Popping The Big Bang

"Chosp" wrote in message news:vWw9b.55015$cj1.42115@fed1read06...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

Any way- answer the post or shut up!

**** you, you ignorant troll.
Your post has been answered.
Learn some physics before attempting
to beat off in public.

Trolling to me, is what I do when I tow a fishing line behind my boat.
The fish I (sometimes) catch are much more intelligent, logical,
errudite and persuive than you (and probably more imaginative
and knowledgable)

Jim G

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
"Chosp" wrote in message
news:vWw9b.55015$cj1.42115@fed1read06...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

Any way- answer the post or shut up!

**** you, you ignorant troll.
Your post has been answered.
Learn some physics before attempting
to beat off in public.

Trolling to me, is what I do when I tow a fishing line behind my boat.

Then you are even more ignorant than you first appeared.

The fish I (sometimes) catch are much more intelligent, logical,
errudite and persuive than you (and probably more imaginative
and knowledgable)

Clearly nowhere near as "persuive" as yourself.

Jim Greenfield further bleated in ignorance:


So will a few mouthfulls of your 'raisin bread' help my ignorance? If
you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
description!
How handy is it that 'space is expanding, taking matter with it'?? Yet
I've yet to observe anything expand without energy change, or been
advised of atoms getting larger-- and they surely contain space! So
just which 'space' will you nominate to expand? Is it that within
atoms, between molecules, between stars, or galaxies? Is it all
expanding, or just what suits the BB Theory? Last crap I saw posted in
BB support had it confined to 'groups of galxies'.

So, you don't know what current theories are and to demonstrate that you are
reduced to low language. Typical


Any way- answer the post or shut up!
Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east?

No.

What do they observe when they 'look beyond'?

Us, in the past.

What are the dimensions of the universe?

Bigger than you can apparently imagine.

What is it's age?

13.7 billion years give or take .5 billion.

Has light from one side of the universe reached the other?

No, hence the answer to number 2 above.

(Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )

Some people like to set up straw men when they don't understand reality,
thinking knocking those straw men down makes them smart. Instead, they simply
bleat in ignorance for all to see.

In sci.astro J. Scott Miller wrote:
Jim Greenfield further bleated in ignorance:
So will a few mouthfulls of your 'raisin bread' help my ignorance? If
you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
description!

"seemed" is the operative word. My pet theory is that Red Shift is not
due to motion. There is/was no "big bang". Every way you look things
appear to be moving away because the distance shifts the light.

www.hypersphere.us

bjacoby

wrote in message
...

www.hypersphere.us

The effect is symmetrical at emission and reception
so should cancel, a blue shift at one and red shift
at the other. No?

George

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro J. Scott Miller wrote:
Jim Greenfield further bleated in ignorance:
So will a few mouthfulls of your 'raisin bread' help my ignorance? If
you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
description!

"seemed" is the operative word. My pet theory is that Red Shift is not
due to motion. There is/was no "big bang". Every way you look things
appear to be moving away because the distance shifts the light.

"Your" pet theory is an old one called "tired light". Google
on that phrase and you'll find lots of sites explaining
why the theory doesn't fit the red-shift data. You'll
also find a couple of sites trumpeting the theory.

- Randy

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro J. Scott Miller wrote:
Jim Greenfield further bleated in ignorance:
So will a few mouthfulls of your 'raisin bread' help my ignorance? If
you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
description!

"seemed" is the operative word. My pet theory is that Red Shift is not
due to motion. There is/was no "big bang". Every way you look things
appear to be moving away because the distance shifts the light.

www.hypersphere.us

bjacoby

I agree- I reckon that velocity, distance, gravity (either, or, all)
can produce red shift,(+ or -), but red shift does not automatically
indicate universal expansion, or a 'beginning of time'.

Jim G

Dear Jim Greenfield:

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
....
Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

A good a place as any as to "what we see" means. Especially part 2.

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:y8a9b.56231$Qy4.49289@fed1read05...
Dear Jim Greenfield:

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
...
Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

A good a place as any as to "what we see" means. Especially part 2.

David A. Smith

Hi! I had a look at your site, and got two immediate 'ears pricked'.
The first was a mention of positive and negative directions. I have
oft suggested that this concept is unacceptable in any arguement;
direction and distance are Always positive (may be "less than").

Second, and importantly, to maintain isotropy and homogeneity in an
expanding universe endows the closer to center galxies with some form
of telepathy! An expanding smoke cloud does not maintain homogeneity-
neither would an expanding universe! Simple geometry shows the outer
galaxies spreading faster, so the inner ones need a mechanism to
maintain an equal separation.....
("POP")

Jim G

Jim Greenfield wrote:



Second, and importantly, to maintain isotropy and homogeneity in an
expanding universe endows the closer to center galxies with some
form of telepathy! An expanding smoke cloud does not maintain
homogeneity- neither would an expanding universe! Simple geometry
shows the outer galaxies spreading faster, so the inner ones need a
mechanism to maintain an equal separation.....
("POP")

I don't see how you justify that. As far as I know BB argument states
that recessional effects on mass distribution will be the same for
both the observer and the observed. When we see galaxies speeding away
and "rareifying" as groups in their region the same is happenning here
to our groups. Neither place theirs or ours is special or different
in terms of recession. Expansion is, roughly speaking, a product of
hubble and distance. East or West makes no difference.

roy





Jim G