Popping The Big Bang

Jim Greenfield wrote:

Dale Trynor wrote in message ...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
the heavens.
Dale Trynor wrote:

[snip]


light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7 billion years
for the trip = light and mass travelling about the universe for 27.4
by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!!

You might want to review how a theory I have been promoting that gives
some interesting predictions that are related to this, providing you
haven't already done so. After the parts that look at how time
gravitational dilation can be shown to expand space you can then look at
how it examines how a coaleasing neutron star gives an inflation like
appearance for any inside observers. You will note how it predicts that
while the original diameters have gone from a few km diameter to light
years across instantly from the prospective of each individual neutron
they will still only be able to gage the size of their universe
depending on how long light has had to travel.
In one light second they will only observe whatever parts of their
universe that light can travel in that one second and this would not
change the fact that there really is light years of distance still hidden.
This gives the prospective of having started from that single point even
while in some ways this is only an illusion equally shared by every
other point particle.
So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years
away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their
view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they
look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss?
Now aren't we just so privileged to live at the center of it all?
This idea of a center is very peculiar in this special theory because of
how it also postulates the existence of white holes. After you review
the site and have time to think about it you will have seen how and why
it predicts that our universe is a black hole within another universe.
The thing about black holes is they draw matter etc into them and if you
were inside of a larger space within one you would see what looks like
white holes pulling in matter from the older outer universe into ours.

Attempts to model these white holes as they would first appear based on
how a traveler would observe one while entering our universe from the
outside, tends to suggest the possibility that they might appear to
curve into our universe and may even appear in different locations while
in actuality being the one surface. They might in some reverse sort of
way be considered as the center of our universes as easily as its
outside. More studies needed.
Sorry about the site neglect this hobby dose not pay.
http://dalet.9cy.com/

(And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)
I would like to hear what your opinions might be on this theory after
you give it some thought.

Sorry Dale,
You are obviously a 'thinker' rather than a 'swallower', but I doubt
we'll agree anytime soon.

Dale Trynor wrote:
I have to admit that this hypothesis on white holes is a bit speculative even for me, especially the idea
that they might appear in different locations and of a rather small comparative volume relitive to the
universe its must now apear inside of, while in some ways is still actuality the one single huge surface.
Note that time in this theory also changes volume, so it a bit confusing about what size really is here.
While I don't believe the generally accepted ideas about the big bang its still not really that much worse
than the present idea that if you had a telescope powerful enough to observe the early universe that one
would might be able to observe a smaller universe. Still it stretches my mind to imagine how one could
measure a smaller circumference for a universe the closer you look towards the big bang even if it is just
just shortly after creation. I believe I read somewhere that this could in principle work by distorting the
paths in such a way as to allow that sort of otherwise contradictory observation. Its however worth pointing
out how one might get similar predictions for the way one might observe a much smaller surface areas relative
to our universe for white holes in this alternative theory.


I don't accept the concept of 'negative' energy (push and pull are
both positive),

The idea of them being repulsive might in some ways be argued as an illusion, remember that while beneath
such a horizon, objects appearing to be repelled are really just being pulled inwards. Might be a bit like
saying objects are being gravitationally repelled from the sky. In one of the gadenkens where I examine how
such things as worm holes would work I examine how an astronaut in a space craft between two black holes
would observe what appears like a repulsive gravity at the center of his craft. Having a craft that could do
this in our normal space would not only produce the same effect for our astronaut observer but result in a
craft that displays faster time relative to us. This is still not that different from observing faster time
on a satellite outside of our gravity well.

Negative energy appears to be rather essential to explain how such things as the quantum vacuum and or ZPE
dose not vaporize us all. If it were all positive energy it would indeed be fantastic. Note that the theory I
promote leads to the idea that gravity is in part due to the differences in concentration of this quantum
vacuum, however by changing it, one also changes the scale of any references one could use to measure such
differences. I suppose you could say that it postulates that the quantum vacuum puts matter in its place so
that space can exists. If you missed it look for a posting I did on how Casimir plates might be argued to be
used a preferred reference frame if this quantum vacuum did not increase an an equivalent way. Gravitational
contraction ignores the idea that space itself could increase.

or 'space-time'; both of which I guess you consider
(that 'curve' word!)

What led me into the idea of how a white hole should appear was the question of examining how an astronaut in
orbit around a black hole and or traveling with a light beam through a gravitational lens might or might not
be able to observe the curve in the light paths using material tools. If you were for example to put a space
craft into an orbit where the light paths will also orbit the same object, 3m in the case of a black hole,
and then attempt to model how our astronauts could or could not observe the curved path of the light by
letting it travel through the craft while also using a rigid ruler, one then examines how the two different
predictions would work. Its important in these gadenkens that the craft would also be stabilized by
gyroscopes otherwise his rotation would allow a valid argument to show how he would observe this curvature in
the light, however if one cannot use gyroscopes to detect this rotation then it cannot still be considered
rotating in the frame of reference of our travelers. This rotation is slight and is of the same sort that one
would have by keeping a satellite facing towards the earths as it completes its orbits.

The point is that if one can somehow show that our astronauts rulers must also curve to match the light paths
then one can also show another example where even curvature itself is relative. One gets similar prediction
using an accelerating elevator gadenken giving two observers different observations when they attempt to
measure the light path. The accelerating elevator observers will insists that the light path curved as it
passed through the elevator, while our non accelerating observer sees the light unaffected .

Pushing this whole speculation to the extreme where one passes by this 3m level, "where the light would have
originally been bent to the point where it could in principle travel completely around the black hole" and if
our astronaut would now also insisted that its actually flat from his prospective, and then try to determine
who is right, gives an interesting possibility that it doesn't end here. If it dose appear to curve in
reverse for him as he dips below this level, should also suggest that it could appear to pinch off into a
curved surface that now appears to repel gravitationally. However how he would observe the other parts of
what our outside observers would agree was a circular event horizon becomes even more speculative because of
the way our astronaut traveler can only observe small parts of what now appears to him as a white hole, at
any one time and place. A continued space expansion from our astronauts prospective i.e., light cones, could
then be used to argue how this surface becomes censored from his ability to observe this reverse curvature in
its entirety.

In the theory I promote it gets more complicated because of the way our traveler is also now measuring a
smaller area of space because of the way all his references have also become shrunken relative to our
prospective. That would mean that our astronaut is in actually measuring a smaller area of curvature making
the difficulty of measuring such curves in the light paths even more difficult.



Keep thinkin
Jim G

Jim Greenfield wrote:

With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
the heavens.
Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago,
and can see its glory in all directions.

We are not at the centre of the universe (as far as I know) but at
the centre of cosmological expansion. Each and every point in space
is by BB a place where expansion begins and thus at a centre of
cosmological expansion. Given enough time (i believe about 15bly)
then we (Earth) would indeed become a centre of our *observable*
universe since expansion velocity at 14-15 billion light years would
be greater than C and light from those distant objects could never
reach us.

Not so those poor souls at the extremities!

Our observable universe may only be analogous in size to the whole
universe as a speck is to our own observable universe. An object at
15 billion light years distant to us is in this way not really at
the edge of the universe but only at the edge of our visible universe.
What's at the true extremities of the universe which may be much
larger than our visible universe? Nothing. It's theoretically just
empty expanded spacetime. Thus there are no observers
sitting out on the true edge looking into the inky abyss (false
vacuum if it still exists at this time).

If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly
away,

That is estimated age of the universe. Who said it represented the
distance to the edge? It may turn out that at an age of 13.7bly we
are indeed at the centre of our observable universe by now. That is
not the same thing as being at the centre of the universe at large.

the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to
'see' as far as us (half of it).
AND this doesn't take into account the fact that the material of
their home has travelled out from "The Big Bang" for 13.7 billion
years (and that's allowing light speed for matter), and then
emmitted light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7
billion years for the trip = light and mass travelling about the
universe for 27.4 by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!!

Anyone living at the edge of our observable universe has their own
observable universe of 13.7 billion years age and visible horizon
just like ours but of course they will see another vista.

So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years
away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their
view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they
look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss?

No, they may be looking at a rareified region of the universe.

Now aren't we just so privileged to live at the center of it all?
(And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)

It's imaginative alright.



Jim Greenfield

roy wrote in message news:2175542.99oyr7YbeT@localhost...
Jim Greenfield wrote:

With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
the heavens.
Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago,
and can see its glory in all directions.

We are not at the centre of the universe (as far as I know) but at
the centre of cosmological expansion. Each and every point in space
is by BB a place where expansion begins and thus at a centre of
cosmological expansion. Given enough time (i believe about 15bly)
then we (Earth) would indeed become a centre of our *observable*
universe since expansion velocity at 14-15 billion light years would
be greater than C and light from those distant objects could never
reach us.

Not so those poor souls at the extremities!

Our observable universe may only be analogous in size to the whole
universe as a speck is to our own observable universe. An object at
15 billion light years distant to us is in this way not really at
the edge of the universe but only at the edge of our visible universe.
What's at the true extremities of the universe which may be much
larger than our visible universe? Nothing. It's theoretically just
empty expanded spacetime. Thus there are no observers
sitting out on the true edge looking into the inky abyss (false
vacuum if it still exists at this time).

If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly
away,

That is estimated age of the universe. Who said it represented the
distance to the edge? It may turn out that at an age of 13.7bly we
are indeed at the centre of our observable universe by now. That is
not the same thing as being at the centre of the universe at large.

the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to
'see' as far as us (half of it).
AND this doesn't take into account the fact that the material of
their home has travelled out from "The Big Bang" for 13.7 billion
years (and that's allowing light speed for matter), and then
emmitted light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7
billion years for the trip = light and mass travelling about the
universe for 27.4 by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!!

Anyone living at the edge of our observable universe has their own
observable universe of 13.7 billion years age and visible horizon
just like ours but of course they will see another vista.

So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years
away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their
view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they
look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss?

No, they may be looking at a rareified region of the universe.

Roy, about now the Big Bang Theory arguement has changed so much from
the concept of an expansion coming from a singularity, producing a
universe of a particular age, dimension and history, that the term
should be altogether scrapped!
You'll notice that supporting posters even talk in terms of infinity
(an oxymoron to BB), and their squirms to explain isotropy and
homogeneity in an expanding universe are breathtaking in the leaps of
logic.
Mind you, "logic" in the eyes of a Big Banger is the ability to jump
at will from one 'frame of reference' to another- as it is with the
DHRs
A while ago, it would have been unusual to get even a shrug from a BB
about the view out from the edge of the universe (or most likely,
screaming and supercillious abuse); now the possibility of the view
being the same as ours (thus taking the universe to infinity) is
accepted by many as a given.
(The guy in "Lord of the Ring" fought on like that with an arrow in
his heart, but he still died-- bring on a similar fate for the the
Original Theory)

Jim G

Jim Greenfield wrote:

With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
the heavens.

Bull**** meter quivers and it isn't even uncrated yet.

Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
can see its glory in all directions.

Bull****. Bull****! Your tongue isn't connected to yoru brain by
simple observation. Every point in the universe is at its exact
center *right now* and is equally distant from the Big Bang. As you
look into space you look back into time and *right now* isn't there
yet.

Not so those poor souls at the
extremities!

BULL****. Go out at night. Look at a far galaxy at one horizon and
than at another 180 degrees away. Theya aren't in each other's light
cones. Neither one exists as viewed by the other.

If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
as far as us (half of it).

Bull****. You don't know anything about inflation or your light cone.
[snip]

(And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)

Yeah, and cosmic background radiation and its power spectrum don't
exist, either. Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
Bull**** meter quivers and it isn't even uncrated yet.

Albert (are you descended?)
I once worked for a mining exploration company. We drilled bore holes
down which the 'logger' sent a probe to measure the radiation level
(we looked for uranium deposits). The logger had to set his probe for
back ground radiation, before starting his test. On one occasion, he
thought that something was broken, as he couldn't set to zero; the
needle kept going off the dial. After a hold up of several days, and
two factory rebuilds of the probe, he realised that we were standing
in the stuff!!
So the next time your meter quivvers, check your boots! It will be a
sure sign that you stepped in something smelly!

Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
can see its glory in all directions.

Bull****. Bull****! Your tongue isn't connected to yoru brain by
simple observation. Every point in the universe is at its exact
center *right now* and is equally distant from the Big Bang. As you
look into space you look back into time and *right now* isn't there
yet.

IT IS THERE- we just haven't SEEN IT YET!!

Not so those poor souls at the
extremities!

BULL****. Go out at night. Look at a far galaxy at one horizon and
than at another 180 degrees away. Theya aren't in each other's light
cones. Neither one exists as viewed by the other.

You are making an arbitrary assumption (last in capitals). You are
assuming the ages of the galaxies to be less than the time it would
take a photon to cross that void (in many cases this might be true, if
one or both of the galaxies have fizzled out or yet to be formed)

If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
as far as us (half of it).

Bull****. You don't know anything about inflation or your light cone.
[snip]

(And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)

Yeah, and cosmic background radiation and its power spectrum don't
exist, either. Idiot.

They may come from far beyond our limit of vision- NOT be a "product"
of BBBs

Cheers
Jim G
(and check those boots)

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

snip

Bull****. Bull****! Your tongue isn't connected to yoru brain by
simple observation. Every point in the universe is at its exact
center *right now* and is equally distant from the Big Bang. As you
look into space you look back into time and *right now* isn't there
yet.


snip


BULL****. Go out at night. Look at a far galaxy at one horizon and
than at another 180 degrees away. Theya aren't in each other's light
cones. Neither one exists as viewed by the other.

If "[e]very point in the universe is at its exact center *right now* and is
equally distant from the Big Bang" then how is that possible, Uncle Al? I'm
not questioning that it *is* possible, I just don't get *how* it's possible.

Thanks,

--
-Randy (OF+)
'Up the stairs.
Into the fire.'

snip

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Dear Randy:

"Randy" wrote in message
news:_zZ9b.48$Qy4.3192@typhoon01...

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

snip

Bull****. Bull****! Your tongue isn't connected to yoru brain by
simple observation. Every point in the universe is at its exact
center *right now* and is equally distant from the Big Bang. As you
look into space you look back into time and *right now* isn't there
yet.


snip


BULL****. Go out at night. Look at a far galaxy at one horizon and
than at another 180 degrees away. Theya aren't in each other's light
cones. Neither one exists as viewed by the other.

If "[e]very point in the universe is at its exact center *right now* and
is
equally distant from the Big Bang" then how is that possible, Uncle Al?
I'm
not questioning that it *is* possible, I just don't get *how* it's
possible.

Every point on the surface of a balloon is equidistant from the balloon's
center isn't it? This is also a common 2D (the surface of the baloon)
analogy for the larger 3D case. We are on the skin, and what we see around
us was received from points "further in" (in time anyway).

David A. Smith

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:TUZ9b.57606$Qy4.2317@fed1read05...
Dear Randy:


snip


If "[e]very point in the universe is at its exact center *right now*
and
is
equally distant from the Big Bang" then how is that possible, Uncle Al?
I'm
not questioning that it *is* possible, I just don't get *how* it's
possible.

Every point on the surface of a balloon is equidistant from the balloon's
center isn't it? This is also a common 2D (the surface of the baloon)
analogy for the larger 3D case. We are on the skin, and what we see
around
us was received from points "further in" (in time anyway).

David A. Smith



Thanks, David. I had forgotten about that analogy. I wish I could get my
mind around how it translates to 3-D, but I guess I need lots more math than
I have. LOL

One other quick question (which may show my extreme ignorance, but what the
hell):
If the BB started at a single point, when and how did the universe (or our
portion of it) transition to what it is now? Instantly? After inflation?

I went through most of the stuff that Mr. Wormley provided,
but.../shrug/...what can I say? Most of it was over my head. Heck, as a
layman I think I understand quantum physics better than I understand
Cosmology. LOL

Thanks again, David! As frustrating as this is to get a handle on, it's
still fascinating.

--
-Randy (OF+)
'Up the stairs.
Into the fire.'

Dear Randy:

"Randy" wrote in message
news:b8_9b.50$Qy4.3199@typhoon01...

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:TUZ9b.57606$Qy4.2317@fed1read05...
....
Every point on the surface of a balloon is equidistant from the
balloon's
center isn't it? This is also a common 2D (the surface of the baloon)
analogy for the larger 3D case. We are on the skin, and what we see
around
us was received from points "further in" (in time anyway).

Thanks, David. I had forgotten about that analogy. I wish I could get my
mind around how it translates to 3-D, but I guess I need lots more math
than
I have. LOL

It is not so much math here, although that would no doubt make it clearer.
Try this. Imagine a series of balloons, inflating from a point. Say the
ratio of radii of each "onion skin" is a constant. Now let light be
emitted from any particular layer of skin, and pretend that it propagates a
little more quickly than the various layers expand.

The outermost layer (*now*, since we don't yet have reliable light-based
information from tomorrow) would get the emitted light some long time
later, from a layer that is no longer in that position. The source layer
would be expanding less slowly than our layer currently, so the light would
be red shifted..

As tadchem is wont to say, parables are like ropes. You can pull them a
little, but you can't push them too far.

One other quick question (which may show my extreme ignorance, but what
the
hell):
If the BB started at a single point, when and how did the universe (or
our
portion of it) transition to what it is now? Instantly? After inflation?

The current belief is that it expanded from a singularity. As if this
could be what the inside of a Black Hole might be like. The "red shift"
that I described above (a series of expanding balloons) is *not* truly
velocity based, but more "change in gravitational potential" based. The
past had a very high mass/energy density, compared to *now*. So, just as
light is red shifted when generated on the Sun as compared to the same
reaction *here*, the light generated *then* is red shifted as compared to
*now*.

I went through most of the stuff that Mr. Wormley provided,
but.../shrug/...what can I say? Most of it was over my head. Heck, as a
layman I think I understand quantum physics better than I understand
Cosmology. LOL

It is so big, and trying to understand how the Universe is "shaped" while
not being able to get outside and look at it... We just aren't constructed
to do that without some thought. *That* is where the math helps.

Thanks again, David! As frustrating as this is to get a handle on, it's
still fascinating.

Amen.

David A. Smith

In message , Jim
Greenfield writes
With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
the heavens.

We are fortunate whatever the case may be.

Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
can see its glory in all directions. Not so those poor souls at the
extremities! If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
as far as us (half of it).

Apparently you have been totally misinformed.

AND this doesn't take into account the fact that the material of
their home has travelled out from "The Big Bang" for 13.7 billion
years (and that's allowing light speed for matter), and then emmitted
light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7 billion years
for the trip = light and mass travelling about the universe for 27.4
by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!!
So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years
away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their
view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they
look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss?

You have assumed that nothing has happened in 14 billion years. Not a
very good assumption to make.

Now aren't we just so privileged to live at the center of it all?

We are privileged, yes, but we are not at the centre of the Universe, we
are at the centre of our field of view.

(And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)

The Big Bang has already popped once, we don't need it to pop again.
--
The Universe
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC