth and Moon as stars anywhere in this thread,
> so something is getting twisted.
Okay, you're right, that was David Levy in the thread "Star Age
> Big
> Crunch, and then back again, over and over again.”
>
> I have not referred the Earth and Moon as stars anywhere in this thread,
> so something is getting twisted.
Measurements". My apologies.
> In the case, my post; April 29th 13 did not make it clear, concerning
> my view of recycling universe; I try to clarify; its based on the
> concept where the universal matter is in the natural cooling cycle, from
> the hot events to the very absolute zero temperature state, where the
> mass of the matter only exists. This postulation is against the current
> scientific view, because of the application of laws of the
> thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and equation of E=mc squared.
> Conclude, that the matter cannot penetrate into the true 0K environment.
> My disagreement is based on the fact that none of the above components
> are applicable to explain the behavior of sub atomic particles at very
> lowest energy and temperature.
a closed system, and all of the heat that was ever created is still
located within the Universe, it cannot escape to the outside, as there
is no outside beyond the Universe. The only way that the Universe is
cooling down is because it is expanding. By the laws of thermodynamics,
expansion causes cooling, while compression causes heating up.
Subatomic particles at their lowest energy level still have movement.
This movement is due to the quantum uncertainty principle, which states
that you can't tell both a particle's speed and its position beyond a
certain level of accuracy because the particles exist as a cloud of
probabilities rather than a definite and discrete single particle. In
other words they are just moving because they can't exist in one place
for very long.
Yousuf Khan
0 new messages