Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies.
HenriWilson
direction. We also just happen to be pretty close to the centre of the
hypothetical big bang.
Has anyone compared CMBR anisoropy with angular redhift distribution around the
universe.
It seems to me that they should agree if the BB theory is correct.
Maybe this comparison HAS been made but the results have fallen victim to the
great physics establishment cover up process.
Henri Wilson.
There is NO BIG BANG and the universe IS NOT expanding.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
in particular: www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/deflection.jpg
Sam Wormley
>
> According to the CMBR we appear to be moving at about 330 kms/sec in a certain
> direction. We also just happen to be pretty close to the centre of the
> hypothetical big bang.
>
Neither of those statements are true, Henri!
Get up to date with Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AWilson
Paul Curran
>universe.
>
>It seems to me that they should agree if the BB theory is correct.
>
>Maybe this comparison HAS been made but the results have fallen victim to the
>great physics establishment cover up process.
Why is it people with bizarre theories are convinced that there is a
cover-up involved to suppress their ideas? Who is involved in this
cover-up? How do they coordinate the work of scientists ALL over the
world so that they can maintain control?
Henri, I am curious. have ever read ANY peer reviewed physics or
astronomical journal?
There WAS a BIG BANG and the universe IS accelerating.
Eric Gisse
>According to the CMBR we appear to be moving at about 330 kms/sec in a certain
>direction. We also just happen to be pretty close to the centre of the
>hypothetical big bang.
"pretty close", in fact, we are at the center. If you were as familiar
with the theory as you say you are, you would understand what I mean.
>
>Has anyone compared CMBR anisoropy with angular redhift distribution around the
>universe.
>
>It seems to me that they should agree if the BB theory is correct.
>
>Maybe this comparison HAS been made but the results have fallen victim to the
>great physics establishment cover up process.
Or mabey your wrong.
Just mabey.
Eric Gisse
<ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Has anyone compared CMBR anisoropy with angular redhift distribution around the
>>universe.
>>
>>It seems to me that they should agree if the BB theory is correct.
>>
>>Maybe this comparison HAS been made but the results have fallen victim to the
>>great physics establishment cover up process.
>
>Why is it people with bizarre theories are convinced that there is a
>cover-up involved to suppress their ideas? Who is involved in this
>cover-up? How do they coordinate the work of scientists ALL over the
>world so that they can maintain control?
I suspect that they are dissapointed that they couldn't think of it
themselves, even if the discovery was done decades before them. Or
they sincerely believe they are right. Either way, its sad.
>Henri, I am curious. have ever read ANY peer reviewed physics or
>astronomical journal?
I really doubt it. Reading is above a lot of people with "alternative"
theories here.
Anyway, whats a good astonomical journal that would cover efforts to
research gravity?
Double-A
Why would you say the first statement is not true? See:
http://bustard.phys.nd.edu/Phys171/lectures/cmbr2.html
They say the sun is moving at roughly 300 km/sec relative to the CMBR.
And I have also seen slightly higher estimates.
Double-A
Sam Wormley
One can say the we have a velocity of about 330 km/s WITH RESPECT TO
the CMB, but readers should not consider the CMB an ABSOLUTE reference
frame, as there is no such thing. Velocity is ALWAYS with respect to
something else.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Even an ARF (Absolute Reference Frame) ARF ARF ... :)
Paul Stowe
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>Has anyone compared CMBR anisoropy with angular redhift distribution around the
>>universe.
>>
>>It seems to me that they should agree if the BB theory is correct.
>>
>>Maybe this comparison HAS been made but the results have fallen victim to the
>>great physics establishment cover up process.
>
>Why is it people with bizarre theories are convinced that there is a
>cover-up involved to suppress their ideas? Who is involved in this
>cover-up? How do they coordinate the work of scientists ALL over the
>world so that they can maintain control?
>
postulates. This foundational set of postulates always starts with,
what we may call "The Zeroth Law of kookodynamics, stating "I'm
Right". This may be folowed by some First Law, Second Law, etc. which
differ from one kook to another, and they're not relevant to the
issue, so we'll ignore them.
Anyway, you've the kook formulating a "theory" and being faced with
the fact that everybody esle disagrees with him. So, there are
apriori two possibilities. Either he is wrong or everybody else is.
But, he cannot be wrong (see Zeroth law, above), thus everybody else
must be. Now, once we've determined this, which is more likely:
1) Everybody else is wrong, in the same way, through pure
coincidence.
2) Everybody else is wrong in the same way as a result of an
organized conspiracy.
Occam's Razor tells you that the second is far more likely. See? As
I said, simple logic.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Paul Curran
SHHHHHHH you were at the last cabal meeting. Don't talk about this
stuff in public.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 May 2003 08:27:34 +1000, He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
>
>>According to the CMBR we appear to be moving at about 330 kms/sec in a certain
>>direction. We also just happen to be pretty close to the centre of the
>>hypothetical big bang.
>
>"pretty close", in fact, we are at the center. If you were as familiar
>with the theory as you say you are, you would understand what I mean.
>>
>>Has anyone compared CMBR anisoropy with angular redhift distribution around the
>>universe.
>>
>>It seems to me that they should agree if the BB theory is correct.
>>
>>Maybe this comparison HAS been made but the results have fallen victim to the
>>great physics establishment cover up process.
>
>Or mabey your wrong.
>
>Just mabey.
So nobody seems to know the answer. Typical!
When we ask sensible questions, all we get are the usual establishment
diversionary tactics that are pulled out of the 'desperation hat' when anyone
threatens their religion.
Eric Gisse
>On Mon, 05 May 2003 18:03:03 -0800, Eric Gisse <kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 May 2003 08:27:34 +1000, He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
>>
>>>According to the CMBR we appear to be moving at about 330 kms/sec in a certain
>>>direction. We also just happen to be pretty close to the centre of the
>>>hypothetical big bang.
>>
>>"pretty close", in fact, we are at the center. If you were as familiar
>>with the theory as you say you are, you would understand what I mean.
>>>
>>>Has anyone compared CMBR anisoropy with angular redhift distribution around the
>>>universe.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that they should agree if the BB theory is correct.
>>>
>>>Maybe this comparison HAS been made but the results have fallen victim to the
>>>great physics establishment cover up process.
>>
>>Or mabey your wrong.
>>
>>Just mabey.
>
>So nobody seems to know the answer. Typical!
>
>When we ask sensible questions, all we get are the usual establishment
>diversionary tactics that are pulled out of the 'desperation hat' when anyone
>threatens their religion.
So...since I do not agree with you im a part of the "establishment",
huh?
<stupid signature snip>
jmfb...@aol.com
One of the more beautiful ironies is that the kook will use
technology based on the conspiracies to post it.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Bill Vajk
> Ohh, it is simple logic, actually, once you understand the basic
> postulates. This foundational set of postulates always starts with,
> what we may call "The Zeroth Law of kookodynamics, stating "I'm
> Right". This may be folowed by some First Law, Second Law, etc. which
> differ from one kook to another, and they're not relevant to the
> issue, so we'll ignore them.
Vajk's rule 1: "Don't take life too serious, sonny, it ain't
noways permanent." (with apologies to Porky Pine & Meg Geddes.)
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
jmfb...@aol.com
Sure. Every time somebody told me that one, it meant that
I was getting too smart for my britches and should get married
instead. That was how the sentence was encoded in the fifties,
sixties and seventies.
Now that I'm thinking about, I'm finding it interesting that
there's a hidden assumption in there: namely, marriage causes
brain damage. I've got a new hypothesis to work on.
AntiCrank
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EB7BA99...@hotmail.com...
That must be why you are such a failure Vajk.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Tue, 06 May 2003 05:14:37 GMT, me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>SHHHHHHH you were at the last cabal meeting. Don't talk about this
>stuff in public.
>
Eric Prebys
>>Has anyone compared CMBR anisoropy with angular redhift distribution around the
>>universe.
>>
>>It seems to me that they should agree if the BB theory is correct.
>>
>>Maybe this comparison HAS been made but the results have fallen victim to the
>>great physics establishment cover up process.
>
>
> Why is it people with bizarre theories are convinced that there is a
> cover-up involved to suppress their ideas? Who is involved in this
> cover-up? How do they coordinate the work of scientists ALL over the
> world so that they can maintain control?
>
Anti-science kooks, when faced with empirical evidence or rational
argument, will divide broadly into three categories - with
an admittedly considerable amount of overlap:
- Those who are so certain they are right that they have no
interest in considering counter-arguments or experimental
evidence. These are usually characterized by little or
no math and the repetition of mantra-like phrases (e.g.
spaceman's "clock is broken").
- Those who are just too damn stupid to follow a mathematical
argument or scientific result. Paradoxically, this type
will often post long rambling "mathematical derivations"
with no connection to the physical world. This group will
pretend to discuss experimental results, but it's like dogs
watching television.
- Conspiracy theorists. Like the first group, they will
not directly address scientific results. Why bother? They've
all been doctored by "the establishment".
> Henri, I am curious. have ever read ANY peer reviewed physics or
> astronomical journal?
>
Wby bother, they've all been doctored by "the establishement" :)
-Eric
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
something completely different, something which was suppressed by
(yes, you got it) a conspiracy. And if you'll ask him for evidence
he'll respond that the evidence was (of course) suppressed by the
conspiracy. And so on....
TomB
?
>
> Henri, I am curious. have ever read ANY peer reviewed physics or
> astronomical journal?
>
> There WAS a BIG BANG and the universe IS accelerating.
You can't say this with 100% certainty. 98% maybe. There are many
things we have missed in our small amount of data we have collected
about the univerce!
Henri Wilson
That would be true UNLESS....the universe started at one particular point,
about which total vector momentum is zero.
If there WAS a BB as you people want to keep deluding yourselves into
believing, then it had a centre that can be taken as an absolute reference.
Henri Wilson
Well who is the kook?
I have asked a perfectly sound scientific question that could and should be
researched.
Because it has the potential to threaten your belief system, you label me a
kook.
Honestly, why should any free thinking physicist not rate Relativity and
Einstein along with Islam and Allah.
But you people can't see that. You are all so brainwashed.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
So what don't you agree with?
I have merely asked a perfectly sound question.
In case you missed it, here it is again:
IS THERE A CORRELATION BETWEEN CMBR ANISOTROPY AND THAT OF REDSHIFT?
What is kooky about that Eric?
Are you scared of the answer?
Double-A
I may not know the answer, but do think your idea deserves a
thoughtful reply. I am not part of the "establishment", so hopefully
I have no bias.
As intrigued as I am by the CMBR giving a preferred reference frame, I
do not think the distribution of the red shift of the most distant
objects would provide any correspondence to velocity with respect to
the CMBR. It has been theorized that since the most distant objects
seem to be moving away from us at near the speed of light, that even
further objects would by extension be moving faster than light, and
therefore not be observable by us, or in another sense not exist in
our reality. If we say they do not exist, then we have a limit on the
size of our universe.
Our velocity relative to the CMBR would cause a blue shifting effect
on objects observed in the direction of our motion, and a red shifting
of objects observed to the rear of our motion. But because motion
relative to the most distant objects to the front of us would be
slightly less, we would be able to see objects slightly farther from
us in that direction. Also to the back of our motion, we would not be
able to see objects quite as far away as we could were we at rest with
respect to the CMBR.
The net effect would be that the red shift would still appear the same
in all directions. However, I don't know what the actual data has
shown.
Just my thoughts on the matter. Take them for what they're worth.
Double-A
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
sexually transmitted disease which is always fatal".
greywolf42
Of course, if we're doing GR, we must use the CMBR as the "velocity of the
solar system relative to the preferred frame". [Will, "Theory and eperiment
in gravitational physics.", 1981, p197, etc] And Will is about as staunch a
supporter of GR as one can find.
Absolute or preferred. Your choice of weasel words.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Eric Gisse
Your statement of "we also just happen to be pretty close to the
center of the universe". We are at the center of the universe.
Everywhere is the center.
>
>I have merely asked a perfectly sound question.
>In case you missed it, here it is again:
>
>IS THERE A CORRELATION BETWEEN CMBR ANISOTROPY AND THAT OF REDSHIFT?
Thanks for typing it in caps. I wasn't able to read without your
question highlighted for easy reading.
Now. Red shift from gravity or velocity? In either case, I would say
no.
>
>What is kooky about that Eric?
>Are you scared of the answer?
<stupid sig snip>
Sam Wormley
> > Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3EB6E6D0...@mchsi.com>...
> >
> >One can say the we have a velocity of about 330 km/s WITH RESPECT TO
> >the CMB, but readers should not consider the CMB an ABSOLUTE reference
> >frame, as there is no such thing. Velocity is ALWAYS with respect to
> >something else.
>
> That would be true UNLESS....the universe started at one particular point,
> about which total vector momentum is zero.
>
> If there WAS a BB as you people want to keep deluding yourselves into
> believing, then it had a centre that can be taken as an absolute reference.
>
> Henri Wilson.
> There is NO BIG BANG and the universe IS NOT expanding.
>
Henri, the concept that seems to escape you is that all points of the
universe (4 dimensional) are equally its center. There is no preferred
point. As far as the big bang goes... the observational evidence strongly
supports a universe that was smaller, denser and hotter in the past.
Henri, you forgot to read Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
J. Scott Miller
>
> That would be true UNLESS....the universe started at one particular point,
> about which total vector momentum is zero.
Which would be true if there was a preexisting space into which the matter of
the universe spilled. That is not what the big bang models propose. Thus, your
argument is fallacious. You are attempting to set up a straw man and then knock
it down.
You have been pointed to a good review of what the big bang models do say, Ned
Wright's tutorial and FAQ. I suggest you read it and attempt to understand it
before you continue to stick your foot in your mouth and demonstrate your
ignorance of it.
pragmatist
> According to the CMBR we appear to be moving at about 330 kms/sec in a certain
> direction.
How remarkably heliocentric of you. Is this velocity corrected for
orbital velocity within the milky way? For local group velocity?
He also wrote:
>...... We also just happen to be pretty close to the centre of the
> hypothetical big bang.
>
>
If you think this can be determined from CMBR, or that a center as you
seem to envision it exists, you have misunderstood the theory.
Mark Folsom
news:ct5ebv0gkc201q5dn...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 May 2003 08:27:34 +1000, He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote:
>
certain
> >hypothetical big bang.
>
> "pretty close", in fact, we are at the center. If you were as familiar
> with the theory as you say you are, you would understand what I mean.
Sorry, there's no way to know *if* there's a center, or whether we're
anywhere near it if there is one. We have an ultimate viewing horizon and
it's at the distance from us where the universe was opaque about
14,000,000,000 years ago. We *are* at the center of that, but it doesn't
mean diddley--because if we were 8 billion light years from here, it would
still look like we were at the center of that. If there were a big hole at
one spot in the CMBR, that would be different.
[snip]
Mark Folsom
Mark Folsom
news:CATta.46$X4....@news.uchicago.edu...
Why are you picking on poor Tom Potter again? Don't you know that's
uncivil?
Mark Folsom
Mark Folsom
If you want to be really lonely, get married.
--Gloria Steinem (at least that was whom it was attributed to where I saw
it)
Paul Curran
>If there WAS a BB as you people want to keep deluding yourselves into
>believing, then it had a centre that can be taken as an absolute reference.
No, you are wrong. When th eBB happened it happened everywhere in the
universe.
Paul Curran
>
>I have asked a perfectly sound scientific question that could and should be
>researched.
And the fact that it hasn't in the century since Eintein's first
publication of his theory ofRelativity tells you what? Maybe these
questions were asked and were found to wanting or based on fallacies.
>Because it has the potential to threaten your belief system, you label me a
>kook.
Perhaps its your convoluted logic and resistance to see the facts.
>Honestly, why should any free thinking physicist not rate Relativity and
>Einstein along with Islam and Allah.
Because a physicist can prove aspects of Einstein's theory of
relativity experimentally.
If physicists can prove Islam, then most physicits would be Muslims.
>But you people can't see that. You are all so brainwashed.
Maybe we can see what you are saying and have judged it accordingly.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Oriel36
> In article <2l2ebv0of1tvn13mb...@4ax.com>, Paul Curran <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >>Has anyone compared CMBR anisoropy with angular redhift distribution around the
> >>universe.
> >>
> >>It seems to me that they should agree if the BB theory is correct.
> >>
> >>Maybe this comparison HAS been made but the results have fallen victim to the
> >>great physics establishment cover up process.
> >
> >Why is it people with bizarre theories are convinced that there is a
> >cover-up involved to suppress their ideas? Who is involved in this
> >cover-up? How do they coordinate the work of scientists ALL over the
> >world so that they can maintain control?
> >
> Ohh, it is simple logic, actually, once you understand the basic
> postulates. This foundational set of postulates always starts with,
> what we may call "The Zeroth Law of kookodynamics, stating "I'm
> Right". This may be folowed by some First Law, Second Law, etc. which
> differ from one kook to another, and they're not relevant to the
> issue, so we'll ignore them.
>
Nobody is going to tell you that you were wrong,only observation
verifies what works and what does'nt.
GR observed
Mercury 43.0 43.1 +-0.5
Earth 3.8 5.0 +- 1.2
You spend more effort convincing yourself you are not a kook,a crank,a
crackpot or whatever word is handy,but anybody who adopts the table of
figures above as a verification sure is one sorry creature.
The uproar over the bogus figures which verified that nonsense in 1919
would last about 10 minutes while the actual untangling of the mess
would take decades,unfortunately you and your colleagues are too
impressed with the linguistic fireworks that conceal a poor attempt to
intepret celestial structure and motion from someone who based his
models on the 'fixed stars'.
> Anyway, you've the kook formulating a "theory" and being faced with
> the fact that everybody esle disagrees with him. So, there are
> apriori two possibilities. Either he is wrong or everybody else is.
> But, he cannot be wrong (see Zeroth law, above), thus everybody else
> must be. Now, once we've determined this, which is more likely:
>
> 1) Everybody else is wrong, in the same way, through pure
> coincidence.
>
> 2) Everybody else is wrong in the same way as a result of an
> organized conspiracy.
>
Observation dictates that you cannot directly represent a local
heliocentric solution for a geocentric observation,if you cannot work
out why you do not belong in the area of astronomy or celestial motion
and structure,period !.
> Occam's Razor tells you that the second is far more likely. See? As
> I said, simple logic.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Your signature says it all,it is relativistic thumbsucking by a
creature who cannot allow observation to dictate what works and what
does'nt,the stupidity of relativity is that it always places an
'observer' as a intermediary but the real astronomers never relied on
such cowardice,of course you are just one among many cowards
jmfb...@aol.com
Eventually, the kook gets his way and conspiracizes the world
into a Dark Ages without the help of lice. Oh, wait. That
can also be explained with a conspiracy of insects and arachnids.
Tom Potter
This looks to me like another bushwhacking, cheap shop by Mati Meron.
I'd like to see him justify his immature, cheap shot,
by posting any comments by me, that meet the criteria
discussed in "Mark Folsom's" post.
In other words, where did I state,
"the evidence was (of course) suppressed by the conspiracy."
discuss the BB theory,
state "great physics establishment cover up process", etc.
It may be that Mati Meron is hitting the bottle
a little too hard, and is fantacizing things
that don't exist.
--
Tom Potter
Harold W.G. Allen
Harold W.G. Allen:
I do believe that a viable explanation for CMBR and redshift
anisotropies may be found on my Web site (www.webservr.com/science).
Click under the caption of "Physics Abstract." This site contains
many essentials of my books, "Cosmic Perspective" and "The New
Cosmology." There is now good reason to suspect that mainstream
cosmologists have much to learn about the revolutionary developments
which are taking place, and which positively rule out all forms of Big
Bang creation.
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Harold W.G. Allen:
> I do believe that a viable explanation for CMBR and redshift
> anisotropies may be found on my Web site (www.webservr.com/science).
> Click under the caption of "Physics Abstract." This site contains
> many essentials of my books, "Cosmic Perspective" and "The New
> Cosmology." There is now good reason to suspect that mainstream
> cosmologists have much to learn about the revolutionary developments
> which are taking place, and which positively rule out all forms of Big
> Bang creation.
I believe we have had email conversations. harold, in which I found your
understanding of empirical observation data in astro-physics to be
significantly flawed.
For a good tutorial see:
Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Excellent article "Turning a Corner on the New Cosmology", "Sky &
Telescope", May 2003, Vol. 105, No. 5, pp 16-17
"Among WMAP's Findings:
o Space all across the universe is flat, just like the familiar space
right around us. That is, parallel lines will never meet no matter how
far they are extended, and other aspects of geometry work normally no
matter how far you look. Flat space is a sign that the cosmic inflation
theory underlying the Big Bang is right on target. This in turn implies
that the familiar scenery of galaxies and galaxy clusters that we see
extending across the universe continues infinitely far beyond our cosmic
horizon".
Personally I have difficulty with "infinitely far" in a universe of finite
age, but then lots of things in GR and QM are not intuitive for me, a
learner of physics.
"o The universe is 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years old. This is the best age
determination for the cosmos ever achieved, accurate to better than 2
percent. It fits perfectly with recent determinations using a variety
of independent astronomical methods".
Double-A
[snip]
>
> "Among WMAP's Findings:
> o Space all across the universe is flat, just like the familiar space
> right around us. That is, parallel lines will never meet no matter how
> far they are extended, and other aspects of geometry work normally no
> matter how far you look. Flat space is a sign that the cosmic inflation
> theory underlying the Big Bang is right on target. This in turn implies
> that the familiar scenery of galaxies and galaxy clusters that we see
> extending across the universe continues infinitely far beyond our cosmic
> horizon".
>
[snip]
But doesn't all this "flat space" somewhat marginalize GR which is all
about space curvature?
Double-A
Sam Wormley
me good in the winters (on ice) of 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Flat
is just one case of infinitely many.
Martyn Harrison
<ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> said:
>>Well who is the kook?
>>
>>I have asked a perfectly sound scientific question that could and should be
>>researched.
>
>>Honestly, why should any free thinking physicist not rate Relativity and
>>Einstein along with Islam and Allah.
>
>Because a physicist can prove aspects of Einstein's theory of
>relativity experimentally.
>
>If physicists can prove Islam, then most physicits would be Muslims.
That's quite profound.
Steve Carlip
> But doesn't all this "flat space" somewhat marginalize GR which is all
> about space curvature?
No. First of all, what WMAP showed was that space was flat (at least to
within a couple of percent) *when curvature is averaged over very large
scales* -- scales at which the Universe is homogeneous. That says nothing
about curvature at smaller scales.
Second, there's a difference between spatial curvature at a fixed time
and spacetime curvature. The observed flatness is flatness of space at
a fixed time. But GR is about curvature of spacetime, not space, and
in fact the observations match GR-based models with *spacetime*
curvature remarkably well.
(An analogy: the lines of constant latitude on a sphere are flat -- they
have no intrinsic curvature. That doesn't contradict the fact that the
sphere is curved.)
Steve Carlip
Francesco Cipolla
"Martyn Harrison" <nos...@nospam.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:0o2lbv853r0a62djf...@4ax.com...
The reason is simple:
Islam soon or later will disappear:
(SR) relativity will be certainly revised but its basis will run for some
tens of billiard (terrestral) years.
Hop David
Innes Johnson
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:6nodbv8gncj2fnu89...@4ax.com...
.Henri Wilson.
There is NO BIG BANG and the universe IS NOT expanding.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
in particular: www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/deflection.jpg
My concepts seem to me to add to your insights, to make a more complete understandidng of the non-expanding universe.Do you agree that the universe we see is a classic heat system,where matter and radiation interact in accord with Planck'swork and elementary thermodynamics......With no necessityfor an expanding universe? Innes Johnson
Henri Wilson
I see your (quite interesting) argument but I think it is flawed.
Could we not apply the same reasoning to the way we perceive the CMBR 'sphere'
itself? Should we not be making allowance for our movement wrt the CMBR in our
actual calculation of it?
>
>Just my thoughts on the matter. Take them for what they're worth.
>
>Double-A
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> That would be true UNLESS....the universe started at one particular point,
>> about which total vector momentum is zero.
>
>
>Which would be true if there was a preexisting space into which the matter of
>the universe spilled. That is not what the big bang models propose. Thus, your
>argument is fallacious. You are attempting to set up a straw man and then knock
>it down.
Well it is pretty easy to knock down the nonsense you just stated.
>
>You have been pointed to a good review of what the big bang models do say, Ned
>Wright's tutorial and FAQ. I suggest you read it and attempt to understand it
>before you continue to stick your foot in your mouth and demonstrate your
>ignorance of it.
Have you read Henry Wilson's web page?
Henri Wilson
wrote:
Just like the religious freaks say 'god is everywhere'.
>
>>
>>I have merely asked a perfectly sound question.
>>In case you missed it, here it is again:
>>
>>IS THERE A CORRELATION BETWEEN CMBR ANISOTROPY AND THAT OF REDSHIFT?
>
>Thanks for typing it in caps. I wasn't able to read without your
>question highlighted for easy reading.
>
>Now. Red shift from gravity or velocity? In either case, I would say
>no.
You would SAY 'NO' - but you really haven't a cluie. Nor do you realise the
significance of any difference that would be revealed.
>
>>
>>What is kooky about that Eric?
>>Are you scared of the answer?
Scared, Eric? Scared that redshift anisotropy might reveal an entirely
different motion from that suggested by the CMBR?
>
><stupid sig snip>
Henri Wilson
wrote:
A big bang would not result in everything moving away from everything else -
which is effectively what you are claiming.. the theory is inconsistent and
quite impossible.
>
>[snip]
>
>Mark Folsom
Henri Wilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<6nodbv8gncj2fnu89...@4ax.com>...
>> According to the CMBR we appear to be moving at about 330 kms/sec in a certain
>> direction.
>
>How remarkably heliocentric of you. Is this velocity corrected for
>orbital velocity within the milky way? For local group velocity?
It isn't my idea so ask the 'experts'.
>
>
>He also wrote:
>>...... We also just happen to be pretty close to the centre of the
>> hypothetical big bang.
>>
>>
>If you think this can be determined from CMBR, or that a center as you
>seem to envision it exists, you have misunderstood the theory.
If an atomic bomb explodes in remote space, the point at which this happens is
relative and inderterminate.
However, you people claim the before the BB space itself DID NOT exist.
Therefore there must be a point in the current universe about which vector
momentum = zero?
Henri Wilson
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 06 May 2003 04:35:38 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> > Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3EB6E6D0...@mchsi.com>...
>> >
>> >One can say the we have a velocity of about 330 km/s WITH RESPECT TO
>> >the CMB, but readers should not consider the CMB an ABSOLUTE reference
>> >frame, as there is no such thing. Velocity is ALWAYS with respect to
>> >something else.
>>
>> That would be true UNLESS....the universe started at one particular point,
>> about which total vector momentum is zero.
>>
>> If there WAS a BB as you people want to keep deluding yourselves into
>> believing, then it had a centre that can be taken as an absolute reference.
>>
>> Henri Wilson.
>> There is NO BIG BANG and the universe IS NOT expanding.
>>
>
>Henri, the concept that seems to escape you is that all points of the
>universe (4 dimensional) are equally its center.
Where were they at t=0?
>There is no preferred
>point. As far as the big bang goes... the observational evidence strongly
>supports a universe that was smaller, denser and hotter in the past.
Bull. If the BB is true, there must be a point about which total (vector)
momentum=zero.
All evidence supports gravitational 'retardation' of light as it escapes from
galaxies.
>
>Henri, you forgot to read Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
>
>
>Crank Information
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AWilson
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>>If there WAS a BB as you people want to keep deluding yourselves into
>>believing, then it had a centre that can be taken as an absolute reference.
>
>No, you are wrong. When th eBB happened it happened everywhere in the
>universe.
>
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
How would you know. Were you there.
pragmatist
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> news:6nodbv8gncj2fnu89...@4ax.com...
>
> .Henri Wilson.
> There is NO BIG BANG and the universe IS NOT expanding.
> See my animations at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
> in particular: www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/deflection.jpg
>
If you dislike expansion that much find another rationalization.
> --
Paul Curran
>On Wed, 07 May 2003 02:04:16 -0400, Paul Curran <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>If there WAS a BB as you people want to keep deluding yourselves into
>>>believing, then it had a centre that can be taken as an absolute reference.
>>
>>No, you are wrong. When th eBB happened it happened everywhere in the
>>universe.
>>
>
>HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
>
>How would you know. Were you there.
Simple logic tells you that. You know, logic. Ever hear of it?
What type of predictions does your theory make about the nature of the
universe?
Sam Wormley
>
> There is NO BIG BANG and the universe IS NOT expanding.
>
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#bang
``The Big Bang Theory is Wrong.'' This one gets the most space,
perhaps since the idea of a beginning (particularly a violent
beginning) to the Universe seems to trouble many nonscientists
(and even some scientists). Ironically, it is possible that if
more people understood what cosmologists really believe they know
about the early universe, the standard Hot Big Bang theory would
not attract so much psuedoscientific "critiques". Let there be
no mistake--- the standard Hot Big Bang theory is scientifically
speaking about as secure as the theory of evolution by natural
selection. But this theory does not say what many noncosmologists
think it does--- the real theory makes far less grandiose claims
than bad popularizations tend to suggest, and at the same time,
is far better supported by a tremendous body of interlocking chains
of evidence than most people realize.
pragmatist
>
> However, you people claim the before the BB space itself DID NOT exist.
> Therefore there must be a point in the current universe about which vector
> momentum = zero?
>
There is one.
There are an infinite number of them.
All of them, thats the whole point.
(Or the whole of the points.)
Henri Wilson
That statement proves how bloody stupid you people really are.
This is an example of religious indoctrination at its worst.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2003 09:34:36 +1000, HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 May 2003 02:04:16 -0400, Paul Curran <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>If there WAS a BB as you people want to keep deluding yourselves into
>>>>believing, then it had a centre that can be taken as an absolute reference.
>>>
>>>No, you are wrong. When th eBB happened it happened everywhere in the
>>>universe.
>>>
>>
>>HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
>>
>>How would you know. Were you there.
>
>Simple logic tells you that. You know, logic. Ever hear of it?
>
>What type of predictions does your theory make about the nature of the
>universe?
I don't have a theory about the origin of the universe - but I don't make wild
guesses in an attempt to make out I do.
My only current theory is that ""physics has got it all wrong""". (well most of
it anyway)
Minor Crank
news:dl9obvgo7epa13qot...@4ax.com...
> All evidence supports gravitational 'retardation' of light as it escapes
from
> galaxies.
Henri, your theory predicts irregularities and anisotropies in the CMBR that
are not observed.
Your theory is dead, has always been dead, and stinks so badly it needs to
be buried.
Minor Crank
Double-A
The CMBR is thought to be from the light present in the universe at
the point after the Big Bang when space became transparent. It is
thought to have been red shifted into radio waves by the expansion of
space itself. It comes from no particular direction or from any
discernable distance. However, blue shifting has been observed in one
direction, and red shifting in the opposite, thus making it possible
to calculate a velocity of the earth relative to the frame in which
the CMBR would have the same wavelength in all directions.
However, if you hold to a steady state universe theory, then you would
have to come up with a different explanation for the CMBR.
The red shift of distant objects is used to determine their distance.
I would hope that the earth's motion through the CMBR would be part of
the calculation, but if it is not, it might lead to a miscalculation
of their distances in certain directions. But again, I think the
possibility of there being a grouping of more red shifted objects in
one direction and less red shifted objects in the other could only be
true if the universe is so limited that there are no objects beyond
the ones we are seeing.
Of course the argument I gave depends on the assumption that the
universe is expanding. If it is steady state, and red shifting is
caused by the gravitational effects of galaxies as you seem to say,
then distance might not correlate with read shift. But it would still
not seem likely that you could find a pattern of shifts by which to
calculate the earth's motion.
Perhaps a point in your favor, you may have heard that recent
observations have shown that distant space is mostly flat. I would
think that this flat space would fit in better with a steady state
universe then a universe that started from a singularity within finite
time. I would have thought that in the latter case, significant
curvature would have been observable at great distances.
Double-A
Double-A
What they are saying is that all observable space expanded out of one
point singularity, so that every point in our current space is in a
sense coincident with that original point.
The question I would ask is in what hyperspace did that original
singularity reside? What was its location in that hyperspace?
Of course, you can throw all this out as ludicrous and stick with your
steady state theory. But if you accept the concepts of current
theory, then there would be no central point in observable space from
which the Big Bang exploded.
Because of the supposed curvature of the overall universe itself,
travelling in any one direction far enough should bring you back to
the point from which you started. So there would be no one central
point.
Double-A
Minor Crank
> What type of predictions does your theory make about the nature of the
> universe?
Henri's theory makes wrong ones. VERY wrong ones.
Minor Crank
Sam Wormley
>
> My only current theory is that ""physics has got it all wrong""". (well most of
> it anyway)
>
> Henri Wilson.
> There is NO BIG BANG and the universe IS NOT expanding.
>
Your "physics has got it all wrong" is curious in that Newtonian Mechanics,
SR, GTR and QM are extremely successful thories agreeing with the results
of countless observations and experiments and are sucessfull incorporated
in so many technologies.
Clearly, what is "all wrong" is your understanding of fundamental physics.
Background Information
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AWilson
Paul Curran
>
>I don't have a theory about the origin of the universe - but I don't make wild
>guesses in an attempt to make out I do.
>
>My only current theory is that ""physics has got it all wrong""". (well most of
>it anyway)
Oh, and you base this on what? Are you a proponent of a version of
the Steady State theory then?
If so how do you resolve Olber's Paradox?
What about Fermi's paradox?
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Paul Curran <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I don't have a theory about the origin of the universe - but I don't
>> make wild guesses in an attempt to make out I do.
>>
>> My only current theory is that ""physics has got it all wrong""".
>> (well most of it anyway)
>
> Oh, and you base this on what? Are you a proponent of a version of
> the Steady State theory then?
>
> If so how do you resolve Olber's Paradox?
This one's easy. Let the stellar photonic output average 4E+26
Watts/star (We're not doing spectrum yet)... Let a galaxy average
2E+11 stars... Let there be, on average 2E+11 galaxies in a 15
billion LY bubble. Thus the total photonic emission is,
(4E+26)(2E+11)(2E+11) = 1.6E+49 watts...
The volume is,
[4pi/3](1.419E+27)^3 = 1.197E+82 m^3
Thus the 'smeared out' average source term [Sv] is,
(1.6E+49)/(1.197E+82) = 1.337E-33 watts/m^3
Now, if photons have truly infinite range we would have a problem since
the resulting spacial flux [f] is,
f = Sv/u
Where u is a linear attenuation coefficient... For infinite range,
u = zero!, the flux tends to infinity when R -> infinity.
But, from the recent observation of the anomalous dimming of distant
1A SN and the drop out of low energy spectra, we have an observation
consistent with a u > 0 and on the order of 10 billion LY..., or ~ 1E-27
inverse meters...
Plugging this into the equation above we get,
f = (1.34E-33)/(1E-27) = 1.34E-06 Watts/m^2
Now, the 'Black Body' temperature [T] is related to flux [f] as as,
f = sT^4
Where s is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant of 5.67E-08 Watts/m^2-K^4, thus
T = (f/s)^0.25
Or, ~ 2.2 degrees K... Given the VERY HIGH uncertainties in all of the
estimates, size, average stellar emission, and galaxy size & number,
this is amazingly close to the observed BB field of 2.73 degrees K!
> What about Fermi's paradox?
That my friend is very subject to intial assumptions and not directly
relevant to the question at hand...
Paul Stowe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9ltui$f8j$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <2p5sbv8guug4u60hu...@4ax.com>,
> Paul Curran <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
...
> But, from the recent observation of the anomalous dimming of distant
> 1A SN and the drop out of low energy spectra, we have an observation
> consistent with a u > 0 and on the order of 10 billion LY..., or ~ 1E-27
> inverse meters...
The *supernovae* are anomolously dimmed. I don't think the rest of the
Universe is. Don't apply one rule for a part of the problem to the rest of
the Universe, dude.
David A. Smith
pst...@ix.netcom.com
>Dear pstowe:
>
> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:b9ltui$f8j$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>> In article <2p5sbv8guug4u60hu...@4ax.com>,
>> Paul Curran <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> ....
>
>> But, from the recent observation of the anomalous dimming of distant
>> 1A SN and the drop out of low energy spectra, we have an observation
>> consistent with a u > 0 and on the order of 10 billion LY..., or ~ 1E-27
>> inverse meters...
>
> The *supernovae* are anomolously dimmed.
And how can we know this? Be-cau-se they 'appear' dimmer than the
'other' distance indication (red shift of the overall spectrum)
allows, thus the anomaly. They are the only 'standard candle' that
can be seen at those distances. Now you could argue that this
observation is somehow invalid, but to do so you'd have to go against
current wisdom :)
> I don't think the rest of the Universe is. ...
Neither are the 1A SN... But we don't have a standard candle to measure
others against.
> Don't apply one rule for a part of the problem to the rest of
> the Universe, dude.
Now where, specifically, did/do I do that???
Paul Stowe
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
<pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b9m73t$3fc$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <RZvva.17002$hd6.13423@fed1read05>,
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Dear pstowe:
> >
> > <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:b9ltui$f8j$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> In article <2p5sbv8guug4u60hu...@4ax.com>,
> >> Paul Curran <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > ....
> >
> >> But, from the recent observation of the anomalous dimming of distant
> >> 1A SN and the drop out of low energy spectra, we have an observation
> >> consistent with a u > 0 and on the order of 10 billion LY..., or ~
1E-27
> >> inverse meters...
> >
> > The *supernovae* are anomolously dimmed.
>
> And how can we know this? Be-cau-se they 'appear' dimmer than the
> 'other' distance indication (red shift of the overall spectrum)
> allows, thus the anomaly. They are the only 'standard candle' that
> can be seen at those distances. Now you could argue that this
> observation is somehow invalid, but to do so you'd have to go against
> current wisdom :)
Yet there are other objects with z = 0.3 to 1.whatever, and they are not
similarly dimmed, are they? Surely there are "visible" galactic sources
with these z values?
> > I don't think the rest of the Universe is. ...
>
> Neither are the 1A SN... But we don't have a standard candle to measure
> others against.
>
> > Don't apply one rule for a part of the problem to the rest of
> > the Universe, dude.
>
> Now where, specifically, did/do I do that???
In your paragraph above, it looked like you were going to apply this SN
"dimming" to Olbers. Sorry if I misinterpreted.
David A. Smith
Sergey Karavashkin
> According to the CMBR we appear to be moving at about 330 kms/sec in a certain
> hypothetical big bang.
>
> universe.
>
> It seems to me that they should agree if the BB theory is correct.
>
> Maybe this comparison HAS been made but the results have fallen victim to the
> great physics establishment cover up process.
>
>
> There is NO BIG BANG and the universe IS NOT expanding.
>
> See my animations at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
> in particular: www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/deflection.jpg
I have already written you, read our calculation on
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#hubble
You will understand, why such motion from the centre of BB is
impossible. Ignoring the calculations. you are ignoring the heart of
issue. ;-)
Sergey
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:dl9obvgo7epa13qot...@4ax.com...
>
>> All evidence supports gravitational 'retardation' of light as it escapes
>from
>> galaxies.
>
>Henri, your theory predicts irregularities and anisotropies in the CMBR that
>are not observed.
Sorry, I cannot see the connection.
>
>Your theory is dead, has always been dead, and stinks so badly it needs to
>be buried.
Crank, I have not put forward a theory. I have merely asked a question.
Are you afraid of the answer? If so, why?
>
>Minor Crank
Henri Wilson
Well that is as logical as the christian claim that 'god is everywhere'.
>
>The question I would ask is in what hyperspace did that original
>singularity reside? What was its location in that hyperspace?
What you call 'hyperspace' is just 'space'. 'Little bangs' are occuring all the
time in our known 3D Euclidean space.
Their behavior follows Newtonian predictions.
>
>Of course, you can throw all this out as ludicrous and stick with your
>steady state theory. But if you accept the concepts of current
>theory, then there would be no central point in observable space from
>which the Big Bang exploded.
What absolute nonsense.
What happened to conservation of momentum? If there WAS a BB, there must be a
point about which sigma(P)=zero.
>Because of the supposed curvature of the overall universe itself,
>travelling in any one direction far enough should bring you back to
>the point from which you started. So there would be no one central
>point.
So you think the universe is the 4D equivalent of a Mobius strip or a Klein
bottle, eh?
Maybe you are on the right track.
>
>Double-A
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>"Paul Curran" <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
Have you ever studied physic formally, Crank? You don't seem to have any idea
what it is all about.
Minor Crank
> On Sun, 11 May 2003 02:34:04 GMT, "Minor Crank"
<blue_whal...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Paul Curran" <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:1foobvk9f362n7ec9...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> What type of predictions does your theory make about the nature of the
> >> universe?
> >
> >Henri's theory makes wrong ones. VERY wrong ones.
> >
> >Minor Crank
> >
>
> Have you ever studied physic formally, Crank?
Yes. I was a physical chemist studying surface properties of semiconductors
before I turned to molecular biology studying DNA replication, which was
before I turned to software engineering working on embedded systems.
> You don't seem to have any idea
> what it is all about.
(snicker)
Oh, you are funny!
Minor Crank
Minor Crank
> On Sun, 11 May 2003 01:18:41 GMT, "Minor Crank"
<blue_whal...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:dl9obvgo7epa13qot...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> All evidence supports gravitational 'retardation' of light as it
escapes
> >from
> >> galaxies.
> >
> >Henri, your theory predicts irregularities and anisotropies in the CMBR
that
> >are not observed.
>
> Sorry, I cannot see the connection.
Is the Milky Way uniform to one part in ten thousand? Go out and look at the
night sky, Henri! According to you, the Milky Way imparts a blue shift to
the incoming light which is in opposition to and of lesser magnitude than
the red shifts imparted to light from distant galaxies. The amount of blue
shift imparted to the light will depend on the direction in which you look.
There is practically zero correlation between your predicted blue shifts and
the actual observed irregularities in the CMBR.
> >Your theory is dead, has always been dead, and stinks so badly it needs
to
> >be buried.
>
> Crank, I have not put forward a theory. I have merely asked a question.
> Are you afraid of the answer? If so, why?
No, I'm merely disgusted with you and the foul stench of your rotting excuse
for a theory.
Minor Crank
J. Scott Miller
> On Tue, 06 May 2003 20:00:27 -0400, "J. Scott Miller" <jsfm...@netzero.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That would be true UNLESS....the universe started at one particular point,
>>>about which total vector momentum is zero.
>>
>>
>>the universe spilled. That is not what the big bang models propose. Thus, your
>>argument is fallacious. You are attempting to set up a straw man and then knock
>>it down.
>
>
> Well it is pretty easy to knock down the nonsense you just stated.
I see you did not do that, so apparently, you cannot.
>
>
>>You have been pointed to a good review of what the big bang models do say, Ned
>>Wright's tutorial and FAQ. I suggest you read it and attempt to understand it
>>before you continue to stick your foot in your mouth and demonstrate your
>>ignorance of it.
>
>
> Have you read Henry Wilson's web page?
When you thrash the material on Ned Wright's tutorial and FAQ, then I will spend
some time visiting your page. As it is, you continue to demonstrate a lack of
understanding of what the BB models actually say about the universe, so visiting
your page would simply be a waste of time.
Henri Wilson
I don't see any connection between that and my question.
I will repeat it. Has anyone looked into the possibility that average galactic
redshift might be directionally biased?
If so, is there an anisotropy similar to that of the CMBR.
Dale Trynor
Henri Wilson wrote:
Dale Trynor wrote:
The universe is big enough for more than one sample of the same prospective of the CMBR .
To get an idea what I might be saying, look at how frame dragging is supposed to work. Then try to
explain how any point could see its own frame of reference equally as any other point that equally
rotating with the same gravity. Reality itself can be dragged around. They are not necessarily moving
differently from there own prospective where frame dragging is involved.
Assuming that one could make a similar speculation on the universes background one gets different
parts of the universe pulling its own tiny part of reality with it, giving you different
relativisticaly co moving frames where each has its own non moving background. If it drags all of its
references with it, how will one know that others do not also see a similar motionless background as
well. Distance also helps isolate easy comparisons.
The thing is one can argue that its different versions of the CMBR that are also moving with those
distant parts of the universe.
Dale Trynor
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 10 May 2003 19:26:20 -0700, doub...@hush.com (Double-A) wrote:
>
> >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<nibobvsdplg9ucddr...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 6 May 2003 21:51:27 -0700, ilsd...@netscape.net (pragmatist) wrote:
[snip]
>
> >> >He also wrote:
> >> >>...... We also just happen to be pretty close to the centre of the
> >> >> hypothetical big bang.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >If you think this can be determined from CMBR, or that a center as you
> >> >seem to envision it exists, you have misunderstood the theory.
> >>
> >> If an atomic bomb explodes in remote space, the point at which this happens is
> >> relative and inderterminate.
> >>
> >> However, you people claim the before the BB space itself DID NOT exist.
> >> Therefore there must be a point in the current universe about which vector
> >> momentum = zero?
> >>
> >> Henri Wilson.
> >> There is NO BIG BANG and the universe IS NOT expanding.
> >>
> >> See my animations at:
> >> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
> >> in particular: www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/deflection.jpg
> >
> >
> >What they are saying is that all observable space expanded out of one
> >point singularity, so that every point in our current space is in a
> >sense coincident with that original point.
>
> Well that is as logical as the christian claim that 'god is everywhere'.
[snip]
Dale Trynor wrote:
Henri, its to late for me to repeat a lot of detail. You must have seen my arguments for how one can go
about showing how gravitational time dilation should not only contract matter but expand space. If you
had seen or at least made the effort to think about it you would know just how well it gives the same
predictions as inflation theory and dose it in such an easily understood method.
I got a new web site where I will put all of this info but if you want will try to re-post some of it
here for you. If I haven't already pointed this out yet the theory has been posted here for more than a
year without any " its wrong here because I got this or that wrong", giving it an extra excellent chance
of being correct. Would have been refuted by someone here by now.
Joseph Lazio
PS> In article <2p5sbv8guug4u60hu...@4ax.com>,
PS> Paul Curran <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> My only current theory is that ""physics has got it all wrong""".
>>> (...)
>> Oh, and you base this on what? [...]
>> If so how do you resolve Olber's Paradox?
PS> This one's easy. Let the stellar photonic output average 4E+26
PS> Watts/star (We're not doing spectrum yet)
Of course, the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background is a key
observation that must be explained.
[Lots of estimates of stellar radiation flux snipped...]
PS> T = (f/s)^0.25
PS> Or, ~ 2.2 degrees K... Given the VERY HIGH uncertainties in all
PS> of the estimates, size, average stellar emission, and galaxy size
PS> & number, this is amazingly close to the observed BB field of 2.73
PS> degrees K!
This topic comes up every six months or so on sci.astro. I'm sure
there are numerous explanations on Google regarding why a
superposition of stellar radiation fields will not produce what is
observed from the cosmic microwave background. Among other things,
stars don't have blackbody spectra.
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: jla...@patriot.net
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html
Joseph Lazio
PS> In article <RZvva.17002$hd6.13423@fed1read05>,
PS> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:b9ltui$f8j$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>>> But, from the recent observation of the anomalous dimming of
>>> distant 1A SN and the drop out of low energy spectra, we have an
>>> observation consistent with a u > 0 and on the order of 10 billion
>>> LY..., or ~ 1E-27 inverse meters...
>> The *supernovae* are anomolously dimmed.
PS> And how can we know this? Be-cau-se they 'appear' dimmer than
PS> the 'other' distance indication (red shift of the overall
PS> spectrum) allows, thus the anomaly.
Note that the time scales for the higher redshift supernovae are also
longer than for the lower redshift supernovae. This is exactly what
is expected, if the redshift is a distance indicator.
PS> They are the only 'standard candle' that can be seen at those
PS> distances. Now you could argue that this observation is somehow
PS> invalid, but to do so you'd have to go against current wisdom :)
>> I don't think the rest of the Universe is. ...
PS> Neither are the 1A SN... But we don't have a standard candle to
PS> measure others against.
Type Ia supernovae may be the only standard candle. (I'm not quite
sure I agree with that, but I'm not thinking of any good counter
examples right now, so I'm not going to argue the point.) They are
not the only distance indicator. Clusters of galaxies, gravitational
lenses, water masers in NGC 4258, there are a number of
redshift-*independent* indicators of distance. Curiously, the
redshift-*independent* estimates of distance seem to agree with the
redshift distance estimates.
Aladar
> Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]
> When you thrash the material on Ned Wright's tutorial and FAQ, then I will spend
> some time visiting your page. As it is, you continue to demonstrate a lack of
> understanding of what the BB models actually say about the universe, so visiting
> your page would simply be a waste of time.
No, you would not. You just will killfile him...
Also, it would be redundant, since I already trashed Ned's tutorial and FAQ...
Sam Wormley
The supernovae data of a few years ago indicating that the
expansion of the universe is accelerating, is an excellent example
of "we may be required to change our belief"... this was not a
welcome result for all who had become comfortable with the simple
idea of an expanding universe decelerating from self gravity.
Independent teams of researchers came to this conclusion, and
more recently the independent WMAP data confirms the accelerating
expansion. This must have delighted you Aladar, my good friend--
independent measurements reinforcing each other.
Sam Wormley
>
> The universe is big enough for more than one sample of the same
> at how frame dragging is supposed to work. Then try to explain how
> any point could see its own frame of reference equally as any other
> point that equally rotating with the same gravity. Reality itself
> can be dragged around. They are not necessarily moving differently
> from there own prospective where frame dragging is involved.
And how is frame dragging supposed to work, Dale? It is estimated that
the gravitational effect of the rotating Earth on the local spacetime
nearby is a measurable effect [330 milliarcsec per year]. The mass of
the Earth has about 0.698 billionth total voting power as the rest of
the universe on our local spacetime!
Martyn Harrison
<jla...@adams.patriot.net> said:
>>>>>> "PS" == <pst...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>PS> & number, this is amazingly close to the observed BB field of 2.73
>PS> degrees K!
>
>This topic comes up every six months or so on sci.astro. I'm sure
>there are numerous explanations on Google regarding why a
>superposition of stellar radiation fields will not produce what is
>observed from the cosmic microwave background. Among other things,
>stars don't have blackbody spectra.
It seems to me I wouldn't expect absorption lines in a merged
radiation from a near-infinite number of randomly red-shifted stars,
so in what respect does the light differ between the two cases?
Dale Trynor
Sam Wormley wrote:
Dale Trynor wrote:
I admit I should have pointed out that this point was just a reasoned
speculation.
I was thinking a bit along a sort of Mack principle sort of thing, that
would only work if much of the mass of the universe was also involved and
not just just a measly planet like earth.
Try modeling how gravitationally moving a large amount of the universe in a
way that little of any tidal forces could be observed and then also apply
what one would expect of the equivalence principle to any and all
background radiation within that the same sample. Then try to speculate how
one would or would not see any anisotropy's.
Its a reasonably good guess that such a sample would have its own
background radiation that looks motionless relatively to its prospective.
Sense inflation theory or the theory I promote, doesn't require this sort
of relative motion its probably only useful for hypothetical arguments and
or any ideas about a rotating universe if that could be determined. Theory
I promote could be argued to have rotating white holes if our universe were
a rotating one within the frame of reference of an outer universe.
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Joseph Lazio <jla...@adams.patriot.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "PS" == <pst...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>PS> In article <2p5sbv8guug4u60hu...@4ax.com>,
>PS> Paul Curran <ps...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>> My only current theory is that ""physics has got it all wrong""".
>>>> (...)
>>> Oh, and you base this on what? [...]
>>> If so how do you resolve Olber's Paradox?
>
> PS> This one's easy. Let the stellar photonic output average 4E+26
> PS> Watts/star (We're not doing spectrum yet)
>
> Of course, the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background is a key
> observation that must be explained.
Indeed, however to do so requires at minimum assumptions dealing
with,
1. Type of attenuation (scattering, absorption, or damping...)
2. Principal radiation verses secondary
3. The interacting media
All of these can have multiple 'paths' and I did not want to get
mired into these tree branches when just showing the general layout
of the forest.
Either we have an amazing coincidence or the just might be a link
here.
> [Lots of estimates of stellar radiation flux snipped...]
>
> PS> T = (f/s)^0.25
>
> PS> Or, ~ 2.2 degrees K... Given the VERY HIGH uncertainties in all
> PS> of the estimates, size, average stellar emission, and galaxy size
> PS> & number, this is amazingly close to the observed BB field of 2.73
> PS> degrees K!
>
> This topic comes up every six months or so on sci.astro. I'm sure
> there are numerous explanations on Google regarding why a
> superposition of stellar radiation fields will not produce what is
> observed from the cosmic microwave background. Among other things,
> stars don't have blackbody spectra.
Again to define any resulting spectrum the devil is in the details of
the assumptions made. The simplest a damping of the primary with a
buildup of secondary which 'should' become a near perfect BB for a
sufficiently large universe (uR > 15 MFP's). But this is certainly
debatable and I kinda didn't want to argue :/ The power of this
argument is in the results and resolution of Obler's paradox all in
one rather simple assumption.
Paul Stowe
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Joseph Lazio <jla...@adams.patriot.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "PS" == <pst...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>PS> In article <RZvva.17002$hd6.13423@fed1read05>,
>PS> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <)dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> <pst...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b9ltui$f8j$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>>>
>>>> But, from the recent observation of the anomalous dimming of
>>>> distant 1A SN and the drop out of low energy spectra, we have an
>>>> observation consistent with a u > 0 and on the order of 10 billion
>>>> LY..., or ~ 1E-27 inverse meters...
>>> The *supernovae* are anomolously dimmed.
>
>PS> And how can we know this? Be-cau-se they 'appear' dimmer than
>PS> the 'other' distance indication (red shift of the overall
>PS> spectrum) allows, thus the anomaly.
>
> Note that the time scales for the higher redshift supernovae are also
> longer than for the lower redshift supernovae. This is exactly what
> is expected, if the redshift is a distance indicator.
But that does not address the anomaly between brightness/spectra and
distance estimates.
>PS> They are the only 'standard candle' that can be seen at those
>PS> distances. Now you could argue that this observation is somehow
>PS> invalid, but to do so you'd have to go against current wisdom :)
>
>>> I don't think the rest of the Universe is. ...
>
>PS> Neither are the 1A SN... But we don't have a standard candle to
>PS> measure others against.
>
> Type Ia supernovae may be the only standard candle. (I'm not quite
> sure I agree with that, but I'm not thinking of any good counter
> examples right now, so I'm not going to argue the point.) They are
> not the only distance indicator. Clusters of galaxies, gravitational
> lenses, water masers in NGC 4258, there are a number of
> redshift-*independent* indicators of distance. Curiously, the
> redshift-*independent* estimates of distance seem to agree with the
> redshift distance estimates.
That should not be surprising, but does this discriminate?
Paul Stowe
J. Scott Miller
>
>
> No, you would not. You just will killfile him...
>
> Also, it would be redundant, since I already trashed Ned's tutorial and FAQ...
>
> Aladar
> http://stolmarphysics.com
But not as correctly as he has thrashed your ideas on more than a couple of
occasions, as I recall. Give it up. Yours is definitely a dead idea.
J. Scott Miller
>
> It seems to me I wouldn't expect absorption lines in a merged
> radiation from a near-infinite number of randomly red-shifted stars,
> so in what respect does the light differ between the two cases?
>
Interesting, as absorption lines are observed in galactic spectra, which are
nothing more than the aggregate light of hundreds of billions of stars (and yes,
other sources of radiation like emission nebula and other hot gases).
pst...@ix.netcom.com
Yes, but that is not a highly degraded source, as would be the case for
anything with a uR > + 5... That would be 50 Billion LY out... All that
would reach us here from those sources would mainly be indirect or
secondary sources...
Paul Stowe
J. Scott Miller
Such as....?
It has been shown in previous discussions of this matter that such sources will
not produce the anisotropies observed either in the COBE data or the WMAP data.
Dr. Ned Wright, who specifically worked on the COBE data did a pretty good job
at demonstrating this very point. I believe it is even covered in one of his
FAQs or in his tutorial.
Martyn Harrison
<jsfm...@netzero.net> said:
Ok, here's my reasoning. Where are there errors?
A star produces photons (energy) at the core which work their way
through the body of the star being absorbed and re-emitted repeatedly
until they reach the surface where the energy, in a black body curve
of basically randomised energy photons is emitted.
But it isn't a perfect black body because near the surface, certain
energies of photon are absorbed by the elements present there such as
helium or hydrogen, and retransmitted as some other energy photons.
So you get a black body curve of radiation with some specific
frequencies missing, a sort of bell curve of light with some dark
bands where photons of that frequency are absent.
Now take a second star with the same curve, same frequencies missing,
but with the frequencies shifted along a little due to red shift.
Clearly, the combined light will no longer have black bands, because
the frequencies missing in star 1 are present in the light from star
2, and vice versa. So you have a black body curve with some reduced
light of twice as many specific frequencies of photon.
Let's simplify and say that hydrogen absorbs photons of local energy
5, and helium of local energy 9, and the second star is red shifted b
one energy level:
Star one: 1,2,3,4,.,6,7,8,.,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
Star two: 2,3,4,5,.,7,8,9,.,11,12,13,14,15,16,17
Combined: (1),2,3,4,(5),(6),7,8,(9),(10),11,12,13,14,15,16,(17)
Basically, you make broader and shallower absorption "lines" as you
start combining light from (otherwise identical) things with different
red shifts. Do this with a collection of stars red shifted from 1 to
16 and you end up with:
(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8),(9),(10),(11),(12),(13),(14),(15),(16)...
I'm not altogether surprised that you can use absorption lines from
galaxies because they are, not surprisingly, made up from large groups
of stars which are basically the same type, at the same distance, and
have basically the same red shift - however, I would imagine even
there that you get significantly lower "contrast" rather than sharp,
easily measured lines, also that the approaching side will be
different to the receding side where the galaxy is edge on.
Gas would be a red herring there, it can absorb photons in exactly the
same way that star mantles do and you would be measuring the red shift
of the gas in the exact same way based on distance.
I don't think this alters the situation as I see it, which is that a
background radiation produced by a near infinite set of essentially
now invisible individual stars (and other objects like gas clouds)
with random red shifts down to the edge of the observable universe
ought to produce a black body curve where the absorption lines were
averaged out and no longer detectable.
BTW I'm not saying this is proof of anything, I'm using the notion of
red shift as larger for more distant object due to universal
expansion, but I don't think the fact that there is a perfect black
body radiation around 2.7 kelvin "disproves tired light" by not having
absorption lines.
Aladar
> Aladar wrote:
> >
> > Also, it would be redundant, since I already trashed Ned's tutorial and FAQ...
> >
> > Aladar
> > http://stolmarphysics.com
>
> But not as correctly as he has thrashed your ideas on more than a couple of
> occasions, as I recall. Give it up. Yours is definitely a dead idea.
You are wrong. I have thrashed the big bang with the proven energy
loss of photons, 'tired light' in old terminology.
Ned limited himself to the fight with an illusion about my - and
other's - sound ideas, what I've pointed out
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/Ned1.htm
Still no answer from Ned.
Also, my idea is on its way of acceptance.
Stay tuned!
Cheers!
Aladar
Aladar
> Aladar wrote:
[...]
> > Also, it would be redundant, since I already trashed Ned's tutorial and FAQ...
> >
> > Aladar
> > http://stolmarphysics.com
>
> The supernovae data of a few years ago indicating that the
> expansion of the universe is accelerating, is an excellent example
> of "we may be required to change our belief"... this was not a
> welcome result for all who had become comfortable with the simple
> idea of an expanding universe decelerating from self gravity.
>
> Independent teams of researchers came to this conclusion, and
> more recently the independent WMAP data confirms the accelerating
> expansion. This must have delighted you Aladar, my good friend--
> independent measurements reinforcing each other.
Dear Sam,
It is a stretch to call that 'measurement' at all...
No, you have to insert too many axioms to get the rigid photons, all
the elements and the supernovae events by themselves. My coherent
representation results in the loss of energy of the photon during
progression - 'tired light' cause of the Hubble redshift, and at the
mean time results in the necessity of supernovae events, BTW all the
elements with their properties...
All from a single a priory assumption: I am.
Now, you can try to show that my evaluations have some errors in them,
or that I have used more then one axiom, but forget about this
nonsense about the supernova cosmology...
Cheers!
Aladar
http://stolmarphysics.com
Paul Curran
wrote:
>"J. Scott Miller" <jsfm...@netzero.net> wrote in message news:<3EC052DA...@netzero.net>...
>> Aladar wrote:
>> >
>> > Also, it would be redundant, since I already trashed Ned's tutorial and FAQ...
>> >
>> > Aladar
>> > http://stolmarphysics.com
>>
>> But not as correctly as he has thrashed your ideas on more than a couple of
>> occasions, as I recall. Give it up. Yours is definitely a dead idea.
>
>You are wrong. I have thrashed the big bang with the proven energy
>loss of photons, 'tired light' in old terminology.
So are you too a Steady State proponent?
J. Scott Miller
>
> You are wrong. I have thrashed the big bang with the proven energy
> loss of photons, 'tired light' in old terminology.
Nice try but no dice. Tired light, no matter how you dress it up, will not
account for the anisotropies seen in the newest data from WMAP, just as it did
not with the COBE data (nor did it do what NORMAL scientific theories can do -
predict the nature of what is later observed).
>
> Ned limited himself to the fight with an illusion about my - and
> other's - sound ideas, what I've pointed out
> http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/Ned1.htm
> Still no answer from Ned.
He's probably laughing too hard to respond. I know I had to control myself
before doing so.
Henri Wilson
Obviously, when the redshift/distance relationship was first discovered, the
natural response by bandwaggon riders was to jump onto the 'expansion of the
universe' myth. It was hard to disprove. It is only now that more foresighted
people are considering the real alternatives. Your above example shows that
their suspicions were justified.
The truth is, every time light is 'bent' as it travels through space, it
acquires a perpendicular vector momentum component which must be balanced by a
miniscule movement of the body responsible for the bending. Some KE is
associated with that movement.
SO WHERE DOES THAT ENERGY COME FROM?
THE LIGHT BEAM OF COURSE!!!!!
Photons are NOT dimensionless points. They possess a structure that codes for
their energies and are of finite influence. Their structure is apparently
altered whenever they are accelerated by gravity fields.
Henri Wilson.
There is NO BIG BANG and the universe IS NOT expanding.
See my newly UPGRADED animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
(Sorry about the previous colour problems and malfunctions)