Popping The Big Bang
Jim Greenfield
might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
the heavens.
Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
can see its glory in all directions. Not so those poor souls at the
extremities! If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
as far as us (half of it).
AND this doesn't take into account the fact that the material of
their home has travelled out from "The Big Bang" for 13.7 billion
years (and that's allowing light speed for matter), and then emmitted
light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7 billion years
for the trip = light and mass travelling about the universe for 27.4
by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!!
So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years
away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their
view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they
look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss?
Now aren't we just so privileged to live at the center of it all?
(And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)
Jim Greenfield
Paul F. Dietz
> Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
> which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
> can see its glory in all directions. Not so those poor souls at the
> extremities! If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
> the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
> as far as us (half of it).
It is your own ignorant misunderstanding of cosmology you are criticizing,
not the actual model used by cosmologists. Please try to relief your
ignorance to the point that you can hold a worthwhile opinion on the
subject. Hint: the big bang was not an explosion of matter from a point
into preexisting space, and we are not at the 'center' of it any more than
any other point in space is at its center.
Paul
J. Scott Miller
scientific theory allows one to make foolish statements in public. My
suggestion - get some knowledge and stop making stupid statements.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
...
> Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
A good a place as any as to "what we see" means. Especially part 2.
David A. Smith
Sam Wormley
>
> With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
> might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
> the heavens.
> Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
> which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
> can see its glory in all directions. Not so those poor souls at the
> extremities! If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
> the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
> as far as us (half of it).
Are you trolling Greenfield? There is no edge--everywhere is the center.
All observers in the universe see similar.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Catherine Hampton
>Are you trolling Greenfield? There is no edge--everywhere is the center.
I doubt he's trolling. This is a misunderstanding I've bumped into among
non-science people time and again when they're trying to understand
space-time.
My experience is that the "mental map" most people have of space-time isn't
too different from what Newton held, although (of course) nowhere near as
sophisticated. Most people are slaves to their mental images of reality; they
might know, but don't really accept, that space-time as a whole can't be
painted and doesn't "look" like any picture their minds can build. It takes a
non-trivial grasp of mathematics (well past the standard high school two years
of Algebra, one year of Geometry, and perhaps one of Trigonometry) before a
person has the mental tools to begin to understand just how strange the
universe is.
Isn't it wonderful? Not that so few people have those tools, but that at least
some do? :)
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@spambouncer.org>
Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
Jim Greenfield
> Thanks again for once again demonstrating how a lack of understanding of a
> scientific theory allows one to make foolish statements in public. My
> suggestion - get some knowledge and stop making stupid statements.
>
>
you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
description!
How handy is it that 'space is expanding, taking matter with it'?? Yet
I've yet to observe anything expand without energy change, or been
advised of atoms getting larger-- and they surely contain space! So
just which 'space' will you nominate to expand? Is it that within
atoms, between molecules, between stars, or galaxies? Is it all
expanding, or just what suits the BB Theory? Last crap I saw posted in
BB support had it confined to 'groups of galxies'.
Any way- answer the post or shut up!
Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east?
What do they observe when they 'look beyond'?
What are the dimensions of the universe?
What is it's age?
Has light from one side of the universe reached the other?
(Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
Bill Vajk
snip
> Any way- answer the post or shut up!
> Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east?
snip
Jim,
You are not seeing the universe as it is, but rather as it was,
with distance concurrently representing time slices. Each
successively more distant sphere you look at represents how
the universe looked in successively more distant pasts.
Consider that when that when some of the most distant light
was made this earth didn't yet exist. We are seeing snapshots
of many different pasts, none of which exists any longer.
And in fact, when light left the most distant, and many
even closer places, this earth didn't even exist yet, but
we have come along to intercept some of that light.
Considering a universe which folds over on itself, 13.7 bly
east and 13.7 bly west of here might be closer neighbors
than you realize.
The universe doesn't have to make sense to you. It is up to
you to make sense of the universe that is, and it is a
universe which is proving to be difficult to understand.
Dale Trynor
> With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
> might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
> the heavens.
It gets more interesting if one can predict other universes as well.
> Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
> which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
> can see its glory in all directions. Not so those poor souls at the
> extremities! If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
> the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
> as far as us (half of it).
> AND this doesn't take into account the fact that the material of
> their home has travelled out from "The Big Bang" for 13.7 billion
> years (and that's allowing light speed for matter), and then emmitted
> light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7 billion years
> for the trip = light and mass travelling about the universe for 27.4
> by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!!
You might want to review how a theory I have been promoting that gives
some interesting predictions that are related to this, providing you
haven't already done so. After the parts that look at how time
gravitational dilation can be shown to expand space you can then look at
how it examines how a coaleasing neutron star gives an inflation like
appearance for any inside observers. You will note how it predicts that
while the original diameters have gone from a few km diameter to light
years across instantly from the prospective of each individual neutron
they will still only be able to gage the size of their universe
depending on how long light has had to travel.
In one light second they will only observe whatever parts of their
universe that light can travel in that one second and this would not
change the fact that there really is light years of distance still hidden.
This gives the prospective of having started from that single point even
while in some ways this is only an illusion equally shared by every
other point particle.
> So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years
> away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their
> view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they
> look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss?
> Now aren't we just so privileged to live at the center of it all?
This idea of a center is very peculiar in this special theory because of
how it also postulates the existence of white holes. After you review
the site and have time to think about it you will have seen how and why
it predicts that our universe is a black hole within another universe.
The thing about black holes is they draw matter etc into them and if you
were inside of a larger space within one you would see what looks like
white holes pulling in matter from the older outer universe into ours.
Attempts to model these white holes as they would first appear based on
how a traveler would observe one while entering our universe from the
outside, tends to suggest the possibility that they might appear to
curve into our universe and may even appear in different locations while
in actuality being the one surface. They might in some reverse sort of
way be considered as the center of our universes as easily as its
outside. More studies needed.
Sorry about the site neglect this hobby dose not pay.
http://dalet.9cy.com/
> (And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)
I would like to hear what your opinions might be on this theory after
you give it some thought.
Paul F. Dietz
> So will a few mouthfulls of your 'raisin bread' help my ignorance?
One attribute of idiots like yourself is a grossly overinflated
sense of their own mental abilities. The painful truth is that you
have made a laughable newbie error, and are persisting in holding
onto this misconception in the face of correction.
You now have two choices. You can admit you fucked up and go learn
what the BB theory actually says. Or, you could subordinate intellect
(whatever you have in that department) to ego and stroll down the
road to crankhood.
Which will it be?
Paul
Randy
"Catherine Hampton" <spam...@spambouncer.org> wrote in message
news:tseamvoe1883uituj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 03:46:33 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >Are you trolling Greenfield? There is no edge--everywhere is the center.
>
> I doubt he's trolling. This is a misunderstanding I've bumped into among
> non-science people time and again when they're trying to understand
> space-time.
>
> My experience is that the "mental map" most people have of space-time
isn't
> too different from what Newton held, although (of course) nowhere near as
> sophisticated. Most people are slaves to their mental images of reality;
they
> might know, but don't really accept, that space-time as a whole can't be
> painted and doesn't "look" like any picture their minds can build. It
takes a
> non-trivial grasp of mathematics (well past the standard high school two
years
> of Algebra, one year of Geometry, and perhaps one of Trigonometry) before
a
> person has the mental tools to begin to understand just how strange the
> universe is.
>
> Isn't it wonderful? Not that so few people have those tools, but that at
least
> some do? :)
It's wonderful if you have the tools, but it's *damned* frustrating when you
don't.
I *hate* not being able to understand stuff and I have to admit I just don't
get some (or maybe even most LOL) of modern cosmology.
Many questions, but no desire for ridicule. ;-)
--
-Randy (OF+)
'Up the stairs.
Into the fire.'
CeeBee
> Any way- answer the post or shut up!
> Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east?
> What do they observe when they 'look beyond'?
> What are the dimensions of the universe?
> What is it's age?
> Has light from one side of the universe reached the other?
> (Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
It is clear that _I_ am the center of the universe, as everything that
happens only seems to happen when I observe it. Until that moment it isn't
existent. This is very clear, as the Bing Bang theory was created because
the Earth seemed near the center of the universe, as you - obviously being
an expert on these matters - state, and I'm the center of my universe,
thus is my center the center of the universe.
Now answer _my_ questions:
what is happening to all those objects and people when I'm not observing
them?
Are they standing still, freezed, or do they simply cease to exist until
the next time I observe them?
In that case, how come some things get created exactly the same when I
change my position and observe them again?
And what about people stating that I lack some very basic knowledge about
the structure of reality, making my above questions utter nonsense, like
yours?
What about people suggesting you go troll somewhere else?
--
CeeBee
Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"
Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2
roy
> With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
> might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
> the heavens.
> Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
> which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago,
> and can see its glory in all directions.
We are not at the centre of the universe (as far as I know) but at
the centre of cosmological expansion. Each and every point in space
is by BB a place where expansion begins and thus at a centre of
cosmological expansion. Given enough time (i believe about 15bly)
then we (Earth) would indeed become a centre of our *observable*
universe since expansion velocity at 14-15 billion light years would
be greater than C and light from those distant objects could never
reach us.
> Not so those poor souls at the extremities!
Our observable universe may only be analogous in size to the whole
universe as a speck is to our own observable universe. An object at
15 billion light years distant to us is in this way not really at
the edge of the universe but only at the edge of our visible universe.
What's at the true extremities of the universe which may be much
larger than our visible universe? Nothing. It's theoretically just
empty expanded spacetime. Thus there are no observers
sitting out on the true edge looking into the inky abyss (false
vacuum if it still exists at this time).
> If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly
> away,
That is estimated age of the universe. Who said it represented the
distance to the edge? It may turn out that at an age of 13.7bly we
are indeed at the centre of our observable universe by now. That is
not the same thing as being at the centre of the universe at large.
> the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to
> 'see' as far as us (half of it).
> AND this doesn't take into account the fact that the material of
> their home has travelled out from "The Big Bang" for 13.7 billion
> years (and that's allowing light speed for matter), and then
> emmitted light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7
> billion years for the trip = light and mass travelling about the
> universe for 27.4 by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!!
Anyone living at the edge of our observable universe has their own
observable universe of 13.7 billion years age and visible horizon
just like ours but of course they will see another vista.
> So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years
> away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their
> view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they
> look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss?
No, they may be looking at a rareified region of the universe.
> Now aren't we just so privileged to live at the center of it all?
> (And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)
It's imaginative alright.
>
> Jim Greenfield
db
>
> "J. Scott Miller" <jsfm...@netzero.net> wrote in message news:<3F65294E...@netzero.net>...
> > Thanks again for once again demonstrating how a lack of understanding of a
> > scientific theory allows one to make foolish statements in public. My
> > suggestion - get some knowledge and stop making stupid statements.
> >
> >
> If you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
> 'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
> the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
> description!
if that is what you 'see', then you have misunderstood the bb theory.
> How handy is it that 'space is expanding, taking matter with it'??
How handy is it that the speed of light is finite, so that as we look further
out in the universe we see it how it was longer back in the past.
what we see at 13B ly away is not the edge of the universe, what we see there is
how the universe was 13B years ago; relativly shortly after the BB.
--
And so it goes...
On The Brink...
Our lives like granuals of sand through the hourglass...
Do you know what time it is?
That's the question.
George Dishman
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
>
First things first:
> What is it's age?
13.7 +/- 0.2 based on the WMAP probe measurements of the
CMBR:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
See this site for info on WMAP:
and the CMBR:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html
Lets assume 13.701 for the sake of this discussion.
> Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east?
(I assume "west" means in some arbitrary direction and "east"
means in the opposite direction. A being 13.7 billion light
years away is unlikely to share our definitions of east and
west.)
If we look 13.7 bly west, we might see a clump of hydrogen
and helium gas as it was 1 million years after the 'bang'
that would later become a galaxy. A being living there then
could only see 100 million light years in any direction
where they would see the CMBR that we measure, and within
that region they would see little more than clumps of gas
that would later become galaxies.
A being (called Jim) living in that galaxy 13.7 billion
years later could look east and see a clump of hydrogen
and helium gas as it was 1 million years after the 'bang'
that would later become our galaxy.
> What do they observe when they 'look beyond'?
Jim would see the same as us, galaxies distributed evenly
throughout the whole region he could observe. If he looked
west he could see a patch of hydrogen and helium gas 13.7
bly away, as it was 1 million years after the 'bang', that
would later become a galaxy. That galaxy's light has not
yet reached us. A being (called Sheila) living in that
galaxy 13.7 billion years later would see the same as Jim
and us, galaxies distributed evenly throughout the whole
region she could observe. If she looked east, she would
see the patch of gas destined to become Jim's galaxy as
it was 1 million years after the 'bang', and if she
looked west, ...
> What are the dimensions of the universe?
Very much bigger than the patch we can see, possibly
infinite. Imagine repeating the above series of beings
seeing clumps of gas that would become galaxies containing
other beings at least billions of times.
> Has light from one side of the universe reached the other?
The universe doesn't have sides.
> (Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
Some people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend. Some
people are afraid of what we see. We still see it and it is
still there whether anyone comprehends it or not.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
George
Uncle Al
>
> With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
> might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
> the heavens.
Bullshit meter quivers and it isn't even uncrated yet.
> Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
> which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
> can see its glory in all directions.
Bullshit. Bullshit! Your tongue isn't connected to yoru brain by
simple observation. Every point in the universe is at its exact
center *right now* and is equally distant from the Big Bang. As you
look into space you look back into time and *right now* isn't there
yet.
> Not so those poor souls at the
> extremities!
BULLSHIT. Go out at night. Look at a far galaxy at one horizon and
than at another 180 degrees away. Theya aren't in each other's light
cones. Neither one exists as viewed by the other.
> If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
> the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
> as far as us (half of it).
Bullshit. You don't know anything about inflation or your light cone.
[snip]
> (And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)
Yeah, and cosmic background radiation and its power spectrum don't
exist, either. Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Chosp
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
>
Fuck you, you ignorant troll.
Your post has been answered.
Learn some physics before attempting
to beat off in public.
Jim Greenfield
> "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> > What is it's age?
>
> 13.7 +/- 0.2 based on the WMAP probe measurements of the
> CMBR:
> :
>
>
> Lets assume 13.701 for the sake of this discussion.
>
> > Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east?
>
> (I assume "west" means in some arbitrary direction and "east"
> means in the opposite direction. A being 13.7 billion light
> years away is unlikely to share our definitions of east and
> west.)
>
> If we look 13.7 bly west, we might see a clump of hydrogen
> and helium gas as it was 1 million years after the 'bang'
> that would later become a galaxy. A being living there then
> could only see 100 million light years in any direction
> where they would see the CMBR that we measure, and within
> that region they would see little more than clumps of gas
> that would later become galaxies.
Yes! That IS what we Should see, but photos of very distant galaxies
Don't show that. We Don't see 'clumps of gas', but galaxies which may
be similar to our own.
If they were 13 b years younger, one would expect them to look
different.
>
> A being (called Jim) living in that galaxy 13.7 billion
> years later could look east and see a clump of hydrogen
> and helium gas as it was 1 million years after the 'bang'
> that would later become our galaxy.
>
> > What do they observe when they 'look beyond'?
>
> Jim would see the same as us, galaxies distributed evenly
> throughout the whole region he could observe. If he looked
> west he could see a patch of hydrogen and helium gas 13.7
> bly away, as it was 1 million years after the 'bang', that
> would later become a galaxy. That galaxy's light has not
> yet reached us. A being (called Sheila) living in that
> galaxy 13.7 billion years later would see the same as Jim
> and us, galaxies distributed evenly throughout the whole
> region she could observe. If she looked east, she would
> see the patch of gas destined to become Jim's galaxy as
> it was 1 million years after the 'bang', and if she
> looked west, ...
STOP RIGHT HERE! Why didn't you elaborate?
>
> > What are the dimensions of the universe?
>
> Very much bigger than the patch we can see, possibly
> infinite. Imagine repeating the above series of beings
> seeing clumps of gas that would become galaxies containing
> other beings at least billions of times.
This is Exactly My Point! I to believe the universe to be infinite--
not constricted by the boundaries and limitations of some sudden past
singular event.
>
> > Has light from one side of the universe reached the other?
>
> The universe doesn't have sides.
Sooner or later some Big Banger will go on about living on an
expanding 'membrane' similar to a balloon. That would represent the
sides I refer to here. I agree; there are no sides because the
dimensions are infinite.
George, the concepts of infinity and BB are oxymoronic and
incompatible.
Thanks for your reply
Jim G
Bill Vajk
Jim Greenfield wrote:
> Sooner or later some Big Banger will go on about living on an
> expanding 'membrane' similar to a balloon. That would represent the
> sides I refer to here. I agree; there are no sides because the
> dimensions are infinite.
> George, the concepts of infinity and BB are oxymoronic and
> incompatible.
> Thanks for your reply
> Jim G
There are many possible models to consider. Provide the
mathematical modeling for your preference, then we'll
talk.
Jim Greenfield
Hi! I had a look at your site, and got two immediate 'ears pricked'.
The first was a mention of positive and negative directions. I have
oft suggested that this concept is unacceptable in any arguement;
direction and distance are Always positive (may be "less than").
Second, and importantly, to maintain isotropy and homogeneity in an
expanding universe endows the closer to center galxies with some form
of telepathy! An expanding smoke cloud does not maintain homogeneity-
neither would an expanding universe! Simple geometry shows the outer
galaxies spreading faster, so the inner ones need a mechanism to
maintain an equal separation.....
("POP")
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
Observe, Randy, that the ridicule is directly proportional to the
contradictions in the opposing arguement.
Here we have Catherine, her tools in hand, come to insult and
belittle.
But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her) AND
she reserves the right to use the square root of (-1) to 'prove'
something with her magic and imaginary formula. Why not just use her
hair brush? That is just as convincing to those who refuse to swallow
this R and BB crap!!
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
Roy, about now the Big Bang Theory arguement has changed so much from
the concept of an expansion coming from a singularity, producing a
universe of a particular age, dimension and history, that the term
should be altogether scrapped!
You'll notice that supporting posters even talk in terms of infinity
(an oxymoron to BB), and their squirms to explain isotropy and
homogeneity in an expanding universe are breathtaking in the leaps of
logic.
Mind you, "logic" in the eyes of a Big Banger is the ability to jump
at will from one 'frame of reference' to another- as it is with the
DHRs
A while ago, it would have been unusual to get even a shrug from a BB
about the view out from the edge of the universe (or most likely,
screaming and supercillious abuse); now the possibility of the view
being the same as ours (thus taking the universe to infinity) is
accepted by many as a given.
(The guy in "Lord of the Ring" fought on like that with an arrow in
his heart, but he still died-- bring on a similar fate for the the
Original Theory)
Jim G
roy
>
> Second, and importantly, to maintain isotropy and homogeneity in an
> expanding universe endows the closer to center galxies with some
> form of telepathy! An expanding smoke cloud does not maintain
> homogeneity- neither would an expanding universe! Simple geometry
> shows the outer galaxies spreading faster, so the inner ones need a
> mechanism to maintain an equal separation.....
> ("POP")
I don't see how you justify that. As far as I know BB argument states
that recessional effects on mass distribution will be the same for
both the observer and the observed. When we see galaxies speeding away
and "rareifying" as groups in their region the same is happenning here
to our groups. Neither place theirs or ours is special or different
in terms of recession. Expansion is, roughly speaking, a product of
hubble and distance. East or West makes no difference.
roy
>
> Jim G
CeeBee
> Observe, Randy, that the ridicule is directly proportional to the
> contradictions in the opposing arguement.
> Here we have Catherine, her tools in hand, come to insult and
> belittle.
> But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her) AND
> she reserves the right to use the square root of (-1) to 'prove'
> something with her magic and imaginary formula. Why not just use her
> hair brush? That is just as convincing to those who refuse to swallow
> this R and BB crap!!
Let's talk about your arsenal. It's 0 x 0 = 0 to all of us who took a
little time to inform ourselves about theories before spouting twitty
ideas based on a total lack of knowledge.
Go back to the void, foulmouth troll, and return to lecture people not
before you have something else than your total absence of knowlegde to
lecture us with.
The less the knowledge, the bigger the mouth.
greywolf42
George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:106364903...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
>
> news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Any way- answer the post or shut up!
>
> First things first:
>
> > What is it's age?
>
> 13.7 +/- 0.2 based on the WMAP probe measurements of the
> CMBR:
>
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
Gee, how does it get globular clusters of 15-18 billion years into it? :)
{snip}
> > (Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
>
> Some people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend. Some
> people are afraid of what we see. We still see it and it is
> still there whether anyone comprehends it or not.
>
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
But we don't 'see' the age of the universe. What we see is some random EM
radiation. It's only popular 'theory' that converts the observation into an
'age of the universe.' It's not 'revealed truth.'
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
George Dishman
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vmeorog...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:106364903...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Any way- answer the post or shut up!
> >
> > First things first:
> >
> > > What is it's age?
> >
> > 13.7 +/- 0.2 based on the WMAP probe measurements of the
> > CMBR:
> >
> > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
>
> Gee, how does it get globular clusters of 15-18 billion years into it? :)
Easy, one goes out and buys some globular clusters of 15-18 billion
years and liberally sprinkles them about, there aren't any there at
the moment.
> {snip}
>
> > > (Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
> >
> > Some people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend. Some
> > people are afraid of what we see. We still see it and it is
> > still there whether anyone comprehends it or not.
> >
> > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
>
> But we don't 'see' the age of the universe. What we see is some random EM
> radiation.
What we 'see', or more accurately measure, is red-shifts
that vary with distance in a systematic manner.
> It's only popular 'theory' that converts the observation into an
> 'age of the universe.' It's not 'revealed truth.'
That's science for you, the inescapable result of applying
simple maths to abservation. Sorry it doesn't suit your
preferences.
George
George Dishman
They do. As several people have said, you should read
up on the subject or you will embarras yourself.
> > A being (called Jim) living in that galaxy 13.7 billion
> > years later could look east and see a clump of hydrogen
> > and helium gas as it was 1 million years after the 'bang'
> > that would later become our galaxy.
> >
> > > What do they observe when they 'look beyond'?
> >
> > Jim would see the same as us, galaxies distributed evenly
> > throughout the whole region he could observe. If he looked
> > west he could see a patch of hydrogen and helium gas 13.7
> > bly away, as it was 1 million years after the 'bang', that
> > would later become a galaxy. That galaxy's light has not
> > yet reached us. A being (called Sheila) living in that
> > galaxy 13.7 billion years later would see the same as Jim
> > and us, galaxies distributed evenly throughout the whole
> > region she could observe. If she looked east, she would
> > see the patch of gas destined to become Jim's galaxy as
> > it was 1 million years after the 'bang', and if she
> > looked west, ...
>
> STOP RIGHT HERE! Why didn't you elaborate?
The ellipsis indicates that you should continue the
sequence. I have written almost identical text three
times. You should be able to see the pattern and
repeat it as often as you like for yourself.
> > > What are the dimensions of the universe?
> >
> > Very much bigger than the patch we can see, possibly
> > infinite. Imagine repeating the above series of beings
> > seeing clumps of gas that would become galaxies containing
> > other beings at least billions of times.
>
> This is Exactly My Point! I to believe the universe to be infinite--
> not constricted by the boundaries and limitations of some sudden past
> singular event.
Until a couple of years ago, "Big Bang" theory also said
the same. Space and time are related in GR and unless the
universe was going to collapse in a "Big Crunch", it had
to be infinite, and there wasn't enough matter to do that.
The acceleration of the expansion detected a few years ago
came as a bit of a surprise and a recent paper suggests that
it is possible for the universe to be finite without ending
in a crunch so infinite size is less certain but still quite
likely.
> > > Has light from one side of the universe reached the other?
> >
> > The universe doesn't have sides.
>
> Sooner or later some Big Banger will go on about living on an
> expanding 'membrane' similar to a balloon. That would represent the
> sides I refer to here.
>I agree; there are no sides because the
> dimensions are infinite.
> George, the concepts of infinity and BB are oxymoronic and
> incompatible.
With just the observed density of matter, space in BB theory
could only be infinite in BB theory, and that has been known
since long before I joined this group many years ago. You
really should find out more about it before embarrassing
yourself with remarks like that.
George
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her)
-1 steps forward is one step back.
Doing something -1 times is undoing it once.
Undoing a step back once is taking a step forward.
-1 steps forward performed -1 times is 1 step.
Getting -$1 is losing $1.
Undoing losing $1 is gaining $1.
If you walking to the east at -1 mph,
you are walking west at 1 mph.
-1 hours from now is 1 hour ago.
If you are walking west at 1 mph,
you were 1 mile to the east an hour ago.
If you are walking east at -1 mph,
your position in -1 hours is 1 mile to the east.
Jim Greenfield
> Jim Greenfield wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Any way- answer the post or shut up!
> > Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east?
>
> snip
>
> Jim,
>
> You are not seeing the universe as it is, but rather as it was,
> with distance concurrently representing time slices. Each
> successively more distant sphere you look at represents how
> the universe looked in successively more distant pasts.
I understand that entirely. That is what what makes the age and size
of the universe contradictary in BBT- in one breath they claim the age
as 13.7by , which is oxymoronic to that light having left that
position at that time. The age would need to be more than double, even
allowing for an expansion at light speed.
>
> Consider that when that when some of the most distant light
> was made this earth didn't yet exist. We are seeing snapshots
> of many different pasts, none of which exists any longer.
> And in fact, when light left the most distant, and many
> even closer places, this earth didn't even exist yet, but
> we have come along to intercept some of that light.
Yes
>
> Considering a universe which folds over on itself, 13.7 bly
> east and 13.7 bly west of here might be closer neighbors
> than you realize.
Just when I thought that you were making sense, you come up with this
clanger!!...that the edges might be closer than the half way point!
>
> The universe doesn't have to make sense to you. It is up to
> you to make sense of the universe that is, and it is a
> universe which is proving to be difficult to understand.
Yes, but it's time to try other than BB tweaking.
PS Have you seen evidence of galaxies previously calculated at, say,
1by distance, passing in front of another at 500 million? I wont be
surprised
Cheers
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
> happens only seems to happen when I observe it. Until that moment it isn't
> existent. This is very clear, as the Bing Bang theory was created because
> the Earth seemed near the center of the universe, as you - obviously being
> an expert on these matters - state, and I'm the center of my universe,
> thus is my center the center of the universe.
>
> Now answer _my_ questions:
> what is happening to all those objects and people when I'm not observing
> them?
> Are they standing still, freezed, or do they simply cease to exist until
> the next time I observe them?
> In that case, how come some things get created exactly the same when I
> change my position and observe them again?
>
> And what about people stating that I lack some very basic knowledge about
> the structure of reality, making my above questions utter nonsense, like
> yours?
>
> What about people suggesting you go troll somewhere else?
Your arrogance cable must have a kink in it! If you think that nothing
exists without YOU to observe it, the motor is screaming, and you are
headed for a cliff!
PS There were 2 rocks on a hillside before man saw them; pity you
can't stand not being the center of attention.
Jim G
>
Jim Greenfield
> Jim Greenfield wrote:
> >
> > "J. Scott Miller" <jsfm...@netzero.net> wrote in message news:<3F65294E...@netzero.net>...
> > > Thanks again for once again demonstrating how a lack of understanding of a
> > > scientific theory allows one to make foolish statements in public. My
> > > suggestion - get some knowledge and stop making stupid statements.
> > >
> > >
>
> > If you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
> > 'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
> > the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
> > description!
>
> if that is what you 'see', then you have misunderstood the bb theory.
>
> > How handy is it that 'space is expanding, taking matter with it'??
>
> How handy is it that the speed of light is finite, so that as we look further
> out in the universe we see it how it was longer back in the past.
>
> what we see at 13B ly away is not the edge of the universe, what we see there is
> how the universe was 13B years ago; relativly shortly after the BB.
Is that so? Pictures look mighty like the ones just around here- old
and wrinkled, not young at all. And people there see the same thing
looking here! Don't you think Al's bullshitometer could be suggesting
that we are both victims of the same illusion?
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
Trolling to me, is what I do when I tow a fishing line behind my boat.
The fish I (sometimes) catch are much more intelligent, logical,
errudite and persuive than you :) (and probably more imaginative
and knowledgable)
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
> Bullshit meter quivers and it isn't even uncrated yet.
Albert (are you descended?)
I once worked for a mining exploration company. We drilled bore holes
down which the 'logger' sent a probe to measure the radiation level
(we looked for uranium deposits). The logger had to set his probe for
back ground radiation, before starting his test. On one occasion, he
thought that something was broken, as he couldn't set to zero; the
needle kept going off the dial. After a hold up of several days, and
two factory rebuilds of the probe, he realised that we were standing
in the stuff!!
So the next time your meter quivvers, check your boots! It will be a
sure sign that you stepped in something smelly!
>
> > Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
> > which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
> > can see its glory in all directions.
>
> Bullshit. Bullshit! Your tongue isn't connected to yoru brain by
> simple observation. Every point in the universe is at its exact
> center *right now* and is equally distant from the Big Bang. As you
> look into space you look back into time and *right now* isn't there
> yet.
IT IS THERE- we just haven't SEEN IT YET!!
>
> > Not so those poor souls at the
> > extremities!
>
> BULLSHIT. Go out at night. Look at a far galaxy at one horizon and
> than at another 180 degrees away. Theya aren't in each other's light
> cones. Neither one exists as viewed by the other.
You are making an arbitrary assumption (last in capitals). You are
assuming the ages of the galaxies to be less than the time it would
take a photon to cross that void (in many cases this might be true, if
one or both of the galaxies have fizzled out or yet to be formed)
>
> > If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
> > the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
> > as far as us (half of it).
>
> Bullshit. You don't know anything about inflation or your light cone.
> [snip]
>
> > (And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)
>
> Yeah, and cosmic background radiation and its power spectrum don't
> exist, either. Idiot.
They may come from far beyond our limit of vision- NOT be a "product"
of BBBs
Cheers
Jim G
(and check those boots)
Jim Greenfield
Fill a room with balloons. Pop them all at once. Whence goes the
material contained there-in? Nowhere man!
>
>
> >
> > Jim G
Jim Greenfield
> greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her)
>
> -1 steps forward is one step back.
I am standing still. I take a step back. Am I -1 meters from where I
started?
> Doing something -1 times is undoing it once.
I have a piece of rope with no knot in it. At this time, show me how
you undo said knot.
> Undoing a step back once is taking a step forward.
> -1 steps forward performed -1 times is 1 step.
Assumes that I took a first step.
>
> Getting -$1 is losing $1.
> Undoing losing $1 is gaining $1.
Was it you who caused the Wall Street Crash? They found their money
was only illusionary to.
>
> If you walking to the east at -1 mph,
> you are walking west at 1 mph.
Great! If I find myself tiring, I'll just reverse direction to regain
my lost energy.
> -1 hours from now is 1 hour ago.
It's a given that instant did occur.
> If you are walking west at 1 mph,
> you were 1 mile to the east an hour ago.
> If you are walking east at -1 mph,
> your position in -1 hours is 1 mile to the east.
Same old presumption (you've known it too long to be an 'assumption')
BTW!!! A person walking east is separating from him going west at
2mph, or aren't we allowed to discuss them both at once, in case they
may be in 'the wrong frame of reference to suit'??
Cheers
Jim G
Chosp
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "Chosp" <ch...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<vWw9b.55015$cj1.42115@fed1read06>...
> > "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Any way- answer the post or shut up!
> >
> > Fuck you, you ignorant troll.
> > Your post has been answered.
> > Learn some physics before attempting
> > to beat off in public.
>
> Trolling to me, is what I do when I tow a fishing line behind my boat.
Then you are even more ignorant than you first appeared.
> The fish I (sometimes) catch are much more intelligent, logical,
> errudite and persuive than you :) (and probably more imaginative
> and knowledgable)
Clearly nowhere near as "persuive" as yourself.
Randy
<snip>
> Bullshit. Bullshit! Your tongue isn't connected to yoru brain by
> simple observation. Every point in the universe is at its exact
> center *right now* and is equally distant from the Big Bang. As you
> look into space you look back into time and *right now* isn't there
> yet.
>
<snip>
>
> BULLSHIT. Go out at night. Look at a far galaxy at one horizon and
> than at another 180 degrees away. Theya aren't in each other's light
> cones. Neither one exists as viewed by the other.
If "[e]very point in the universe is at its exact center *right now* and is
equally distant from the Big Bang" then how is that possible, Uncle Al? I'm
not questioning that it *is* possible, I just don't get *how* it's possible.
Thanks,
--
-Randy (OF+)
'Up the stairs.
Into the fire.'
<snip>
Randy
>
<snip>
>
> Clearly nowhere near as "persuive" as yourself.
>
What caused "inflation"?
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Randy" <ds_da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_zZ9b.48$Qy4.3192@typhoon01...
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3F66000A...@hate.spam.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Bullshit. Bullshit! Your tongue isn't connected to yoru brain by
> > simple observation. Every point in the universe is at its exact
> > center *right now* and is equally distant from the Big Bang. As you
> > look into space you look back into time and *right now* isn't there
> > yet.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > BULLSHIT. Go out at night. Look at a far galaxy at one horizon and
> > than at another 180 degrees away. Theya aren't in each other's light
> > cones. Neither one exists as viewed by the other.
>
> If "[e]very point in the universe is at its exact center *right now* and
is
> equally distant from the Big Bang" then how is that possible, Uncle Al?
I'm
> not questioning that it *is* possible, I just don't get *how* it's
possible.
Every point on the surface of a balloon is equidistant from the balloon's
center isn't it? This is also a common 2D (the surface of the baloon)
analogy for the larger 3D case. We are on the skin, and what we see around
us was received from points "further in" (in time anyway).
David A. Smith
Randy
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:TUZ9b.57606$Qy4.2317@fed1read05...
> Dear Randy:
>
<snip>
> >
> > If "[e]very point in the universe is at its exact center *right now*
and
> is
> > equally distant from the Big Bang" then how is that possible, Uncle Al?
> I'm
> > not questioning that it *is* possible, I just don't get *how* it's
> possible.
>
> Every point on the surface of a balloon is equidistant from the balloon's
> center isn't it? This is also a common 2D (the surface of the baloon)
> analogy for the larger 3D case. We are on the skin, and what we see
around
> us was received from points "further in" (in time anyway).
>
> David A. Smith
>
>
Thanks, David. I had forgotten about that analogy. I wish I could get my
mind around how it translates to 3-D, but I guess I need lots more math than
I have. LOL
One other quick question (which may show my extreme ignorance, but what the
hell):
If the BB started at a single point, when and how did the universe (or our
portion of it) transition to what it is now? Instantly? After inflation?
I went through most of the stuff that Mr. Wormley provided,
but.../shrug/...what can I say? Most of it was over my head. Heck, as a
layman I think I understand quantum physics better than I understand
Cosmology. LOL
Thanks again, David! As frustrating as this is to get a handle on, it's
still fascinating.
The Ghost In The Machine
<greenf...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 16 Sep 2003 21:57:39 -0700
<3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>:
Depends on the material. If the material is moist air
(from, say, human lungs) it will probably stick around.
If the material is helium it will rise up to the top of the
room and probably escape through the ventilation system.
I'm not sure how this connects with the expansion of the Universe. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>:
> ghytrfvb...@mail.com (ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message news:<cb623e6.03091...@posting.google.com>...
>> greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>...
>> > But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her)
>>
>> -1 steps forward is one step back.
>
> I am standing still. I take a step back. Am I -1 meters from where I
> started?
Depends.
If you face east, standing on the origin of an
arbitrary uncoordinate system, and take 1 step
back (1 m length), you are now 1m west from
that origin. With normal interpretations,
that's -1m east. However, one can just as
easily say 1m west, or change the coordinate
system.
As it is, (-1) * (-1) = (1) is consistent with
(-1) * (1) = (-1) and (1) * (-1) = (-1), and of
course (1) * (1) = (1). In fact, it's a requirement
from 0 * a = a * 0 = 0 and the distributive law:
(1) * (1) = 1
(1) * (-1) = (-1)
(1) * (1 + (-1)) = 1 + (-1) = 0
(ditto for (-1) * (1))
and
(-1) * (1) = (-1)
(-1) * (-1 + 1) = 0
(-1) * (-1) + (-1) * (1) = 0
(-1) * (-1) = - (-1) * (1) = -(-1) = (1)
Or one can treat it as a more, erm, complex problem,
using complex scale/rotations. +i is a 90 degree
counterclockwise rotation, for example. -1 is a
180 degree rotation. Two 180 degree rotations is
a 360 degree rotation -- a no-operation.
[snip for brevity]
>>
>> Getting -$1 is losing $1.
>> Undoing losing $1 is gaining $1.
>
> Was it you who caused the Wall Street Crash? They found their money
> was only illusionary to.
Money is currently highly illusory. The bills in
one's billfold are merely token representations thereof,
acceptable by those who still trust the Government (which
is most of us :-) ). However, what money "really" is is
far from clear; we abolished the gold standard long ago,
for example (and good riddance, for a number of reasons).
Ideally, the communists would have the right idea and the
amount of money would depend on one's labor and/or one's
needs. However, there are many issues here, not the least
of which is also the idea of generating things worth more
than the raw materials going thereinto; the human body,
for instance, if rendered into its constituent elements
(mostly carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen), would probably be
worth a few bucks at most. (One hopes the body is a
corpse in that case, of course.)
>>
>> If you walking to the east at -1 mph,
>> you are walking west at 1 mph.
>
> Great! If I find myself tiring, I'll just reverse direction to regain
> my lost energy.
KE = 1/2 m v^2. The square of a negative number is positive.
I should note that physically, walking is a fairly complex
motion. One puts one foot in front of the other, and falls
a bit. The other foot then moves in front of the first
foot, and the body rises, then falls a bit again. Over
time, this uses up energy, as the body is bobbing along,
and also the legs are being accelerated and decelerated.
To counterbalance, many will swing their arms as well.
Reversing direction won't do much, although using a
bicycle might.
>
>> -1 hours from now is 1 hour ago.
>
> It's a given that instant did occur.
>
>> If you are walking west at 1 mph,
>> you were 1 mile to the east an hour ago.
>> If you are walking east at -1 mph,
>> your position in -1 hours is 1 mile to the east.
>
> Same old presumption (you've known it too long to be an 'assumption')
> BTW!!! A person walking east is separating from him going west at
> 2mph, or aren't we allowed to discuss them both at once, in case they
> may be in 'the wrong frame of reference to suit'??
If two people are walking away from a common-point at 1 mph,
in opposite directions, they are *not* walking away from each
other at 2 mph, although the difference between 2 mph and
the actual value, 2 * sqrt(1 - (1)(1) / (c^2)), is extremely
miniscule. (c = 670616629 mph, approximately. The
multiplier is therefore about 1 - 1.1118*10^-19, with these
particular units. 1.1118 * 10^-19 mile is about
1.789*10^-15 m, or maybe about the size of a quark.)
> Cheers
> Jim G
CeeBee
> Your arrogance cable must have a kink in it! If you think that nothing
> exists without YOU to observe it, the motor is screaming, and you are
> headed for a cliff!
> PS There were 2 rocks on a hillside before man saw them; pity you
> can't stand not being the center of attention.
I didn't ask you to prove you're an utter twit and a nagging troll, but
thanks anyhow.
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:vmeorog...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:106364903...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> > >
> > > "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > Any way- answer the post or shut up!
> > >
> > > First things first:
> > >
> > > > What is it's age?
> > >
> > > 13.7 +/- 0.2 based on the WMAP probe measurements of the
> > > CMBR:
> > >
> > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
> >
> > Gee, how does it get globular clusters of 15-18 billion years into it?
:)
>
> Easy, one goes out and buys some globular clusters of 15-18 billion
> years and liberally sprinkles them about, there aren't any there at
> the moment.
Funny. They were there before Hipparcos! Where did the cosmologists hide
them? :)
> > {snip}
> >
> > > > (Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
> > >
> > > Some people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend. Some
> > > people are afraid of what we see. We still see it and it is
> > > still there whether anyone comprehends it or not.
> > >
> > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
> >
> > But we don't 'see' the age of the universe. What we see is some random
EM
> > radiation.
>
> What we 'see', or more accurately measure, is red-shifts
> that vary with distance in a systematic manner.
The "WMAP probe measurements of the CMBR" are not "red-shifts that vary with
distance in a systematic manner." Please use arguments that apply to the
subject at hand. (The varying redshifts do not produce the value 13.7 +/-
0.2 that is under discussion.)
> > It's only popular 'theory' that converts the observation into an
> > 'age of the universe.' It's not 'revealed truth.'
>
> That's science for you, the inescapable result of applying
> simple maths to abservation. Sorry it doesn't suit your
> preferences.
I like the Freudian typo you produced. I think I'll borrow it for other
posts.
"Abservation" -- combination of avert (or abscess) and observation. The
ability to avoid seeing something that contradicts one's prior conceptions.
Or the ability to forget about an observation seen earlier, if it
contradicts a new conception.
A theory is not 'inescapable' in the scientific method. Only in religion.
A theory is never the same as an observation. In this case, the observation
is a bunch of random photons of no definite origin. The conclusion of the
theory is that the age of the universe is 13.7 BY.
Chosp
>
> "Chosp" <ch...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3gS9b.55349$cj1.1895@fed1read06...
> >
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Clearly nowhere near as "persuive" as yourself.
> >
>
> What caused "inflation"?
Poor economics.
Randy
LOL...c'mon, man...that was a serious question. I'm just trying to
understand this stuff....iow, I'm *not* a kook with a pet alternate theory
of the nature of the universe.
Paul R. Mays
Depends on who you talk too...
If you follow the view that the universe formed from
a singularity (Quantum Point[Mays], Chaos Point [Williams])
then the basic concept is that from that yet to be defined unified
energy form a finite amount of matter and a finite amount of
anti-matter was converted. At a very early point the matter and
anti-matter annihilated each other and there was just a bit more
matter than anti-matter so we end up with a matter based universe.
This period of annihilation is the inflationary period where the
kinetic, inertial and thermal energies were imparted into the
matter of the universe we observe today...
Bill Vajk
> LOL...c'mon, man...that was a serious question. I'm just trying to
> understand this stuff....iow, I'm *not* a kook with a pet alternate theory
> of the nature of the universe.
You're better off with a popular science book then asking
on usenet if you want a generalized background info insight.
For light reading you might try Sagan's Cosmos which, despite
the anticipated complaints of some of the usual complainers
here, does give the beginner some sense of the universe.
(available at www.abebooks.com for as little as $1.58
plus shipping.)
A slightly more obscure book was put out by Oxford called
_The Great Design_ by Robert K. Adair (at the time, the
Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics at Yale.) It gets one
a bit more into the inner workings of things. (available
at www.abebooks.com for as little as $5.22 plus shipping.)
Adair writes the sorts of things that Schwan^Hrtz and a few
others completely missed in their studies.
"If absolute acceleration exists, the state of zero
acceleration must have some absolute meaning in terms
of a reference system. What is the preferred frame of
reference which has no acceleration? Again we must defer
to observation or experiment and the most meaningful
thing we can say is that our zero of acceleration appears
to be the general frame of the fixed stars. The
acceleration of the entire mass of the universe, defined
empirically as the acceleration of the fixed stars, seems
to establish a zero for measurements of acceleration."[1]
Now as you can clearly see, this is a popular (IMO) science book
that does provide some food for thought. In particular, if we are
relying on some distant "fixed stars" to establish a framework
on which we base the concept of stationary, then where is the
validity of our view regarding their stationary character when
they form part of an ever expanding universe?
Well of course they're the same stars, and because they appear
to recede at the same rate in all radial directions from where
we "sit" we say we can establish a baseline of zero acceleration.
Perhaps statistically.
In the next breath, along comes Randy in this thread and raises
the issue that to someone 13.? billion light years away we
are accelerating at an ever increasing rate away from
them......so how is it we can consider any point as not
accelerating?
Of course all this brings to the forefront the other recent
discussion in this ng about an "aether." After all, in our
example Adair (with a 1987 publication date, certainly recent
enough) discusses (see above) "the general frame of the fixed
stars." And too, Einstein came out in favor of some sort of
framework too.
So, Randy, if you actually get what you're asking for isn't
quite what you think the result will be. What you'll achieve
for whatever studying and research you do is sufficient
understanding to be able to ask brilliant questions while
knowing for a fact just how brilliant they actually are.
So I can recommend this book to you (and others like Schwan^Hrtz,
who have these tremendous gaps in basic knowledge) to get you
heading in the right general direction.
Best of luck in your studies (called living.)
[1] p. 104. _The Great Design_, Adair, Oxford Paperbacks, 1987
ISBN 0-19-506069-5
P.S. to Littlemanwearingbigboypants: I can hand it to you as written
by authoritative authors, but I can't make you understand it.
Randy
> Randy wrote:
>
> > LOL...c'mon, man...that was a serious question. I'm just trying to
> > understand this stuff....iow, I'm *not* a kook with a pet alternate
theory
> > of the nature of the universe.
>
> You're better off with a popular science book then asking
> on usenet if you want a generalized background info insight.
Yeah, you're probably right about that, Bill. I'm duly chastised.
>
> For light reading you might try Sagan's Cosmos which, despite
> the anticipated complaints of some of the usual complainers
> here, does give the beginner some sense of the universe.
> (available at www.abebooks.com for as little as $1.58
> plus shipping.)
With all of the new discoveries over the last decade or so, is "Cosmos"
still relevant?
>
> A slightly more obscure book was put out by Oxford called
> _The Great Design_ by Robert K. Adair (at the time, the
> Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics at Yale.) It gets one
> a bit more into the inner workings of things. (available
> at www.abebooks.com for as little as $5.22 plus shipping.)
Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a shot.
>
<snip>
> So, Randy, if you actually get what you're asking for isn't
> quite what you think the result will be. What you'll achieve
> for whatever studying and research you do is sufficient
> understanding to be able to ask brilliant questions while
> knowing for a fact just how brilliant they actually are.
Damn. I really hate not being quite sure if I've been insulted or not. LOL
I think I've found a fairly layman-friendly explanation of inflation.
Unfortunately it doesn't explain why the "vacuum energy was very large
during a brief period early in the history of the Universe", but I'm
guessing I wouldn't have the math to understand why anyway. ;-)
>
> So I can recommend this book to you (and others like Schwan^Hrtz,
> who have these tremendous gaps in basic knowledge) to get you
> heading in the right general direction.
>
> Best of luck in your studies (called living.)
Students also have professors, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> [1] p. 104. _The Great Design_, Adair, Oxford Paperbacks, 1987
> ISBN 0-19-506069-5
>
> P.S. to Littlemanwearingbigboypants: I can hand it to you as written
> by authoritative authors, but I can't make you understand it.
>
--
Bill Vajk
>>You're better off with a popular science book then asking
>>on usenet if you want a generalized background info insight.
> Yeah, you're probably right about that, Bill. I'm duly chastised.
Naw, the presumption that you should be able to ask questions and
raise issues in forums like this one was the original premise of
usenet, so you had the right idea. The problems you encountered in
taking this approach actually lie elsewhere. Back in the days when
this was called "net.physics" you would actually have stood a
good chance of having some relevant on line tutelage.
>>For light reading you might try Sagan's Cosmos which, despite
>>the anticipated complaints of some of the usual complainers
>>here, does give the beginner some sense of the universe.
>>(available at www.abebooks.com for as little as $1.58
>>plus shipping.)
> With all of the new discoveries over the last decade or so, is "Cosmos"
> still relevant?
Sure, why not. You're not going to make your living at science,
apparently. You are looking for a good grounding and Sagan will
give you that. If you want to pursue the knowledge base even
further then any/all corrections will take care of themselves
as you expand into greater depth.
>>So, Randy, if you actually get what you're asking for isn't
>>quite what you think the result will be. What you'll achieve
>>for whatever studying and research you do is sufficient
>>understanding to be able to ask brilliant questions while
>>knowing for a fact just how brilliant they actually are.
> Damn. I really hate not being quite sure if I've been insulted or not. LOL
You asked some good questions, no insult intended.
>>Best of luck in your studies (called living.)
> Students also have professors, if I'm not mistaken.
Naw, pupils need professors, real students are always self
teaching and need an occasional pointing in the right
direction or a boost over some hurdle. My dad was enamored
of the statement that "some learn because of their teachers,
others learn despite their teachers." I think you probably
belong to the later genre.
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> ghytrfvb...@mail.com (ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message news:<cb623e6.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her)
> >
> > -1 steps forward is one step back.
>
> I am standing still. I take a step back. Am I -1 meters from where I
> started?
> > Doing something -1 times is undoing it once.
>
> I have a piece of rope with no knot in it. At this time, show me how
> you undo said knot.
Easy! Just do nothing; your zero knots are undone.
-1 * 0 = 0
> > Undoing a step back once is taking a step forward.
> > -1 steps forward performed -1 times is 1 step.
>
> Assumes that I took a first step.
No. You can do the reverse of a step without ever having
taken a step at all.
> > Getting -$1 is losing $1.
> > Undoing losing $1 is gaining $1.
>
> Was it you who caused the Wall Street Crash? They found their money
> was only illusionary to.
If you don't like fiat money, use gold bars, or even cattle.
The result is the same.
> > If you walking to the east at -1 mph,
> > you are walking west at 1 mph.
>
> Great! If I find myself tiring, I'll just reverse direction to regain
> my lost energy.
Nothing was said about your energy; I only was talking about
how your position had changed.
> > -1 hours from now is 1 hour ago.
>
> It's a given that instant did occur.
>
> > If you are walking west at 1 mph,
> > you were 1 mile to the east an hour ago.
> > If you are walking east at -1 mph,
> > your position in -1 hours is 1 mile to the east.
>
> Same old presumption (you've known it too long to be an 'assumption')
> BTW!!! A person walking east is separating from him going west at
> 2mph, or aren't we allowed to discuss them both at once, in case they
> may be in 'the wrong frame of reference to suit'??
Were talking about one person here.
> Cheers
> Jim G
Perhaps you could show us a real-world justification of why
you think your answer for (-1)*(-1) is correct?
Ben Sisson
his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
Inflation is the natural result of a strong economy. The correct
answer would have been just plain old "capitalism".
--
Ben Sisson
1 flask of holy water: $11
1 modified crossbow: $50
1 pointy wooden stake: $1
7 seasons worth of memories of the best show on TV: priceless
Ben Sisson
Greenfield) (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>db <d...@nospamfor.me> wrote in message news:<3F65F7BC...@nospamfor.me>...
>> Jim Greenfield wrote:
>> >
>> > "J. Scott Miller" <jsfm...@netzero.net> wrote in message news:<3F65294E...@netzero.net>...
>> > > Thanks again for once again demonstrating how a lack of understanding of a
>> > > scientific theory allows one to make foolish statements in public. My
>> > > suggestion - get some knowledge and stop making stupid statements.
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>> > If you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
>> > 'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
>> > the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
>> > description!
>>
>> if that is what you 'see', then you have misunderstood the bb theory.
>>
>> > How handy is it that 'space is expanding, taking matter with it'??
>>
>> How handy is it that the speed of light is finite, so that as we look further
>> out in the universe we see it how it was longer back in the past.
>>
>> what we see at 13B ly away is not the edge of the universe, what we see there is
>> how the universe was 13B years ago; relativly shortly after the BB.
>
>Is that so? Pictures look mighty like the ones just around here- old
>and wrinkled, not young at all.
No they don't. You're either uninformed or deliberately lying. Which
is it?
Ben Sisson
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially
whispered:
>"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
>news:vmeorog...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> > > (Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
>> >
>> > Some people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend. Some
>> > people are afraid of what we see. We still see it and it is
>> > still there whether anyone comprehends it or not.
>> >
>> > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
>>
>> But we don't 'see' the age of the universe. What we see is some random EM
>> radiation.
>
>What we 'see', or more accurately measure, is red-shifts
>that vary with distance in a systematic manner.
It is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt that this systematic
manner MUST BE doppler style expansion. Since all the tests available
to us (like stellar candle supernovas etc) are dependant on currently
unprovable assumptions that all properties of light's behavior remain
constant over the age of the universe, all the conclusions drawn from
that hang by a thread - one knock against constant light behavior and
the whole thing falls down... and potential knocks have been found.
One theory:
Light emitted from a mass is (very slightly) redshifted due to the
gravitational effect of that mass on the light emitted. This is proven
fact and not in question. Gravity appears to act at the speed of light
(I didn't catch the results of that test a few months ago but I'd be
surprised if it said differently). According to BB theory the further
back in time you look the greater the density of matter would be -
however that matter is stil weilding its gravity on us. This is more
or less irrelevant until you get far enough back that the mass, and
therefore the gravity, begins to have a significant effect. At the
most extreme, at the split second the universe (acc to BB theory)
began, the density (and therefore the amount of mass) should be
extreme.
This would manifest itself as a redshift in the light that seems to
get greater the further the light had to travel (and therefore had
been emitted earlier and therefore suffered from a higher degree of
gravitation from the density of the universe when it was emitted).
That's exactly what we see.
...or maybe not. :-)
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Randy" <ds_da...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8_9b.50$Qy4.3199@typhoon01...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:TUZ9b.57606$Qy4.2317@fed1read05...
...
> > Every point on the surface of a balloon is equidistant from the
balloon's
> > center isn't it? This is also a common 2D (the surface of the baloon)
> > analogy for the larger 3D case. We are on the skin, and what we see
> around
> > us was received from points "further in" (in time anyway).
>
> Thanks, David. I had forgotten about that analogy. I wish I could get my
> mind around how it translates to 3-D, but I guess I need lots more math
than
> I have. LOL
It is not so much math here, although that would no doubt make it clearer.
Try this. Imagine a series of balloons, inflating from a point. Say the
ratio of radii of each "onion skin" is a constant. Now let light be
emitted from any particular layer of skin, and pretend that it propagates a
little more quickly than the various layers expand.
The outermost layer (*now*, since we don't yet have reliable light-based
information from tomorrow) would get the emitted light some long time
later, from a layer that is no longer in that position. The source layer
would be expanding less slowly than our layer currently, so the light would
be red shifted..
As tadchem is wont to say, parables are like ropes. You can pull them a
little, but you can't push them too far.
> One other quick question (which may show my extreme ignorance, but what
the
> hell):
> If the BB started at a single point, when and how did the universe (or
our
> portion of it) transition to what it is now? Instantly? After inflation?
The current belief is that it expanded from a singularity. As if this
could be what the inside of a Black Hole might be like. The "red shift"
that I described above (a series of expanding balloons) is *not* truly
velocity based, but more "change in gravitational potential" based. The
past had a very high mass/energy density, compared to *now*. So, just as
light is red shifted when generated on the Sun as compared to the same
reaction *here*, the light generated *then* is red shifted as compared to
*now*.
> I went through most of the stuff that Mr. Wormley provided,
> but.../shrug/...what can I say? Most of it was over my head. Heck, as a
> layman I think I understand quantum physics better than I understand
> Cosmology. LOL
It is so big, and trying to understand how the Universe is "shaped" while
not being able to get outside and look at it... We just aren't constructed
to do that without some thought. *That* is where the math helps.
> Thanks again, David! As frustrating as this is to get a handle on, it's
> still fascinating.
Amen.
David A. Smith
Jim Greenfield
> In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield
> <greenf...@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> on 16 Sep 2003 22:19:12 -0700
> <3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>:
> > ghytrfvb...@mail.com (ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message news:<cb623e6.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> >> greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her)
> >>
> >> -1 steps forward is one step back.
> >
> > I am standing still. I take a step back. Am I -1 meters from where I
> > started?
>
> Depends.
>
> If you face east, standing on the origin of an
> arbitrary uncoordinate system, and take 1 step
> back (1 m length), you are now 1m west from
> that origin. With normal interpretations,
> that's -1m east. However, one can just as
> easily say 1m west, or change the coordinate
> system.
Let's make this -1mile east from 0, and +1mile west from 0
Is this a 2mile gap?
Let the time taken to get the separation be 1hour....
.....now see below...
>
> As it is, (-1) * (-1) = (1) is consistent with
> (-1) * (1) = (-1) and (1) * (-1) = (-1), and of
> course (1) * (1) = (1). In fact, it's a requirement
> from 0 * a = a * 0 = 0 and the distributive law:
>
> (1) * (1) = 1
> (1) * (-1) = (-1)
> (1) * (1 + (-1)) = 1 + (-1) = 0
>
> (ditto for (-1) * (1))
>
> and
>
> (-1) * (1) = (-1)
> (-1) * (-1 + 1) = 0
> (-1) * (-1) + (-1) * (1) = 0
> (-1) * (-1) = - (-1) * (1) = -(-1) = (1)
>
> Or one can treat it as a more, erm, complex problem,
> using complex scale/rotations. +i is a 90 degree
> counterclockwise rotation, for example. -1 is a
> 180 degree rotation. Two 180 degree rotations is
> a 360 degree rotation -- a no-operation.
Conflict right here due to "The Barleys Tree (different reference
frames giving different result)
My wife on other side of glass clock sees the +, - reversed, and gets
diametrically opposite result. Now if you insist that both answers are
correct, which I take to be a wholly religious type philosophical
view, this discussion will soon fizzle
This is the old chestnut about an event not occuring until we SEE it
occur, and is a factor of the direction and speed of light. I like to
believe that I am able to think, "I know something has happened in the
past (or it may have)- the image just hasn't arrived yet".
If these people were walking through a water medium at 1mph, according
to this arguement above, you would get a different result. Now we have
a situation where time passes at a different rate in water! NO!! Light
travels at a different velocity- universal time remains the same. A
boat above and a swimmer below would travel in unison at 1mph
>
> > Cheers
> > Jim G
Jim Greenfield
Me either Randy. I'm with you. But ask the hard questions of the BBs
and DHR's and this is about all that you can expect- obfuscation,
silence, or virulent abuse (because they have little else to offer!)
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
Here I am! I even read your stuff. At least you give the appearance of
encouraging thought, even if you have entrenched ideas.
This is the link I would discuss
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html
Are you in support of (most of) Ned's stuff?
He seems to rely on a point (almost) singularity, and straight off I
see an expasion rate many times the velocity of light in the initial
period (problem?)
I'll read over his tutes again, but intuitively feel that point and
'everywhere' expasion are mutually exclusive.
BTW, where is Lorentz Contraction while this is going on? If this
stuff is exceeding light velocity, it should all contract and vanish!
Jim G
PS: To the 'mathematicians' - if I rotate these authorative authors by
90 degrees, will they write the opposite??? (with all respect to
them)
Jim Greenfield
> greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > ghytrfvb...@mail.com (ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message news:<cb623e6.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her)
> > >
> > > -1 steps forward is one step back.
> >
> > I am standing still. I take a step back. Am I -1 meters from where I
> > started?
> > > Doing something -1 times is undoing it once.
> >
> > I have a piece of rope with no knot in it. At this time, show me how
> > you undo said knot.
>
> Easy! Just do nothing; your zero knots are undone.
> -1 * 0 = 0
>
> > > Undoing a step back once is taking a step forward.
> > > -1 steps forward performed -1 times is 1 step.
Assumption again. You have assumed that a first step was taken in some
direction. If someone came along and saw you standing on spot B, they
have no idea whether you stepped from spot A, C or have always been
there! If no step had been taken, you couldn't untake it!
> >
> > Assumes that I took a first step.
>
> No. You can do the reverse of a step without ever having
> taken a step at all.
If your'e on something!
>
> > > Getting -$1 is losing $1.
> > > Undoing losing $1 is gaining $1.
> >
> > Was it you who caused the Wall Street Crash? They found their money
> > was only illusionary to.
>
> If you don't like fiat money, use gold bars, or even cattle.
> The result is the same.
>
> > > If you walking to the east at -1 mph,
> > > you are walking west at 1 mph.
> >
> > Great! If I find myself tiring, I'll just reverse direction to regain
> > my lost energy.
>
> Nothing was said about your energy; I only was talking about
> how your position had changed.
>
> > > -1 hours from now is 1 hour ago.
> >
> > It's a given that instant did occur.
> >
> > > If you are walking west at 1 mph,
> > > you were 1 mile to the east an hour ago.
> > > If you are walking east at -1 mph,
> > > your position in -1 hours is 1 mile to the east.
> >
> > Same old presumption (you've known it too long to be an 'assumption')
> > BTW!!! A person walking east is separating from him going west at
> > 2mph, or aren't we allowed to discuss them both at once, in case they
> > may be in 'the wrong frame of reference to suit'??
>
> Were talking about one person here.
See "Frames of Reference and the Barleys Tree" on sci. phys
>
> > Cheers
> > Jim G
>
> Perhaps you could show us a real-world justification of why
> you think your answer for (-1)*(-1) is correct?
Presumption!! I did NOT give an answer, for the simple reason that one
does not exist. -1 used as other than a " 1< " is a meaningless and
non-existent entity. Therefore to multiply them is a nonsense.
Jim Greenfield
> Jim Greenfield wrote:
> > With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
> > might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
> > the heavens.
> Dale Trynor wrote:
> It gets more interesting if one can predict other universes as well.
> > Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
> > which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
> > can see its glory in all directions. Not so those poor souls at the
> > extremities! If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
> > the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
> > as far as us (half of it).
> > AND this doesn't take into account the fact that the material of
> > their home has travelled out from "The Big Bang" for 13.7 billion
> > years (and that's allowing light speed for matter), and then emmitted
> > light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7 billion years
> > for the trip = light and mass travelling about the universe for 27.4
> > by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!!
>
> You might want to review how a theory I have been promoting that gives
> some interesting predictions that are related to this, providing you
> haven't already done so. After the parts that look at how time
> gravitational dilation can be shown to expand space you can then look at
> how it examines how a coaleasing neutron star gives an inflation like
> appearance for any inside observers. You will note how it predicts that
> while the original diameters have gone from a few km diameter to light
> years across instantly from the prospective of each individual neutron
> they will still only be able to gage the size of their universe
> depending on how long light has had to travel.
> In one light second they will only observe whatever parts of their
> universe that light can travel in that one second and this would not
> change the fact that there really is light years of distance still hidden.
> This gives the prospective of having started from that single point even
> while in some ways this is only an illusion equally shared by every
> other point particle.
> > So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years
> > away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their
> > view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they
> > look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss?
> > Now aren't we just so privileged to live at the center of it all?
> This idea of a center is very peculiar in this special theory because of
> how it also postulates the existence of white holes. After you review
> the site and have time to think about it you will have seen how and why
> it predicts that our universe is a black hole within another universe.
> The thing about black holes is they draw matter etc into them and if you
> were inside of a larger space within one you would see what looks like
> white holes pulling in matter from the older outer universe into ours.
>
> Attempts to model these white holes as they would first appear based on
> how a traveler would observe one while entering our universe from the
> outside, tends to suggest the possibility that they might appear to
> curve into our universe and may even appear in different locations while
> in actuality being the one surface. They might in some reverse sort of
> way be considered as the center of our universes as easily as its
> outside. More studies needed.
> Sorry about the site neglect this hobby dose not pay.
> http://dalet.9cy.com/
>
> > (And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)
> I would like to hear what your opinions might be on this theory after
> you give it some thought.
Sorry Dale,
You are obviously a 'thinker' rather than a 'swallower', but I doubt
we'll agree anytime soon.
I don't accept the concept of 'negative' energy (push and pull are
both positive), or 'space-time'; both of which I guess you consider
(that 'curve' word!)
Keep thinkin
Jim G
Bill Vajk
snip
> Here I am! I even read your stuff. At least you give the appearance of
> encouraging thought, even if you have entrenched ideas.
> This is the link I would discuss
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html
I wrote a day or more ago that there are many possible
models. Select one you like and see if you can get the
math to work. When you get the math to work, you have
a reasonable model to discuss.
In the meantime, mainstream physics is actually a good
place to begin. BB belongs to that genre, as do many other
things. The atom is counter intuitive, why should the
rest of the universe be any different? There are a lot
of things that I haven't made complete peace with, but
I accept them on the basis that they fit into an overall
model which seems to work.
To be completely and absolutely certain about anything
in nature is, IMO, a disaster. The closed mind can't
ever hope to catch a new idea. You'll see a lot of that
around here, and more's the pity.
Jeff Relf
You say :
" If you follow the view that
The finite universe that we see today
was likely cause by
something that seems to have been a singularity ...
Effectively , it was infinity hot . Effectively .
If it were possible to gain Much more information ,
It's likely that the big bang fell
somewhere short of being a perfect singularity .
Randy
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> >
> > LOL...c'mon, man...that was a serious question. I'm just trying to
> > understand this stuff....iow, I'm *not* a kook with a pet alternate
theory
> > of the nature of the universe.
>
> Me either Randy. I'm with you. But ask the hard questions of the BBs
> and DHR's and this is about all that you can expect- obfuscation,
> silence, or virulent abuse (because they have little else to offer!)
> Jim G
I wasn't implying that you were a kook, Jim. Please accept my apologies if
it seemed like I was.
Randy
> Randy wrote:
>
> >>You're better off with a popular science book then asking
> >>on usenet if you want a generalized background info insight.
>
<snip>
>
> Naw, pupils need professors, real students are always self
> teaching and need an occasional pointing in the right
> direction or a boost over some hurdle. My dad was enamored
> of the statement that "some learn because of their teachers,
> others learn despite their teachers." I think you probably
> belong to the later genre.
>
Thanks for taking the time with me, Bill. Much appreciated.
Randy
That actually makes sense and supplies an answer to a question I hadn't
quite been able to forum properly.
>
> As tadchem is wont to say, parables are like ropes. You can pull them a
> little, but you can't push them too far.
>
> > One other quick question (which may show my extreme ignorance, but what
> the
> > hell):
> > If the BB started at a single point, when and how did the universe (or
> our
> > portion of it) transition to what it is now? Instantly? After inflation?
>
> The current belief is that it expanded from a singularity. As if this
> could be what the inside of a Black Hole might be like. The "red shift"
> that I described above (a series of expanding balloons) is *not* truly
> velocity based, but more "change in gravitational potential" based. The
> past had a very high mass/energy density, compared to *now*. So, just as
> light is red shifted when generated on the Sun as compared to the same
> reaction *here*, the light generated *then* is red shifted as compared to
> *now*.
>
> > I went through most of the stuff that Mr. Wormley provided,
> > but.../shrug/...what can I say? Most of it was over my head. Heck, as a
> > layman I think I understand quantum physics better than I understand
> > Cosmology. LOL
>
> It is so big, and trying to understand how the Universe is "shaped" while
> not being able to get outside and look at it... We just aren't
constructed
> to do that without some thought. *That* is where the math helps.
You've helped tremendously. I have to admit that inflation still
feels...tacked on...to BBT somehow, but I'm also guessing that if I had the
math (and my one semester of calculus was 30 years ago LOL) that inflation
*probably* flows naturally from what our observations of the universe tell
us.
>
> > Thanks again, David! As frustrating as this is to get a handle on, it's
> > still fascinating.
>
> Amen.
>
> David A. Smith
>
>
Thanks, David, for taking the time to help me out. It's much appreciated.
Randy Poe
>
> "If absolute acceleration exists, the state of zero
> acceleration must have some absolute meaning in terms
> of a reference system. What is the preferred frame of
> reference which has no acceleration?
There is a misconception here, and it leads to the erroneous
statements which follow.
It is true that if acceleration is absolute, then we can
identify a frame of reference which has zero acceleration.
However, there are INFINITELY MANY such frames of reference,
all moving at different relative velocities.
The fact that acceleration is absolute has no bearing on
whether we can pick one of those infinitely many
unaccelerated frames as the "fixed" one.
> Again we must defer
> to observation or experiment
Another misstatement. The statement that "acceleration is
absolute" is connected with the physical principle that
you don't need observation to either confirm or measure
it. You make your acceleration measurements locally.
HOWEVER, we can use observation to see if there is any
thing out there which appears to be in an unaccelerated
frame.
> and the most meaningful
> thing we can say is that our zero of acceleration appears
> to be the general frame of the fixed stars.
I can read this sentence as making that point: in looking
for an unaccelerated frame, there appears to be an "average
frame of the stars" that fits the bill. What are the
"fixed stars" though? There aren't any stars that are fixed.
> Now as you can clearly see, this is a popular (IMO) science book
> that does provide some food for thought. In particular, if we are
> relying on some distant "fixed stars" to establish a framework
> on which we base the concept of stationary,
We aren't relying on any such thing. We can check each object
to see its state of acceleration. We don't use them to
measure ours.
We have no "concept of stationary". We have a concept of
"unaccelerated". That's different.
> In the next breath, along comes Randy
Different Randy, not me.
> in this thread and raises
> the issue that to someone 13.? billion light years away we
> are accelerating at an ever increasing rate away from
> them......so how is it we can consider any point as not
> accelerating?
If we measure our local absolute acceleration, we can
use it to measure the acceleration of anybody else.
>
> Of course all this brings to the forefront the other recent
> discussion in this ng about an "aether." After all, in our
> example Adair (with a 1987 publication date, certainly recent
> enough) discusses (see above) "the general frame of the fixed
> stars." And too, Einstein came out in favor of some sort of
> framework too.
He did? Where do you get that from? Is it the same confusion
you're showing above about the meaning of absolute
acceleration?
- Randy
Bill Vajk
> Bill Vajk:
>> "If absolute acceleration exists, the state of zero
>> acceleration must have some absolute meaning in terms
>> of a reference system. What is the preferred frame of
>> reference which has no acceleration?
> There is a misconception here, and it leads to the erroneous
> statements which follow.
Take it up with Adair (my article cited his text correctly and
provided references to the source.) It would appear he's still
alive and active:
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/0604physicists-corkbat-ON.html
Let me know when you've published the results of your disagreement
with him, I'll read the final version. For a couple of bucks you
might want to read the book and get the larger discussion he
propounds, especially since you disagree with it and Adair is
an acknowledged authority.
It is unreasonable for me to try to reproduce what amounts to
an entire chapter here in order to sate a nitpick or few and
I'm not up for the extensive defense his text which is correct
and speaks clearly for itself. This isn't a book review
newsgroup in any case.
>>Of course all this brings to the forefront the other recent
>>discussion in this ng about an "aether." After all, in our
>>example Adair (with a 1987 publication date, certainly recent
>>enough) discusses (see above) "the general frame of the fixed
>>stars." And too, Einstein came out in favor of some sort of
>>framework too.
> He did? Where do you get that from?
I don't know if you're having a memory problem or what, but as I
said we recently went through the entire aether discussion in this
newsgroup and I'm not going to resurrect all the information that
was published there.
Better yet, go read Einstein himself on the subject if you're
unaware of his writing on the subject while as much as for the
following reason as any other. Given your following statement
about the subject:
> Is it the same confusion you're showing above about the meaning
> of absolute acceleration?
we don't have a "discussion" in any event, but thanks anyway for
playing this game called engineering caliber physics.
George Dishman
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > understand this stuff....iow, I'm *not* a kook with a pet alternate
theory
> > of the nature of the universe.
Randy,
Ideas on causes of inflation are somewhat speculative,
you are just reaching the limits of current knowledge.
> Me either Randy. I'm with you. But ask the hard questions of the BBs
> and DHR's and this is about all that you can expect- obfuscation,
> silence, or virulent abuse (because they have little else to offer!)
Jim,
Perhaps you should ask yourself if your own attitude
isn't a contributor to that. I replied to your posts
civilly and you have ignored my reply. If you only
respond to those that offer abuse, you will see
nothing else.
Best regards
George
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> ghytrfvb...@mail.com (ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message news:<cb623e6.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > ghytrfvb...@mail.com (ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message news:<cb623e6.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > greenf...@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her)
> > > >
> > > > -1 steps forward is one step back.
> > >
> > > I am standing still. I take a step back. Am I -1 meters from where I
> > > started?
> > > > Doing something -1 times is undoing it once.
> > >
> > > I have a piece of rope with no knot in it. At this time, show me how
> > > you undo said knot.
> >
> > Easy! Just do nothing; your zero knots are undone.
> > -1 * 0 = 0
> >
> > > > Undoing a step back once is taking a step forward.
> > > > -1 steps forward performed -1 times is 1 step.
>
> Assumption again. You have assumed that a first step was taken in some
> direction. If someone came along and saw you standing on spot B, they
> have no idea whether you stepped from spot A, C or have always been
> there! If no step had been taken, you couldn't untake it!
> > >
> > > Assumes that I took a first step.
> >
> > No. You can do the reverse of a step without ever having
> > taken a step at all.
>
> If your'e on something!
Most people can walk backwards better when they're not
on drugs.
> >
> > > > Getting -$1 is losing $1.
> > > > Undoing losing $1 is gaining $1.
> > >
> > > Was it you who caused the Wall Street Crash? They found their money
> > > was only illusionary to.
> >
> > If you don't like fiat money, use gold bars, or even cattle.
> > The result is the same.
> >
> > > > If you walking to the east at -1 mph,
> > > > you are walking west at 1 mph.
> > >
> > > Great! If I find myself tiring, I'll just reverse direction to regain
> > > my lost energy.
> >
> > Nothing was said about your energy; I only was talking about
> > how your position had changed.
> >
> > > > -1 hours from now is 1 hour ago.
> > >
> > > It's a given that instant did occur.
> > >
> > > > If you are walking west at 1 mph,
> > > > you were 1 mile to the east an hour ago.
> > > > If you are walking east at -1 mph,
> > > > your position in -1 hours is 1 mile to the east.
> > >
> > > Same old presumption (you've known it too long to be an 'assumption')
> > > BTW!!! A person walking east is separating from him going west at
> > > 2mph, or aren't we allowed to discuss them both at once, in case they
> > > may be in 'the wrong frame of reference to suit'??
> >
> > Were talking about one person here.
>
> See "Frames of Reference and the Barleys Tree" on sci. phys
Frames of reference are irrelevant to the argument. Re-read
the argument.
> >
> > > Cheers
> > > Jim G
> >
> > Perhaps you could show us a real-world justification of why
> > you think your answer for (-1)*(-1) is correct?
>
> Presumption!! I did NOT give an answer, for the simple reason that one
> does not exist. -1 used as other than a " 1< " is a meaningless and
> non-existent entity. Therefore to multiply them is a nonsense.
Final example! Power=Current*Voltage. When you reverse the batteries
in a flashlight (one with an incandescent bulb), what happens to the
rate at which energy is used? Does it become meaningless?
Jim Greenfield
George, If I have taken that tone with you, I apologise. Your posts
generally seem well thought out and sincere. It may have been a case
of mistaken identity.
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
Your paragraph above smacks of an idea that I have carried for some
time ref gravitational red shift.
As you point out, light from the sun is red shifted more than the same
emmitted frequency on earth, and this effect may have severely screwed
astronomical observations (calculations) thus- A heavy (high gravity)
star at say 500ly distant may APPEAR to be further away than a less
massive one at 600ly (forget the figures) because its light emmission
was slowed more at source, and therefore took longer to get here. What
do you think? Of course this indicates an Actual reduction of the
velocity of the photon through a vacuum, which may not sit too well
with R.
Cheerio
Jim G
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
...
> > > The current belief is that it expanded from a singularity. As if
this
> > > could be what the inside of a Black Hole might be like. The "red
shift"
> > > that I described above (a series of expanding balloons) is *not*
truly
> > > velocity based, but more "change in gravitational potential" based.
The
> > > past had a very high mass/energy density, compared to *now*. So,
just as
> > > light is red shifted when generated on the Sun as compared to the
same
> > > reaction *here*, the light generated *then* is red shifted as
compared to
> > > *now*.
> Your paragraph above smacks of an idea that I have carried for some
> time ref gravitational red shift.
> As you point out, light from the sun is red shifted more than the same
> emmitted frequency on earth, and this effect may have severely screwed
> astronomical observations (calculations) thus- A heavy (high gravity)
> star at say 500ly distant may APPEAR to be further away than a less
> massive one at 600ly (forget the figures) because its light emmission
> was slowed more at source, and therefore took longer to get here. What
> do you think? Of course this indicates an Actual reduction of the
> velocity of the photon through a vacuum, which may not sit too well
> with R.
A lot of what we assume about the Universe is based on local observation.
The inference is that there is no evidence that physical properties have
changed significantly (say more than 3% in 13 Gy), so what we see here,
should be similar to what we see there/then.
"Large" stars have some characteristics, and extreme red shift is not one
of those. There are red giants, but the spectra indicate they are just not
hot on the surface. Extremely massive stars, don't have a spectrum, since
they are largely dark, and we only see evidence of these if they have a
companion.
As distances get great, we no longer resolve stars, but general galactic
shapes. Further still, and even the galaxies are glorified "points".
The CMBR is a body such as you describe, but it is not dense, nor
particularly massive (well...). But it *is* deeply red shifted.
Presumably because the Universe in which it was immersed was very dense.
That means our clocks in the here-and-now run faster than the clocks
there-and-then.
The velocity of light is very much a function of the local "time base".
However rather than go off on my favorite rant, I will submit that
supernovae (especially type I) occur with a particular duration from
maximum to a certain percentage of maximum intensity with time. This
duration is proportional to the red shift of the received light between 3
and 5 Gy (to within 3%). So events then, even nuclear transitions, were
more or less evenly slowed.
David A. Smith
J. Scott Miller
>
> So will a few mouthfulls of your 'raisin bread' help my ignorance? If
> you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
> 'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
> the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
> description!
> How handy is it that 'space is expanding, taking matter with it'?? Yet
> I've yet to observe anything expand without energy change, or been
> advised of atoms getting larger-- and they surely contain space! So
> just which 'space' will you nominate to expand? Is it that within
> atoms, between molecules, between stars, or galaxies? Is it all
> expanding, or just what suits the BB Theory? Last crap I saw posted in
> BB support had it confined to 'groups of galxies'.
So, you don't know what current theories are and to demonstrate that you are
reduced to low language. Typical
>
> Any way- answer the post or shut up!
> Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east?
No.
> What do they observe when they 'look beyond'?
Us, in the past.
> What are the dimensions of the universe?
Bigger than you can apparently imagine.
> What is it's age?
13.7 billion years give or take .5 billion.
> Has light from one side of the universe reached the other?
No, hence the answer to number 2 above.
> (Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
Some people like to set up straw men when they don't understand reality,
thinking knocking those straw men down makes them smart. Instead, they simply
bleat in ignorance for all to see.
George Dishman
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<106390918...@echo.uk.clara.net>...
> > "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > and DHR's and this is about all that you can expect- obfuscation,
> > > silence, or virulent abuse (because they have little else to offer!)
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > Perhaps you should ask yourself if your own attitude
> > isn't a contributor to that. I replied to your posts
> > civilly and you have ignored my reply. If you only
> > respond to those that offer abuse, you will see
> > nothing else.
> >
> > Best regards
> > George
>
> George, If I have taken that tone with you, I apologise.
No not at all, that's not what I meant.
> Your posts
> generally seem well thought out and sincere. It may have been a case
> of mistaken identity.
Sincere certainly ;-)
My point is just that if you only respond to those
who are abusive, you get an unbalanced view of the
general tone of respondents. Your statement "all
that you can expect- obfuscation, silence, or
virulent abuse (because they have little else to
offer!)" seems to reflect that.
George
George Dishman
"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:n1phmv8e7llk722t3...@4ax.com...
> From the shadows, the mysterious "George Dishman"
> <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially
> whispered:
>
> >"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> >news:vmeorog...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> > > (Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
> >> >
> >> > Some people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend. Some
> >> > people are afraid of what we see. We still see it and it is
> >> > still there whether anyone comprehends it or not.
> >> >
> >> > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
> >>
> >> But we don't 'see' the age of the universe. What we see is some random
EM
> >> radiation.
> >
> >What we 'see', or more accurately measure, is red-shifts
> >that vary with distance in a systematic manner.
>
> It is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt that this systematic
> manner MUST BE doppler style expansion.
Science doesn't require proof "beyond any reasonable doubt",
it accepts the most likely explanation provided that gives
predictions that match reality. However, you might also like
to consider the evidence of time stretching of supernovae
light curves:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382
> Since all the tests available
> to us (like stellar candle supernovas etc) are dependant on currently
> unprovable assumptions that all properties of light's behavior remain
> constant over the age of the universe, all the conclusions drawn from
> that hang by a thread - one knock against constant light behavior and
> the whole thing falls down... and potential knocks have been found.
>
> One theory:
>
> Light emitted from a mass is (very slightly) redshifted due to the
> gravitational effect of that mass on the light emitted. This is proven
> fact and not in question.
Agreed.
> Gravity appears to act at the speed of light
> (I didn't catch the results of that test a few months ago but I'd be
> surprised if it said differently).
I think it is now widely accepted that the test was not
sufficiently sensitive due to a misunderstanding of the
interpretation of the maths.
> According to BB theory the further
> back in time you look the greater the density of matter would be -
> however that matter is stil weilding its gravity on us. This is more
> or less irrelevant until you get far enough back that the mass, and
> therefore the gravity, begins to have a significant effect.
Correct, and in fact this is the primary cause of the
anisotropy in the CMBR.
> At the
> most extreme, at the split second the universe (acc to BB theory)
> began, the density (and therefore the amount of mass) should be
> extreme.
>
> This would manifest itself as a redshift in the light that seems to
> get greater the further the light had to travel (and therefore had
> been emitted earlier and therefore suffered from a higher degree of
> gravitation from the density of the universe when it was emitted).
> That's exactly what we see.
So you are suggesting that instead of interpreting the
red-shift as due to Doppler, hence given us evidence for
expansion because things were closer together in the past,
we should see it as evidence that the universe was denser
in the past and hence things were closer together and have
since expanded reducing the density to its present value?
Hmmmmm.
<insert emoticon for puzzled look, scratching bald spot>
> ...or maybe not. :-)
Which of these do you think would be most accurate:
a) The light was emitted when the universe was denser
and is seen when it is les dense therefore there
should be a gravitational red-shift.
b) At any time in its journey, the light sees equal
mean density ahead and behind hence is unaffected.
c) Density is variable within some statistics. As the
light approaches a dense region it is blue-shifted
and as it leaves it is red-shifted. The two are
symmetrical so should cancel, but if the density
reduces during the period the light is in the region,
the red-shift will be less than the blue-shift giving
a nett blue-shift.
The only real way to decide what is predicted is to apply
the GR equations and that is beyond me. I suspect your
description and "Doppler" might even be equivalent
depending on choice of coordinates ;-)
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm
George
George Dishman
> >
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:vmeorog...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > What is it's age?
> > > >
> > > > CMBR:
> > > >
> > > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
> > >
> > > Gee, how does it get globular clusters of 15-18 billion years into it?
> :)
> >
> > Easy, one goes out and buys some globular clusters of 15-18 billion
> > years and liberally sprinkles them about, there aren't any there at
> > the moment.
>
> Funny. They were there before Hipparcos! Where did the cosmologists hide
> them? :)
Up their sleeves, you never know when they might be needed again.
(Measurements are always being refined, and if events happened
within 1 billion years of t = 0 but we measure with an accuracy
of +/- 2 billion years, some proportion are expected to show
as t < 0, it's just statistics).
> > > {snip}
> > >
> > > > > (Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
> > > >
> > > > Some people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend. Some
> > > > people are afraid of what we see. We still see it and it is
> > > > still there whether anyone comprehends it or not.
> > > >
> > > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
> > >
> > > But we don't 'see' the age of the universe. What we see is some
random
> EM
> > > radiation.
> >
> > What we 'see', or more accurately measure, is red-shifts
> > that vary with distance in a systematic manner.
>
> The "WMAP probe measurements of the CMBR" are not "red-shifts that vary
with
> distance in a systematic manner."
Neither are "globular clusters of 15-18 billion years".
> Please use arguments that apply to the
> subject at hand.
<petulant>You started it.</petulant>
;-)
> (The varying redshifts do not produce the value 13.7 +/-
> 0.2 that is under discussion.)
What we see is radiation that matches a black-body curve
very accurately, and the age is based on the angular power
spectrum. Your tossing in the word 'random' is hardly
relevant to the discussion. I am crediting you with much
better knowledge of the subject than the cranks in the
group, so I didn't think I needed to point this out to
you, I think many of your statements are tongue-in-cheek
teasers, perhaps more for the benefit of the audience than
aimed at me.
> > > It's only popular 'theory' that converts the observation into an
> > > 'age of the universe.' It's not 'revealed truth.'
> >
> > That's science for you, the inescapable result of applying
> > simple maths to abservation. Sorry it doesn't suit your
> > preferences.
>
> I like the Freudian typo you produced. I think I'll borrow it for other
> posts.
>
> "Abservation" -- combination of avert (or abscess) and observation. The
> ability to avoid seeing something that contradicts one's prior
conceptions.
> Or the ability to forget about an observation seen earlier, if it
> contradicts a new conception.
I had just had a beer and it improved my eyesight to
the extent that I could see the stars wheeling about
without a telescope. (observation of aberration)
> A theory is not 'inescapable' in the scientific method. Only in religion.
For example, if we observe something is moving away from
us, it is an inescapable conclusion that it was closer in
the past. That follows from Newton's Laws. The relationship
between the CMBR angular power spectrum and age is much
more complex, but the concept is the same.
> A theory is never the same as an observation. In this case, the
observation
> is a bunch of random photons of no definite origin. The conclusion of the
> theory is that the age of the universe is 13.7 BY.
That is our best measurement at the moment, but not the
only one. There are many methods used, not all based on
the CMBR, and they give similar results.
The direction from which they come and the spectrum are
very well defined. I take your tossing in the word 'random'
as if it had some significance to be merely playing to the
audience, for the benefit of doubters with less
knowledge of the subject.
George
bja...@users.iwaynet.net
> Jim Greenfield further bleated in ignorance:
>> So will a few mouthfulls of your 'raisin bread' help my ignorance? If
>> you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
>> 'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
>> the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
>> description!
"seemed" is the operative word. My pet theory is that Red Shift is not
due to motion. There is/was no "big bang". Every way you look things
appear to be moving away because the distance shifts the light.
bjacoby
George Dishman
<bja...@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:bkf4sr$aeb$6...@tribune.oar.net...
The effect is symmetrical at emission and reception
so should cancel, a blue shift at one and red shift
at the other. No?
George
CeeBee
> My point is just that if you only respond to those
> who are abusive, you get an unbalanced view of the
> general tone of respondents. Your statement "all
> that you can expect- obfuscation, silence, or
> virulent abuse (because they have little else to
> offer!)" seems to reflect that.
If I _state_ that the theory of general relativity predicts that time
travel is possible, so it must be false because we never saw people from
the future, and this under the heading "Einstein was wrong" it could well
be that people advised me to do some basic reading about it before
spouting my wisdom.
So maybe the responses could be caused by the derogatory tone of the
messages of this poster himself, who claimed that the big bang theory
stated we're in the center of the physical universe, and asked a.o. what
people at the edge saw when they looked at the edge of the universe.
And that all under the heading "popping the big bang".
Maybe he could simply have asked how the theory worked. But he didn't. And
he doesn't know how the theory works, yet made some pretty derogatory
statements about supposed flaws that were however caused by his own lack
of basic knowledge about it.
Usenet is infested with way too many trolls and kooks who believe they
hold the wisdom that science couldn't find during it's search of hundreds
of years, so some of the responses to him are quite explainable.
--
CeeBee
Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"
Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2
bja...@users.iwaynet.net
I don't think so. Emission into any direction would produce
wavelengths for the frequecy produced. It is only at
the reception end where the transfer from one dimension to
another occurs. (assuming equal metrics) If we were actually
observing along the direction of the light, then there
would be no shift at either end.
Bjacoby
--
SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!
George Dishman
<bja...@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:bkfi3o$kno$1...@tribune.oar.net...
> In sci.astro George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > <bja...@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> > news:bkf4sr$aeb$6...@tribune.oar.net...
>
> >> www.hypersphere.us
>
> > The effect is symmetrical at emission and reception
> > so should cancel, a blue shift at one and red shift
> > at the other. No?
> > George
>
> I don't think so. Emission into any direction would produce
> wavelengths for the frequecy produced.
The way you have drawn it, there is no unique wavelength
produced, the wavelength depends on the angle between
the tangent and chord assuming there is a single frequency.
Looking at your diagram again, would you not get different
values for the speed of light from multiplying wavelength
by frequency? Perhaps I'm not following your model.
> It is only at
> the reception end where the transfer from one dimension to
> another occurs. (assuming equal metrics) If we were actually
> observing along the direction of the light, then there
> would be no shift at either end.
I think it would be helpful if you drew a detail like
figure 2 for the emitting end and consider what wavelength
and frequency would be measured by someone there. z is
defined as the ratio of the measurements at the ends since
that is effectively what we do when we compare a red-shifted
spectral line from a distant object with the same line
created in the lab.
George
greywolf42
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:vmh966m...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:106374071...@despina.uk.clara.net...
> > >
> > > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > > news:vmeorog...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:106364903...@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3c4afb26.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 13.7 +/- 0.2 based on the WMAP probe measurements of the
> > > > > CMBR:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html
> > > >
> > > > Gee, how does it get globular clusters of 15-18 billion years into
it? :)
> > >
> > > Easy, one goes out and buys some globular clusters of 15-18 billion
> > > years and liberally sprinkles them about, there aren't any there at
> > > the moment.
> >
> > Funny. They were there before Hipparcos! Where did the cosmologists
hide
> > them? :)
>
> Up their sleeves, you never know when they might be needed again.
>
> (Measurements are always being refined, and if events happened
> within 1 billion years of t = 0 but we measure with an accuracy
> of +/- 2 billion years, some proportion are expected to show
> as t < 0, it's just statistics).
In this case, the globular cluster ages are based *both* on observation (the
main sequence turnoff) and upon theoretical models of stellar evolution.
Neither are based on the Hipparcos results, nor on the CMBR data. And
neither has changed substantially (to my knowledge) since the 'youthening'
of the BB universe, post-Hipparcos/CMBR. (13.7 +- 0.2)
So, what happened to those 15 to 18 billion year old globular clusters? Or
are cosmologists just ignoring them?
> > > > {snip}
> > > >
> > > > > > (Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )
> > > > >
> > > > > Some people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend. Some
> > > > > people are afraid of what we see. We still see it and it is
> > > > > still there whether anyone comprehends it or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
> > > >
> > > > But we don't 'see' the age of the universe. What we see is some
> > > > random EM radiation.
> > >
> > > What we 'see', or more accurately measure, is red-shifts
> > > that vary with distance in a systematic manner.
> >
> > The "WMAP probe measurements of the CMBR" are not "red-shifts that vary
> > with distance in a systematic manner."
>
> Neither are "globular clusters of 15-18 billion years".
Precisely. So why are you claiming redshift methods to address a post that
doesn't deal with redshift measurements?
> > Please use arguments that apply to the subject at hand.
>
> <petulant>You started it.</petulant>
>
> ;-)
Kindergarten.
> > (The varying redshifts do not produce the value 13.7 +/-
> > 0.2 that is under discussion.)
>
> What we see is radiation that matches a black-body curve
> very accurately, and the age is based on the angular power
> spectrum. Your tossing in the word 'random' is hardly
> relevant to the discussion. I am crediting you with much
> better knowledge of the subject than the cranks in the
> group, so I didn't think I needed to point this out to
> you, I think many of your statements are tongue-in-cheek
> teasers, perhaps more for the benefit of the audience than
> aimed at me.
I wasn't 'dissing' the measurements made in the CMBR. What I was pointing
out was that the resulting 'age of the universe predicted by the big bang'
that is based on those measurements is explicitly contradicted by
observation of objects 'older than the universe' contained within the local
region.
> > > > It's only popular 'theory' that converts the observation into an
> > > > 'age of the universe.' It's not 'revealed truth.'
> > >
> > > That's science for you, the inescapable result of applying
> > > simple maths to abservation. Sorry it doesn't suit your
> > > preferences.
> >
> > I like the Freudian typo you produced. I think I'll borrow it for other
> > posts.
> >
> > "Abservation" -- combination of avert (or abscess) and observation. The
> > ability to avoid seeing something that contradicts one's prior
> > conceptions. Or the ability to forget about an observation seen earlier,
> > if it contradicts a new conception.
>
> I had just had a beer and it improved my eyesight to
> the extent that I could see the stars wheeling about
> without a telescope. (observation of aberration)
Not bad! ;)
> > A theory is not 'inescapable' in the scientific method. Only in
> > religion.
>
> For example, if we observe something is moving away from
> us, it is an inescapable conclusion that it was closer in
> the past. That follows from Newton's Laws.
If we move an object away from us, we will observe a redshift. However,
observing a redshift is not the same as 'observing something moving away.'
The redshift is an observation. The 'moving away' is the conclusion of a
theory. There is more than one way to make a 'redshift.'
> The relationship
> between the CMBR angular power spectrum and age is much
> more complex, but the concept is the same.
The theoretical 'concept' is fine. It is simply contradicted by
observation. That's science.
> > A theory is never the same as an observation. In this case, the
> > observation is a bunch of random photons of no definite origin.
> > The conclusion of the theory is that the age of the universe is
> > 13.7 BY.
>
> That is our best measurement at the moment, but not the
> only one. There are many methods used, not all based on
> the CMBR, and they give similar results.
I know of one other method -- the Hubble constant. And it does give
'similar' results. (10-15 BY IIRC the current best guess). But both
methods are contradicted by the observation of those 'too old' globular
clusters.
>
> The direction from which they come and the spectrum are
> very well defined. I take your tossing in the word 'random'
> as if it had some significance to be merely playing to the
> audience, for the benefit of doubters with less
> knowledge of the subject.
CMBR photon directions are 'random' and from 'no definite source.' The
standard theoretical interpretation is fine. But it's still a theory.
Now, can you tell me where those 'old globular clusters' went? Or will you
continue to quibble about my wording of BB age predictions?
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Randy Poe
"Your" pet theory is an old one called "tired light". Google
on that phrase and you'll find lots of sites explaining
why the theory doesn't fit the red-shift data. You'll
also find a couple of sites trumpeting the theory.
- Randy
George Dishman
I had thought your question was more rhetorical than genuine
but it seems I was mistaken ("Gee" ":)" ?)
In that case you would need to identify which clusters you
are thinking of or what papers gave the ages. Then we could
see what present values are. I'd be quite interested to see
what has caused the change in estimates or if they still
exceed the WMAP value.
> > > The "WMAP probe measurements of the CMBR" are not "red-shifts that
vary
> > > with distance in a systematic manner."
> >
> > Neither are "globular clusters of 15-18 billion years".
>
> Precisely. So why are you claiming redshift methods to address a post
that
> doesn't deal with redshift measurements?
My post answered Jim's question "What is it's age?" I
was pointing out that there is more than one method that
supports the value I gave. Just because you asked "Gee,
how does it get globular clusters of 15-18 billion years
into it? :)" doesn't mean the thread is now devoted to
that.
> > What we see is radiation that matches a black-body curve
> > very accurately, and the age is based on the angular power
> > spectrum. Your tossing in the word 'random' is hardly
> > relevant to the discussion. I am crediting you with much
> > better knowledge of the subject than the cranks in the
> > group, so I didn't think I needed to point this out to
> > you, I think many of your statements are tongue-in-cheek
> > teasers, perhaps more for the benefit of the audience than
> > aimed at me.
>
> I wasn't 'dissing' the measurements made in the CMBR. What I was pointing
> out was that the resulting 'age of the universe predicted by the big bang'
> that is based on those measurements is explicitly contradicted by
> observation of objects 'older than the universe' contained within the
local
> region.
Well your phrasing certainly made it sound as though you were:
> But we don't 'see' the age of the universe. What we see is some random EM
> radiation. It's only popular 'theory' that converts the observation into
an
> 'age of the universe.' It's not 'revealed truth.'
We don't 'see' the age of globular clusters either, what we see
is some EM radiation. It is only "popular theory" that turns
observations of globular clusters into an age as well.
> > For example, if we observe something is moving away from
> > us, it is an inescapable conclusion that it was closer in
> > the past. That follows from Newton's Laws.
>
> If we move an object away from us, we will observe a redshift. However,
> observing a redshift is not the same as 'observing something moving away.'
> The redshift is an observation. The 'moving away' is the conclusion of a
> theory. There is more than one way to make a 'redshift.'
I agree, but then you have to ask whether the other methods can
offer a credible alternative explanation, one that fits all the
observations.
> > The relationship
> > between the CMBR angular power spectrum and age is much
> > more complex, but the concept is the same.
>
> The theoretical 'concept' is fine. It is simply contradicted by
> observation. That's science.
Not quite. Assuming the cluster data is as you say, then
we have two incompatible observations, each of them with
associated uncertainties. Taking the uncertainty into
account, the ranges may overlap removing the problem.
Alternatively one must be wrong but we cannot say which
without further information. The best approach would be
to survey multiple independent values and uncertainties
and combine them appropriately to get the most likely
value. That is science IMHO.
> > > A theory is never the same as an observation. In this case, the
> > > observation is a bunch of random photons of no definite origin.
> > > The conclusion of the theory is that the age of the universe is
> > > 13.7 BY.
> >
> > That is our best measurement at the moment, but not the
> > only one. There are many methods used, not all based on
> > the CMBR, and they give similar results.
>
> I know of one other method -- the Hubble constant. And it does give
> 'similar' results. (10-15 BY IIRC the current best guess). But both
> methods are contradicted by the observation of those 'too old' globular
> clusters.
I'm no expert but I think I remember reading a year or so
ago a paper using measurements of white dwarfs that came
up with a lower limit in the 12Gyr range. In fact I think
it was related to globular clusters, I'll have to have a
dig around and see if I can find it again.
> > The direction from which they come and the spectrum are
> > very well defined. I take your tossing in the word 'random'
> > as if it had some significance to be merely playing to the
> > audience, for the benefit of doubters with less
> > knowledge of the subject.
>
> CMBR photon directions are 'random'
I'm not sure what you mean. The resolution of WMAP tells
you very accurately (compared to COBE for example) where
each photon came from. This is neat BTW:
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/wmap3.html
> and from 'no definite source.' The
> standard theoretical interpretation is fine. But it's still a theory.
So is the theory that relates observations to globular
cluster ages. We weren't around when they formed so
any age will always be an estimate derived from
observation by theory.
> Now, can you tell me where those 'old globular clusters' went?
The clusters are still there, what current estimates are
for their ages is another matter, and there's no way I
could answer that without knowing which clusters you
mean. Even then, I'm not an astronomer and don't have
access to any of the subscription-based archives.
> Or will you
> continue to quibble about my wording of BB age predictions?
Oh, I'll certainly do that, at least as long as you
describe them in such biased terms ;-)
George
George Dishman
>
> "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:vmmknv...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:106397914...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> >
(the
> > main sequence turnoff) and upon theoretical models of stellar evolution.
> > Neither are based on the Hipparcos results, nor on the CMBR data. And
> > neither has changed substantially (to my knowledge) since the
'youthening'
> > of the BB universe, post-Hipparcos/CMBR. (13.7 +- 0.2)
> >
> > So, what happened to those 15 to 18 billion year old globular clusters?
Or
> > are cosmologists just ignoring them?
> > The theoretical 'concept' is fine. It is simply contradicted by
> > observation. That's science.
>
> Not quite. Assuming the cluster data is as you say, then
> we have two incompatible observations, each of them with
> associated uncertainties. Taking the uncertainty into
> account, the ranges may overlap removing the problem.
> Alternatively one must be wrong but we cannot say which
> without further information. The best approach would be
> to survey multiple independent values and uncertainties
> and combine them appropriately to get the most likely
> value. That is science IMHO.
This looks like the sort of result you might have in mind:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0109526
The value is 15 +/- 4 Gyr but is still easily compatible with
an overal age for the universe of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.
I also came across this referring to measurements by Cowan in 1997.
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Freedman/Freedman6_2.html
15.2 +/- 3.7 Gyr and 13.8 +/- 3.7 Gyr are also about the range you
mention but these are for halo stars, not clusters. Again these
uncertainties are wide enough to be compatible with a cosmological
age of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.
This seems more relevant to clusters but the age lower limit is
only 12.07 Gyr. This is from 1995, before Hipparcos corrected
the distance estimates.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9509115
Also note this gives 14.6 +/- 1.7 Gyr for the clusters which they
equate to a lower limit on the age of the cosmos of 12.2 Gyr at 95%
confidence.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099
After Hipparcos you get:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704150
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704078
> > I know of one other method -- the Hubble constant. And it does give
> > 'similar' results. (10-15 BY IIRC the current best guess).
You might find Ned Wright summary useful then
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
Some of these links came from that page.
> > .. But both
> > methods are contradicted by the observation of those 'too old' globular
> > clusters.
>
> I'm no expert but I think I remember reading a year or so
> ago a paper using measurements of white dwarfs that came
> up with a lower limit in the 12Gyr range. In fact I think
> it was related to globular clusters, I'll have to have a
> dig around and see if I can find it again.
This is the one I remembered:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205087
It uses white dwarf cooling to get the age of M4.
> > Now, can you tell me where those 'old globular clusters' went?
>
> The clusters are still there, what current estimates are
> for their ages is another matter, and there's no way I
> could answer that without knowing which clusters you
> mean. Even then, I'm not an astronomer and don't have
> access to any of the subscription-based archives.
I think this answers your question
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706128
Compare that to their earlier estimates:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099
The simple answer is that the clusters are further away than
they thought, there is no contradiction.
George
bja...@users.iwaynet.net
> The way you have drawn it, there is no unique wavelength
> produced, the wavelength depends on the angle between
> the tangent and chord assuming there is a single frequency.
> Looking at your diagram again, would you not get different
> values for the speed of light from multiplying wavelength
> by frequency? Perhaps I'm not following your model.
> I think it would be helpful if you drew a detail like
> figure 2 for the emitting end and consider what wavelength
> and frequency would be measured by someone there. z is
> defined as the ratio of the measurements at the ends since
> that is effectively what we do when we compare a red-shifted
> spectral line from a distant object with the same line
> created in the lab.
OK, let me try again. At the source end, you have atoms
vibrating ata certain frequency giving off light. The
wavelength of which is determined by the speed of light etc.
This wavelength is measured the same in any direction from
the source including the higher dimensional directions.
But here's the catch. light heading out in any of our
three dimensions can't make it to the viewer because
space is curved and my assumption is that light doesn't
curve and follow our 3-space. I'm saying the light we
see from distant objects is actually following the
chord because that is the straight line to the object
from where we are.
Now the wavelength of the light as measured along the chord
isn't shifted at all. It's just plain old light transmission
through space. But the problem is that we as three dimensional
beings existing in our little 3-space, simply can't access
the direction of that chord in 4-space. Thus, what appears to
us in our world is a sympathetic "light" which because of the
angle our space makes with the true direction of the light,
appears to be shifted and have a longer wavelength. The speed of
light is not different. So yeah, the apparent shift DOES
depend upon the angle between the chord and the tangent
and that angle is a function of how distant the light source
is from the viewer. Of course that relationhip is only true
for objects on the surface of the hypersphere (in our 3-space).
Objects within the interior of the hypersphere could produce
large shifts without actually being that far away. I have suggested
that this just might be the situation with quasars. But I
have no real proof of that.
bja...@users.iwaynet.net
> "Your" pet theory is an old one called "tired light". Google
> on that phrase and you'll find lots of sites explaining
> why the theory doesn't fit the red-shift data. You'll
> also find a couple of sites trumpeting the theory.
> - Randy
Randy,
My pet theory is NOT the old one called "tired light".
I propose NO loss of light frequency over distance. I do NOT
propose any questionable energy loss mechanisms for photons.
And yes, I did check the trumpeting while working on this. I also
checked the "tired light" debunking sites which I am pretty much
in agreement with. I do not believe photons loose energy (frequency)
while traveling space. In my theory, the red shift occurs
ONLY at the observer position and then only because the the
light is traveling at an angle with repect to our space.
Jim Greenfield
I agree- I reckon that velocity, distance, gravity (either, or, all)
can produce red shift,(+ or -), but red shift does not automatically
indicate universal expansion, or a 'beginning of time'.
Jim G
Jim Greenfield
in its formula to show length reduction at speed, and that this is a
very importantant fundamental of Relativity Theory.
So in the space provided, show in a billion words or less why a
submarine travelling on the surface is a different length to one below
at same speed. Good Luck!
Space here!
Jim G
George Dishman
<bja...@users.iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:bkgpj2$ipj$1...@tribune.oar.net...
That's what I understood from your web page. Now
if you drew a second figure as I suggested for the
emitting end, the distance across the lab would be
very small so the difference between the wavelength
along the chord and that along the tangent would be
negligible. That supports your contention that
there would be a wavelength difference between the
ends.
However, consider how many wave crests are emitted
per second and how many are received per second.
If the length of the chord is not changing, the
numbers should be the same as there is no
suggestion of loss of crests along the line. That
suggests to me that the frequency should be the
same even though the wavelength has changed.
> Of course that relationhip is only true
> for objects on the surface of the hypersphere (in our 3-space).
> Objects within the interior of the hypersphere could produce
> large shifts without actually being that far away. I have suggested
> that this just might be the situation with quasars. But I
> have no real proof of that.
Multiply the wavelength by the frequency to get
the "speed of light" (perhaps a misnomer in this
hypothesis). If this product has its usual value
of c at the emitting end, what value does it
have at the receiving end for a quasar at z=5?
The bottom line is that I think you would find
that instruments sensitive to wavelength would
measure a red shift while instruments sensitive
to frequency would not. Also the speed of light
would appear to be reduced for distant objects
and would exhibit higher values of aberration.
At least these seem to be testable predictions
that your model makes IMO. What do you think?
George
Sam Wormley
>
> I will Assume here that Lorentz Contraction uses the velocity of light
Lorentz Contraction
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/LorentzContraction.html
Sam Wormley
>
> I agree- I reckon that velocity, distance, gravity (either, or, all)
> can produce red shift,(+ or -), but red shift does not automatically
> indicate universal expansion, or a 'beginning of time'.
>
Moessbauer Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MoessbauerEffect.html
George Dishman
CeeBee, I am not criticising you, Jim or anyone else for
the tone of any of the posts I have seen and apologise to
you and anyone else who thinks I did.
However, when Jim said "But ask the hard questions of the
BBs and DHR's and this is about all that you can expect-
obfuscation, silence, or virulent abuse (because they have
little else to offer!)" when people here are responding in
a polite and informative manner, it does suggest it is a
self-inflicted effect, either by his choice of the posts
to which he replies or as a result of his content as you
say.
I'd like to give him a chance to moderate his style and
argue his case on scientific grounds, but we will have to
see if he takes the hint.
George
George Dishman
>
> I will Assume here that Lorentz Contraction uses the velocity of light
> in its formula to show length reduction at speed, and that this is a
> very importantant fundamental of Relativity Theory.
That is not correct. The effect is a consequence predicted
by the theory and not fundamental in any way.
> So in the space provided, show in a billion words or less why a
> submarine travelling on the surface is a different length to one below
> at same speed. Good Luck!
The one submerged holds fewer people.
George
p.s. 999,999,994 words to spare :-)
greywolf42
>
> "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:106400166...@iris.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > "greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
> > news:vmmknv...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:106397914...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> > >
> > > In this case, the globular cluster ages are based *both* on
> > > observation (the main sequence turnoff) and upon theoretical
> > > models of stellar evolution. Neither are based on the Hipparcos
> > > results, nor on the CMBR data. And neither has changed substantially
> > > (to my knowledge) since the 'youthening' of the BB universe,
> > > post-Hipparcos/CMBR. (13.7 +- 0.2)
{We see below that there *is* an unexpected change from Hipparcos.}
> > > So, what happened to those 15 to 18 billion year old globular
> > > clusters? Or are cosmologists just ignoring them?
> <snip>
> > > The theoretical 'concept' is fine. It is simply contradicted by
> > > observation. That's science.
> >
> > Not quite. Assuming the cluster data is as you say, then
> > we have two incompatible observations, each of them with
> > associated uncertainties. Taking the uncertainty into
> > account, the ranges may overlap removing the problem.
> > Alternatively one must be wrong but we cannot say which
> > without further information. The best approach would be
> > to survey multiple independent values and uncertainties
> > and combine them appropriately to get the most likely
> > value. That is science IMHO.
Thanks for the effort!
> This looks like the sort of result you might have in mind:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0109526
>
> The value is 15 +/- 4 Gyr but is still easily compatible with
> an overal age for the universe of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.
Not globular clusters. Stars within the galaxy. Assumes the BB is correct,
and uses radiogenics.
> I also came across this referring to measurements by Cowan in 1997.
>
> http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Freedman/Freedman6_2.html
>
> 15.2 +/- 3.7 Gyr and 13.8 +/- 3.7 Gyr are also about the range you
> mention but these are for halo stars, not clusters. Again these
> uncertainties are wide enough to be compatible with a cosmological
> age of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.
Also halo stars (not globular clusters) and assume the BB is correct.
> This seems more relevant to clusters but the age lower limit is
> only 12.07 Gyr. This is from 1995, before Hipparcos corrected
> the distance estimates.
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9509115
Yes, this one is globular clusters. But it's looking for an absolute 'lower
limit'. Not a most likely age range. Hipparcos does not affect these
estimates, as they result from variations in stellar simulations.
> Also note this gives 14.6 +/- 1.7 Gyr for the clusters which they
> equate to a lower limit on the age of the cosmos of 12.2 Gyr at 95%
> confidence.
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099
The above 1996 study is the kind I was looking for, thanks.
> After Hipparcos you get:
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704150
Excellent! Here the study 'reduces' the ages of the globular clusters by an
average of 2.8 billion years, mentions the 'shrunken' distance scale from
Hipparcos. Gives 11.8 +- 2.1 Gyr.
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704078
>
> > > I know of one other method -- the Hubble constant. And it does give
> > > 'similar' results. (10-15 BY IIRC the current best guess).
Likely the best of the lot. Explains the correct due to parallax
measurements of "metal-poor stars to re-define the subdwarf main-sequence".
The turnoff point of which is used to estimate the ages of globular
clusters.
Gives history as well. Notes the 1996 standard ages of globular clusters to
be 14-18 Gyrs (I was off by 1 on the lower end), with a formal value of 15.8
+- 2.1 Gyr. Notes the 'mid-term' value for the Hubble constant of 73 +- 10
from the HST key project team "implies an age of only 9 to 12 Gyrs when
interpreted in standard Lambda = 0 cosmological frameworks."
Sounds like a fun paper.
> You might find Ned Wright summary useful then
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
>
> Some of these links came from that page.
Good links. Poor descriptons.
> > > .. But both
> > > methods are contradicted by the observation of those 'too old'
> > > globular clusters.
> >
> > I'm no expert but I think I remember reading a year or so
> > ago a paper using measurements of white dwarfs that came
> > up with a lower limit in the 12Gyr range. In fact I think
> > it was related to globular clusters, I'll have to have a
> > dig around and see if I can find it again.
>
> This is the one I remembered:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205087
>
> It uses white dwarf cooling to get the age of M4.
Now THAT's a new method!
> > > Now, can you tell me where those 'old globular clusters' went?
> >
> > The clusters are still there, what current estimates are
> > for their ages is another matter, and there's no way I
> > could answer that without knowing which clusters you
> > mean. Even then, I'm not an astronomer and don't have
> > access to any of the subscription-based archives.
>
> I think this answers your question
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706128
I'll have to spend more time on this one. "This represents a systematic
shift of over 2 $\sigma$ compared to our earlier estimate, due completely to
the new distance scale---which we emphasize is not just due to the Hipparcos
data." I wonder what else they used? (don't have time just now)
> Compare that to their earlier estimates:
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099
>
> The simple answer is that the clusters are further away than
> they thought, there is no contradiction.
Kinda backwards from my general expectation. As the large-distance scale
(Cepheids) was shortened by Hipparcos. Looks like the metal-poor stars were
affected differently.
George Dishman
> George Dishman <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:10640117...@despina.uk.clara.net...
>
OK. I'll read the papers myself too. That's how I learn
and why I'm here ;-)
> > This looks like the sort of result you might have in mind:
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0109526
> >
> > The value is 15 +/- 4 Gyr but is still easily compatible with
> > an overal age for the universe of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.
>
> Not globular clusters. Stars within the galaxy. Assumes the BB is
correct,
> and uses radiogenics.
It assumes that our understanding of the r-process is correct
but I'm not sure about the BB, I'll have to read it first. I
notesd it only because of the high age.
> > I also came across this referring to measurements by Cowan in 1997.
> >
> > http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Freedman/Freedman6_2.html
> >
> > 15.2 +/- 3.7 Gyr and 13.8 +/- 3.7 Gyr are also about the range you
> > mention but these are for halo stars, not clusters. Again these
> > uncertainties are wide enough to be compatible with a cosmological
> > age of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.
>
> Also halo stars (not globular clusters) and assume the BB is correct.
Comments as above.
> > This seems more relevant to clusters but the age lower limit is
> > only 12.07 Gyr. This is from 1995, before Hipparcos corrected
> > the distance estimates.
> >
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9509115
>
> Yes, this one is globular clusters. But it's looking for an absolute
'lower
> limit'. Not a most likely age range.
"We report the results of a detailed numerical study designed to
estimate both the absolute age and the uncertainty in age (with
confidence limits) of the oldest globular clusters."
In all cases, an actual age for a cluster is only a lower limit
on the BB since the cluster would have started forming some time
after the BB.
> Hipparcos does not affect these
> estimates, as they result from variations in stellar simulations.
>
> > Also note this gives 14.6 +/- 1.7 Gyr for the clusters which they
> > equate to a lower limit on the age of the cosmos of 12.2 Gyr at 95%
> > confidence.
>
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099
>
> The above 1996 study is the kind I was looking for, thanks.
>
> > After Hipparcos you get:
> >
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704150
>
> Excellent! Here the study 'reduces' the ages of the globular clusters by
an
> average of 2.8 billion years, mentions the 'shrunken' distance scale from
> Hipparcos. Gives 11.8 +- 2.1 Gyr.
See below regarding "shrunken".
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704078
> >
> > > > I know of one other method -- the Hubble constant. And it does give
> > > > 'similar' results. (10-15 BY IIRC the current best guess).
>
> Likely the best of the lot. Explains the correct due to parallax
> measurements of "metal-poor stars to re-define the subdwarf
main-sequence".
> The turnoff point of which is used to estimate the ages of globular
> clusters.
>
> Gives history as well. Notes the 1996 standard ages of globular clusters
to
> be 14-18 Gyrs (I was off by 1 on the lower end), with a formal value of
15.8
> +- 2.1 Gyr. Notes the 'mid-term' value for the Hubble constant of 73 +-
10
> from the HST key project team "implies an age of only 9 to 12 Gyrs when
> interpreted in standard Lambda = 0 cosmological frameworks."
>
> Sounds like a fun paper.
Definitely. Of course "Lambda = 0" is now unlikely which
will also have a significant impact, not just on this but
many of the earlier papers.
> > This is the one I remembered:
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205087
> >
> > It uses white dwarf cooling to get the age of M4.
>
> Now THAT's a new method!
>
> > > > Now, can you tell me where those 'old globular clusters' went?
> > >
> > > The clusters are still there, what current estimates are
> > > for their ages is another matter, and there's no way I
> > > could answer that without knowing which clusters you
> > > mean. Even then, I'm not an astronomer and don't have
> > > access to any of the subscription-based archives.
> >
> > I think this answers your question
> >
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706128
>
> I'll have to spend more time on this one. "This represents a systematic
> shift of over 2 $\sigma$ compared to our earlier estimate, due completely
to
> the new distance scale---which we emphasize is not just due to the
Hipparcos
> data." I wonder what else they used? (don't have time just now)
I haven't had time yet either but the abstract starts:
"We review five independent techniques which are used to
set the distance scale to globular clusters, .... These
data together all indicate that globular clusters are
farther away than previously believed, implying a
reduction in age estimates."
Note they say all imply the clusters are "farther away
than previously believed" which seems to conflict with
your use if "shrunken" above. I haven't read either
paper yet though.
> > Compare that to their earlier estimates:
> >
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099
> >
> > The simple answer is that the clusters are further away than
> > they thought, there is no contradiction.
>
> Kinda backwards from my general expectation. As the large-distance scale
> (Cepheids) was shortened by Hipparcos. Looks like the metal-poor stars
were
> affected differently.
It will take me a few days to get through these, too
much to do at the moment.
Have fun.
George
CeeBee
> I'd like to give him a chance to moderate his style and
> argue his case on scientific grounds, but we will have to
> see if he takes the hint.
Fair enough.
Randy Poe
>In sci.astro Randy Poe <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Your" pet theory is an old one called "tired light". Google
>> on that phrase and you'll find lots of sites explaining
>> why the theory doesn't fit the red-shift data. You'll
>> also find a couple of sites trumpeting the theory.
>> - Randy
>
>Randy,
> My pet theory is NOT the old one called "tired light".
>I propose NO loss of light frequency over distance.
OK, then you're going to have to explain why you believe "the distance
shifts the light" but there's no change in frequency over distance.
How do you get a red shift without a change in frequency?
> I do NOT
>propose any questionable energy loss mechanisms for photons.
>And yes, I did check the trumpeting while working on this. I also
>checked the "tired light" debunking sites which I am pretty much
>in agreement with. I do not believe photons loose energy (frequency)
>while traveling space. In my theory, the red shift occurs
>ONLY at the observer position and then only because the the
>light is traveling at an angle with repect to our space.
Bottom line: is red-shift purely proportional to distance or is it
possible to get blue shifts in your theory? Real astronomical
observations show the famous Hubble observation of an increasing
trend, but there are blue-shifted objects, and things like mutually
orbiting binary stars are detected because there's a sinusoidal
blue-shift/red-shift imposed on top of the distance-related shift.
If you make the same predictions as tired light, then you don't have
an improved theory.
- Randy
Jim Greenfield
Thanks for link
Jim G
bja...@users.iwaynet.net
>>Randy,
>> My pet theory is NOT the old one called "tired light".
>>I propose NO loss of light frequency over distance.
> OK, then you're going to have to explain why you believe "the distance
> shifts the light" but there's no change in frequency over distance.
> How do you get a red shift without a change in frequency?
The difference is that "tired light" postulates that light
shifts or loses energy (whichis frequency) as it travels
over astronomical distances. I postulate that the light is
traveling that distance WITHOUT losing energy but in fact
gets shifted ONLY at the obeservation point because of the
angle that is present between the path of the light and the
diminsions within which we exist.
> Bottom line: is red-shift purely proportional to distance or is it
> possible to get blue shifts in your theory? Real astronomical
> observations show the famous Hubble observation of an increasing
> trend, but there are blue-shifted objects, and things like mutually
> orbiting binary stars are detected because there's a sinusoidal
> blue-shift/red-shift imposed on top of the distance-related shift.
It is possible to get blue-shifts in my theory. Two ways. One is
by doppler shifts. My theory does not negate nor deny the existence
of doppler shifts! It only suggests that most of Red shift is due
to the 4th dimensional path of the light and Not due to Doppler.
This implies no big bang and a relatively static universe However,
relative motions withing that static system DO give Doppler shifts.
> If you make the same predictions as tired light, then you don't have
> an improved theory.
First, off, any new theory MUST predict things that fit observational
data. Otherwise, it probably isn't much good. The difference in mine
over "tired light" is that tired light is based on assumptions
about photon physics which do not seem to be observed in experiment.
Therefore, by implying photonic properties which are not generally
observed, the "tired light" theory is suspect.