"In Search of the Big Bang" (brief review)

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
news:P1tme.1330$Pp.864@fed1read01:

Dear EL:


SNIP


Hubble expansion has been observed to be occurring between the
Earth and the Moon. Over the last few tens of years. Over and
above the tidally driven "angular momentum transfer"


Citation please.

Klazmon.

SNIP

nightbat wrote

EL wrote:

T Wake wrote:
"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[EL]
Are you in any way conveying the nincompoop about a spherical shell 2D
surface (rubber of a balloon) that has no 3D sphere being contained
inside that surface! Well, there is a way out called "Hyperbola", but
believe me when I tell you that every mass MUST have a virtual centre,
which is not a virtual geometric coordinate.
The Big Bangers failed to realise that the cross section of the
universe must be hyperbolic to explain all their contradictions that
they did not explain. Einstein did know it but he either had not the
time or was just reluctant to argue with imbeciles shoving CMBR
empirical data in his face, so he gave up.

I am sorry, I seem to have missed the start of this and for some reason my
news server hasn't got them available for me to look at. For this reason I
am sorry if I am mis-apointing comments or opinions.

However, am I right in thinking that some one is getting confused over the
balloon analogy for the expansion of the universe. The analogy is based on
the surface of the balloon showing a two dimensional representation of three
dimensional space. There is no centre to the balloon unless you add in a
third dimension which renders the analogy obsolete.

The balloon is not a proper model of the universe, it is simply a method for
clarifying the way space expands without large scale structures needing to
move - and it indicates that the expansion of space is in all directions
simultaneously.

Once again, I am sorry if I have totally got the wrong end of the stick
here.
[EL]
Not at all, you are absolutely correct with your explanation.
The issue is whether such an explanation is anywhere realistically
satisfactory or can be regarded as sophisticated nincompoop that has no
physical relevance whatsoever.
I am quite certain that you are conveying the textbook's nincompoop
quite honestly, and you get the credits of being knowledgeable and
honest, but no one can blame you for conveying what was authentically
fabricated as the most ridiculous model that has no resemblance to any
logical scenario.
Those who authored that model deny space to exist without matter, while
severely falling into a contradiction assuming that that nonexistent
space is centre-less and expanding, thus pushing the 2D membrane
outwards.

We always look at compounded histories of light, and nothing is where
it seems to be now. Thus, the most outer is not expanding in the sense
of going away from us now, but rather WAS going away very long time ago
from where we came to be before we ever come to be. If what we see now
to have been going away then was coming closer later, much later that
we need a long time to realise that it is contracting, then why does
anyone persist to claim that the universe must be expanding now if we
do not even what light looks like now if it needed billions of years to
arrive to smash our numb senses?

EL

nightbat

Well the senses are meant to be stimulated see Officer Oc for
more deeper theoretical applied out of this Universe theory
preponderance. Don't like that one see nightbat profound " Black Comet
" for internal gravitational loop resolution.

ponder on,
the nightbat

"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[George Dishman wrote]
In the balloon analogy, it is the (2D)
rubber that represents our (3D) space.
[EL]
I was under the impression that balloons have centres.

The 3D volume of the sphere has a centre.
The 2D surface does not.
[EL]
Are you in any way conveying the nincompoop

aside check "nincompoop" in your dictionary /aside

about a spherical shell 2D
surface (rubber of a balloon) that has no 3D sphere being contained
inside that surface!

Since the surface represents the three spatial
dimension and the radial direction is perpendular
to the surface, it follows that it represents
time in the analogy. Of course that means there
is a preferred time axis (just one of the flaws
with the picture) but you can associate it with
cosmic age, the time as measured by a clock
co-moving with the Hubble expansion, and it works
reasonably well. What is inside then is "The Past"
which of course is always increasing.

Well, there is a way out called "Hyperbola", but
believe me when I tell you that every mass MUST have a virtual centre,
which is not a virtual geometric coordinate.
The Big Bangers failed to realise that the cross section of the
universe must be hyperbolic to explain all their contradictions that
they did not explain. Einstein did know it but he either had not the
time or was just reluctant to argue with imbeciles shoving CMBR
empirical data in his face, so he gave up.

There are many problems with the analogy but it
is usually used only to convey the idea that
something can be finite yet unbounded. Prior to
the discovery that the expansion is accelerating,
it could be shown that a finite universe would
produce a "Big Crunch" because being closed in
space also implied being closed in time. With the
non-zero cosmological constant, that is no longer
true and any combination is possible.

There was a paper showing that last year IIRC but
I didn't note the reference so if anyone knows of
it, I would appreciate a pointer.

Where is the centre of the Balloon Universe?

13.7 billion years in the past ;-)
[EL]
Are you now confusing the where with the when, shame on all those
Minkowski charts you drew. ;-)

I am confusing nothing, I gave the right answer,
you just asked the wrong question. (Spot the wink)

I do know that you are just being clever to avoid admitting that there
is no answer to such a question.

Since the centre is in the past, you have to run
time back and see which point in space was at the
centre at t=0. Since cosmological age is represented
by the radius of the balloon, your question becomes
which point on the surface is at the centre when the
radius is zero. The answer of course is all of them
or "everywhere".

Not because the universe is a 2D surface that as no volume but because
the universe is bounded and infinite rather than finite and unbounded.
Topologically speaking, only infinity can have a centre anywhere, but
where is that brave- heart who can stand tall and say that Einstein was
wrong on things and very correct on other things?

Einstein thought the universe was static which is
why he added the cosmological constant in the first
place. He was wrong and called it his 'greatest
blunder'.

As I said above, we can no longer be sure. However,
the most recent best value results for Omega_total
is 1.010 +/- 0.009 which suggests it is just over 1
but I think most people expect it to be exactly 1.

The thread in question ran for
months and included hundreds of posts. You
would need to catch up a lot to follow this.
I'll try to find the subject line later if
you want to.
[EL]
No need for that, as I believe me to be the 1994 fire- starter. :-)

The main thread had the subject line "Red shift
and homogeneity", Nov 2003. I think there were
other threads around that time on the same lines
but that one had 165 messages:

http://tinyurl.com/7vax8

My only criteria for superiority are fit to
experimental data followed by Occam's Razor.
If you could develop a steady-state model that
gives accurate predictions for the shape of
the frequency spectrum, the intensity and the
angular power spectrum of the CMBR, I would be
most impressed. Check the WMAP results if you
aren't familiar with these tests.
[EL]
Thank you George, I am humbly doing my best.
I believe in my work as the meaning of my life.
I hardly care to impress anyone, and I certainly do not believe in
vanity affairs.
Naturally, I must verify the consistency of my model and explain the
readings accordingly.
The big difference between the classical steady state and mine is that
there is absolutely nothing steady in my model other than the topology,
which encapsulates the dynamic structure. That is how the topologically
peripheral galaxies are always slower than any inner ones, which
renders light emitted by the said outer ones Red Shifted as received by
any inner ones as the distance increases over time. The background
microwaves are significantly constant but insignificantly variant
because of the extreme relation between the micro-scale and the
macro-scale. No significant changes can be expected within a time
window of 100,000 years.

You seem to be suggesting the CMBR could be
redshifted light from galaxies. If so, that
has been ruled out because the spectral shape
is incorrect. Galaxies aren't black body
emitters. I thought Ned Wright had a graph
showing the deviation but I can't find it at
the moment.

I do have such a model in my TKTODO that I shall publish back soon.
Stay tuned, my friend. :-)

I'll be here. So will many others.

George
[EL]
That is the spirit, but not to the extent of holding your breath.
You know, because of time dilation and all. :-)

Odd thing is, it seems to go faster as I get older.

George

"EL" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip stuff anwered in other replies

We always look at compounded histories of light, and nothing is where
it seems to be now. Thus, the most outer is not expanding in the sense
of going away from us now, but rather WAS going away very long time ago
from where we came to be before we ever come to be. If what we see now
to have been going away then was coming closer later, much later that
we need a long time to realise that it is contracting, then why does
anyone persist to claim that the universe must be expanding now if we
do not even what light looks like now if it needed billions of years to
arrive to smash our numb senses?

First, there is a parallel to the concept of escape
velocity. If you through a stone in the air and
measure it over a short period, you can predict when
it will reach its maximum height or if it is moving
so fast that it will never stop. Distant galaxies
are moving away from us sufficiently fast that they
would never stop given the gravitational slowing
produced by the measured mean density of matter.
However, they would always be slowing down.

Second, when we look at galaxies closer to us, we see
light that was emitted more recently. Measurements of
Type Ia supernovae indicate that expansion in recent
times is actually greater than in the past so the
galaxies are accelerating away from us.

George

Dear Llanzlan Klazmon:

"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in
news:P1tme.1330$Pp.864@fed1read01:

Dear EL:

SNIP

Hubble expansion has been observed to be occurring between the
Earth and the Moon. Over the last few tens of years. Over
and
above the tidally driven "angular momentum transfer"


Citation please.

URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302008

David A. Smith

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
In article P1tme.1330$Pp.864@fed1read01,
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:
Hubble expansion has been observed to be occurring
between the Earth and the Moon. Over the last few
tens of years. Over and above the tidally driven
"angular momentum transfer"

Says who?

Dumin. Differences between recession rate and change in the
Moon's period.

David A. Smith

" wrote in message
ups.com...


N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear T Wake:

"T Wake" wrote in message
...

"Nick" wrote in message
ups.com...
The big bang could not have started
as a mass singularity. If it did its
gravity would make it a black hole without
any possibility of expansion.

So do we take away gravity?
No. Because if we do we automtically
produce universal boudaries/an open
universe. Otherwise without gravity
the cosmology is one that violates
the No Boundary Proposal.

No gravity equals a violation of
the no boudary Proposal.

How do you like that?

So if you keep gravity and you don't
want a black hole the original matter
must be spread out. If it's spread out
it will not have a gravity so strong
as to not be able to expand/inflate.

In a high energy, low mass environment gravity
is a non-effective force. Current models of the
universe give it around 10^-37 seconds before
gravity kicks in. This is a very long time.

When the average particle energy is huge, yes.

Also, I thought big bang theory implied the
universe began as a sea of energy (photons?)

Probably quarks first, then the strong and weak interactions,
*then* EM forces (and the photon).

which wouldn't have been affected (or have)
gravity until the other forces interacted
enough to create objects with mass?

Photons also create curvature, and respond to curvature. But in
a small closed Universe, with uniform mass/energy distibution,
gravitation pulls uniformly in all directions. Net: no
particular pull, except to localized "lumps".

David A. Smith


The so called "big bang" is actually the knee of the gravitational
contraction curve and occurs when the velocity of fall (in absolute terms)
equals 0.707 times the velocity of light. From that point on the internally
observed redius of the universe increases as its internally observed radius
continues to contract to the Horizon Radius.At this point the internally
observed radius is infinite. Once this knee is passed, radiation pressure
balances gravitationl attraction to produce the well behaved universe we
observe. If your mind is not already set in concrete and if you are willing
to question the foolishness you have been taught try
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax....nhoax/site.htm.

On Sun, 29 May 2005 17:22:51 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear EL:

"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
T Wake wrote:
...
We always look at compounded histories of light,
and nothing is where it seems to be now. Thus,
the most outer is not expanding in the sense of
going away from us now, but rather WAS going
away very long time ago from where we came to
be before we ever come to be.

Hubble expansion has been observed to be occurring between the
Earth and the Moon. Over the last few tens of years. Over and
above the tidally driven "angular momentum transfer"

Hogwash.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Llanzlan Klazmon:

"Llanzlan Klazmon" wrote in message
7.6...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in
news:P1tme.1330$Pp.864@fed1read01:


Dear EL:

SNIP

Hubble expansion has been observed to be occurring between the
Earth and the Moon. Over the last few tens of years. Over
and
above the tidally driven "angular momentum transfer"


Citation please.


URL:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302008

David A. Smith





David:

The measurement science involved is no doubt commendable.

The accurate lunar measurements taken or calculated are worth some
interest, and the measurements of the orbital geometry / mechanics are
within the realm of proper science.

I was especially interested in the relationships of the two mases and the
common orbital center.

Application of the Hubble expansion hypothesis is something else.

Any scientific work, however, that doesn't recognize the existence and
function of hydrogen molecules in causing the the apparent Red Shift of
light frequencies is of low grade. Possible explanations involving H2 must
be considered and logically dealt with.

Without H2 it is necessary to first posit that the expansion is occurring,
and to use that idea in the proof that it is occurring. That would be the
legitimizing of the fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, insofar as using
that structure as the test of validity for the ideas proposed; which is wrong.

What would happen if the amount of measured H2 varied in the local solar
and lunar region from time to time. Would the universe have to expand and
contract accordingly?

Fortunately for us the observations did not provide a scientific basis for
measuring any change of the Earth-Luna distance.

H2.

Ralph Hertle

Einsteinhoax wrote:

[....]
At this point the internally
observed radius is infinite.

[....]




Show me one single observation of such a radius, or of such an infinite
radius, and I'll ask you for the specific evidence.

There is no such (metaphysical or physical) thing or (epistemological) idea
of anything infinite, or of any infinity, in the universe of existents.

That is a total Platonic mathematical hoax.

Concepts are universal, and they may be applied continuously to produce
particular results, e.g., in mathematics. Mathematical results are
particular, not universal.

There are no universal particulars in the physical universe or in
mathematical ideas; that is a contradiction. That contradiction is the hoax
of infinity.


Ralph Hertle