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

In article vmFme.1446$Pp.206@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"


Citation please.

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

To claim that this paper "observed" Hubble expansion between the earth
and moon is a definition of the word "observed" that I was previously
unware of.

The gist of the article is that because the measured distance to the
moon is slightly larger than a predicted value we might be seeing
hubble expansion.

Which is clearly not the same as saying hubble expansion has been
observed.

Greg Hennessy skrev:

In article vmFme.1446$Pp.206@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"


Citation please.

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

To claim that this paper "observed" Hubble expansion between the earth
and moon is a definition of the word "observed" that I was previously
unware of.

The gist of the article is that because the measured distance to the
moon is slightly larger than a predicted value we might be seeing
hubble expansion.

Which is clearly not the same as saying hubble expansion has been
observed.

Correct, it is known that Earth's shape has been changing due redistribution
of mass since the last ice-age. The above article ignores this standard
explanation for the discrepancy between the increase in the Moon's orbit
and the slowing of Earth's rotation.

--
Øystein Olsen, oystein.olsen_at_astro.uio.no, http://folk.uio.no/oeysteio
Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, http://www.astro.uio.no
University of Oslo, Norway

yt56erd wrote:
wrote:
There always is gravity Twake. But it is nonsigular. It is spread out.
The original energy must be spread out so that its gravity won't
be so strong as to prevent the big bang expansion.
Light/energy has gravity in General Relativity.

Began as light?
The original energy couldn't be light. It would produce matter/anti
matter in
equal amounts. Matter/anti matter would be alltogether in one place
without any possibility of seperating out.

Not possible.

well dick.

what does nonsigular mean?

gravity works on mass. the original energy consisted of massless
photons. how did gravity play?

it produced matter/antimatter in almost equal amounts. your
understanding of this subject is so bad its painful.

how do you like that dick?

well how do you like it?

Nonsingular is finite density

Gravity doesn't require mass. Energy will do the trick.
Learn GR. Moron.

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nonsingular is finite density

Gravity doesn't require mass. Energy will do the trick.
Learn GR. Moron.


Gravity does require mass.

What is the gravitational strength of a photon?

As a sideline Nick, in part of my ongoing study into you I notice you
constantly talk about gravity and the phenomena associated with extremes of
gravity (Black Holes etc). Do you understand enough physics to appreciate
that while gravity may be a big player to humans, it is also the weakest
force in the universe?

Wrong Twake. Einstein says energy curves space.
That is his GR.

Show me where I am wrong

"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wrong Twake. Einstein says energy curves space.
That is his GR.

Show me where I am wrong


It says gravity curves spacetime.

Now its your turn Nick.

yt56erd wrote:
yt56erd wrote:
wrote:
There always is gravity Twake. But it is nonsigular. It is spread out.
The original energy must be spread out so that its gravity won't
be so strong as to prevent the big bang expansion.
Light/energy has gravity in General Relativity.

Began as light?
The original energy couldn't be light. It would produce matter/anti
matter in
equal amounts. Matter/anti matter would be alltogether in one place
without any possibility of seperating out.

Not possible.

well dick.

what does nonsigular mean?

gravity works on mass. the original energy consisted of massless
photons. how did gravity play?

it produced matter/antimatter in almost equal amounts. your
understanding of this subject is so bad its painful.

how do you like that dick?

well how do you like it?

Dear Ralph Hertle:

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...
....
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.

They have been considered. There is plenty of hydrogen locally,
more than for most of the path that ancient light travels. And
we have tried to recreate such redshifting in the lab, but cannot
do it with real matter. Absorption and non-specular scattering
are problems in assuming that real matter is responsible for red
shift.

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

Actually, it did. Read the paper.

David A. Smith

Dear Greg Hennessy:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
In article vmFme.1446$Pp.206@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"


Citation please.

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

To claim that this paper "observed" Hubble expansion
between the earth and moon is a definition of the
word "observed" that I was previously unware of.

LLR provides a recession measurement (and whatever distance
factors are imbeded/ignored in the analysis). Deteminations of
the Moon's period are based on observation/measurement.

Does not "observation" involve measurement?

The gist of the article is that because the measured
distance to the moon is slightly larger than a
predicted value we might be seeing hubble
expansion.

Which is clearly not the same as saying hubble
expansion has been observed.

I don't agree on "clearly not the same".

David A. Smith