Big Bang

Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 18, 7:24*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 17, wrote:
On Jul 16, 2:16*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:

On Jul 16, wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:50*am, Antares 531 wrote:

Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Not really. *Using the laws of physics we have now,
and compressing the Universe from its current
temperature / size, to a much smaller size... yields
very high temperatures. *Witness the CMBR radiation,
that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a
glowing hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. *This
(CMBR quench) was supposedly 300,000 years after
the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it was
much hotter than this before.

Inferno =/= Explosion

There is one detail of that explanation I don't understand.
*You're saying that the CMBR radiation is coming from
(or came from) hydrogen plasma.

That is what those that know say. *It is consistent with
the data.

*That plasma is out beyond all of the galaxies in the
universe,

No, the stuff-that-was-plasma is right here with us still.
*Some of it captured into stars, but the rest is still
scooting around in random directions (locally).

First of all, thank you, David, for your detailed response.
*I *think* you are representing the standard model of
cosmology fairly well (not to be confused with the
standard model in particle physics.)

Every discipline has its standard model. The one with the best fit to
observation, and maps to all known observations in the discipline.

I think the point that you are making that is hardest to
justify is that hydrogen atoms are still producing photons
from the big bang, locally.

I did not claim that. No one claims that. The hydrogen stopped
releasing light 13-odd billion years ago. When a salmon swims just a
tiny bit faster than the current, it just takes a long time to get
anywhere. So with photons trying to get away from each observer's
Rindler horizon.

*First of all, you must say how locally. *Are these
hydrogen atoms in between the galaxies, within our
galaxy, or within our solar system?

Imagined problem is not mine.

Secondly, you must have a mechanism by which
those hydrogen atoms continue to produce a thermal
spectrum despite the fact that in our local region they
should be so far spread out that they cannot possibly
interact.

Solarsheath, stellarsheaths, the "missing normal matter"... evidence
of matter between the stars and galaxies. Sparse if you want to
breathe it.

I don't think any proponent of the standard model has
answered these questions.

Because they know what the theory is, because they *read* the
material. Place one hand over each ear. Between those two hands is
the finest computer and best friend you will ever have. But you need
to use it for something other than keeping your ears apart.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
.... please feel free to use the links on that page, and *read and
understand*.

David A. Smith

On Jul 18, 1:56*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 18, 7:24*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:





On Jul 17, wrote:
On Jul 16, 2:16*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:

On Jul 16, wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:50*am, Antares 531 wrote:

Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Not really. *Using the laws of physics we have now,
and compressing the Universe from its current
temperature / size, to a much smaller size... yields
very high temperatures. *Witness the CMBR radiation,
that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a
glowing hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. *This
(CMBR quench) was supposedly 300,000 years after
the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it was
much hotter than this before.

Inferno =/= Explosion

There is one detail of that explanation I don't understand.
*You're saying that the CMBR radiation is coming from
(or came from) hydrogen plasma.

That is what those that know say. *It is consistent with
the data.

*That plasma is out beyond all of the galaxies in the
universe,

No, the stuff-that-was-plasma is right here with us still.
*Some of it captured into stars, but the rest is still
scooting around in random directions (locally).

First of all, thank you, David, for your detailed response.
*I *think* you are representing the standard model of
cosmology fairly well (not to be confused with the
standard model in particle physics.)

Every discipline has its standard model. *The one with the best fit to
observation, and maps to all known observations in the discipline.

I think the point that you are making that is hardest to
justify is that hydrogen atoms are still producing photons
from the big bang, locally.

I did not claim that. *No one claims that. *The hydrogen stopped
releasing light 13-odd billion years ago. *When a salmon swims just a
tiny bit faster than the current, it just takes a long time to get
anywhere. *So with photons trying to get away from each observer's
Rindler horizon.

*First of all, you must say how locally. *Are these
hydrogen atoms in between the galaxies, within our
galaxy, or within our solar system?

Imagined problem is not mine.

Secondly, you must have a mechanism by which
those hydrogen atoms continue to produce a thermal
spectrum despite the fact that in our local region they
should be so far spread out that they cannot possibly
interact.

Solarsheath, stellarsheaths, the "missing normal matter"... evidence
of matter between the stars and galaxies. *Sparse if you want to
breathe it.

I don't think any proponent of the standard model has
answered these questions.

Because they know what the theory is, because they *read* the
material. *Place one hand over each ear. *Between those two hands is
the finest computer and best friend you will ever have. *But you need
to use it for something other than keeping your ears apart.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
... please feel free to use the links on that page, and *read and
understand*.

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your outrage and insults are noted. However, the time-stamp on this
post is also noted, 1:56 pm, vs. 10:13 am on my earlier post, where I
had already addressed this foolishness. You still need to justify
your assumption that the matter in the universe is all evenly
distributed and stationary.

Or rather you, personally, don't. Just one person among all the
standard model proponents needs to justify this assumption. I'm not
calling you an idiot, like you are calling me. I am merely pointing
out 75 years of bad science.

Jonathan Doolin

Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 18, 1:42*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 18, wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:24*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 17, wrote:
On Jul 16, 2:16*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 16, wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:50*am, Antares 531 wrote:

Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Not really. *Using the laws of physics we have now,
and compressing the Universe from its current
temperature / size, to a much smaller size... yields
very high temperatures. *Witness the CMBR radiation,
that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a
glowing hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. *This
(CMBR quench) was supposedly 300,000 years after
the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it was
much hotter than this before.

Inferno =/= Explosion

There is one detail of that explanation I don't understand.
*You're saying that the CMBR radiation is coming from
(or came from) hydrogen plasma.

That is what those that know say. *It is consistent with
the data.

*That plasma is out beyond all of the galaxies in the
universe,

No, the stuff-that-was-plasma is right here with us still.
*Some of it captured into stars, but the rest is still
scooting around in random directions (locally).

First of all, thank you, David, for your detailed response.
*I *think* you are representing the standard model of
cosmology fairly well (not to be confused with the
standard model in particle physics.)

Every discipline has its standard model. *The one with
the best fit to observation, and maps to all known
observations in the discipline.

I think the point that you are making that is hardest to
justify is that hydrogen atoms are still producing photons
from the big bang, locally.

I did not claim that. *No one claims that. *The
hydrogen stopped releasing light 13-odd billion
years ago. *When a salmon swims just a tiny bit
faster than the current, it just takes a long time to
get anywhere. *So with photons trying to get away
from each observer's Rindler horizon.

*First of all, you must say how locally. *Are these
hydrogen atoms in between the galaxies, within our
galaxy, or within our solar system?

Imagined problem is not mine.

Secondly, you must have a mechanism by which
those hydrogen atoms continue to produce a thermal
spectrum despite the fact that in our local region they
should be so far spread out that they cannot possibly
interact.

Solarsheath, stellarsheaths, the "missing normal
matter"... evidence of matter between the stars and
galaxies. *Sparse if you want to breathe it.

I don't think any proponent of the standard model has
answered these questions.

Because they know what the theory is, because they
*read* the material. *Place one hand over each ear.
*Between those two hands is the finest computer and
best friend you will ever have. *But you need to use it
for something other than keeping your ears apart.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
... please feel free to use the links on that page,
and *read and understand*.

Your outrage and insults are noted. *However, the
time-stamp on this post is also noted, 1:56 pm, vs.
10:13 am on my earlier post, where I had already
addressed this foolishness.

Good.

*You still need to justify your assumption that the matter
in the universe is all evenly distributed and stationary.

We can see that it is uniformly distributed in the large, and we can
see that its local motion is pretty close to the motions we see in our
local cluster. Granted we can only detect "radial" components (in
many cases) with a limited number of centuries of observation time.

Or rather you, personally, don't. *Just one person
among all the standard model proponents needs
to justify this assumption.

The "assumption" as stated is false, and is known to be false. There
are large voids, now. And "static" is not anywhere to be found. Any
such claims as applied to the Universe at the time of the Big Bang
will be better founded, with the proviso that without distance, there
is neither "non-uniformity in distribution", or "motion".

*I'm not calling you an idiot, like you are calling me.

I did not call you an idiot. I pointed out that you did not attempt
to learn anything from the links provided. Until you posted again. I
blame texting... bad habits of "opening mouth" before thinking.

*I am merely pointing out 75 years of bad science.

Are you that old? Because it is clear you simply have not been paying
attention.

David A. Smith

In article ,
Jonathan Doolin writes:
On the other hand, one should NOT assume that all the matter in the
universe is stationary,

No one assumes that.

Our observations indicate that farther galaxies are all
moving away from us.

That's at best an oversimplification. You need to consider what
coordinate system you are using.

think the false assumption is the assumption of the Standard Model:
that all of the matter in the universe is comoving.

No one assumes that, either.

The data of luminosities and redshifts says the universe IS spreading
apart,

Better would be to say the Universe was hotter and denser in the
past. There is abundant evidence for that.

Describing modern cosmology in simple terms is not easy; you probably
want to read several different descriptions. There's a lot of sloppy
or even bogus stuff around, though, so you have to be careful about
your sources. I think perhaps some of the problem is that there's a
tendency to want to view the Universe as it might be seen by some
omniscient outside observer, but all we can actually measure is what
we see from inside. If you really want to understand it, you need to
do the math. (Peebles' _Principles of Physical Cosmology_ is one
standard textbook.) Expecting to find some monstrous logical
contradiction in the standard picture, though, seems a bit naive.

By the way, the standard picture is that the _observable_ Universe is
(very likely) open and of finite mass. There's no way to know what
lies outside the observable Universe.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On Jul 19, 5:31*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:
In article ,
*Jonathan Doolin writes:

On the other hand, one should NOT assume that all the matter in the
universe is stationary,

No one assumes that.


You assume that PART of the redshift of distant bodies is caused by
stretching of space.

Our observations indicate that farther galaxies are all
moving away from us.

That's at best an oversimplification. *You need to consider what
coordinate system you are using.


You assume that PART of the redshift of distant bodies is caused by
stretching of space over time. I'm not entirely sure how to put that
idea into any coordinate system. But I do know how to put things into
a coordinate system when I DON'T assume that space is stretching over
time. And in such a coordinate system, where space is not stretching
over time, our observations indicate that farther galaxies are all
moving away from us.

think the false assumption is the assumption of the Standard Model:
that all of the matter in the universe is comoving.

No one assumes that, either.


You assume that PART of the redshift of distant bodies is caused by
stretching of space over time. In any case, this lets you claim that
the bodies are not moving away *as fast* as would be indicated if you
assumed that ALL of the redshift was due to recession velocity.

*The data of luminosities and redshifts says the universe IS spreading
apart,

Better would be to say the Universe was hotter and denser in the
past. *There is abundant evidence for that.


You assume that PART of the redshift of distant bodies is caused by
stretching of space over time.

Describing modern cosmology in simple terms is not easy; you probably
want to read several different descriptions. *There's a lot of sloppy
or even bogus stuff around, though, so you have to be careful about
your sources. *I think perhaps some of the problem is that there's a
tendency to want to view the Universe as it might be seen by some
omniscient outside observer, but all we can actually measure is what
we see from inside. *If you really want to understand it, you need to
do the math. *(Peebles' _Principles of Physical Cosmology_ is one
standard textbook.) *Expecting to find some monstrous logical
contradiction in the standard picture, though, seems a bit naive.

By the way, the standard picture is that the _observable_ Universe is
(very likely) open and of finite mass. *There's no way to know what
lies outside the observable Universe.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA


I have at least glanced through Peeble's Principles of Modern
Cosmology. Mainly, I remember the page on A.E. Milne's model. It was
a giant misrepresentation of Milne's whole idea, then dismissal. What
Peebles had to say about Milne's Model was that it is
"uninteresting."

In other science, you don't dismiss an idea because it's boring. If
you can find a flaw in it, then you point out that flaw and disprove
it. In "Relativity, Gravitation, and World Structure" Milne
completely demolishes Eddington's ideas. For Peebles to completely
misrepresent Milne's work, and then call it "uninteresting" is not
scientific.

The simple fact is, proponents of the standard model have not
justified their assumption that the universe is homogeneous on a large
scale. They have not justified their assumption that the matter is
all comoving. They have not justified their assumption that the
matter in the universe is finite. They have not justified their
assumption that the redshift is caused all or in part by the
stretching of space. They have not justified their assumption that
Special Relativity is only applicable locally. They have not
justified that space is stretching over time. They have not justified
ANY of these things, but proponents of the standard model can always
retreat to around the circle to another unjustified argument, and
blame any misunderstanding on sloppy and bogus stuff.

It is all circular. For all I know, the standard model works, and if
you get rid of all the sloppy and bogus stuff, it's self consistent.
But even if it is self-consistent, you've said it yourself--"the
standard picture is the universe has finite mass." Of the many
assumptions given, this assumption SEEMS the most reasonable. From
this assumption, perhaps, everything else in the standard model
follows.

If I focus on that, maybe I can be less confrontational.

I can accept as given, that the standard model follows from the
assumption that the universe has finite mass. If I understand
correctly, this leads to predictions of the stretching of space, dark
matter, dark energy, etc. I wish to propose a counter-assumption that
the universe has infinite mass. This leads to ...

1. large scale gravitational symmetry, i.e. no need to explain why
the universe is not collapsing back on itself.
2. No need for stretching of space.
3. CMBR caused by surface of last scattering, giant sphere of plasma,
traveling away at near c. gamma approximately 1100 = 3000K / 2.73 K
4. No need to explain why CMBR is nearly uniform because It all came
from the same point as we did, it's all traveling away at nearly the
same velocity, and it's all coming from the same reaction, it's all
time-dilated to roughly 1/1100th normal speed.
5. No need to explain inflation because appropriate use of Lorentz
Transformations will show that any set of random accelerations applied
to events in the past tends to move those events further into the
past--hence, early thermal accelerations in the first instances of the
universe would be sufficient.


Please consider

mass of universe=infinity.

Let
distance = rate * time

Assume
the redshift is entirely due to recession
velocity.


Assume
Space is NOT stretching like raisins in a
muffin.
Space is NOT stretching like a balloon with
dots on it.

If the model turns out to make some kind of bad predictions about the
universe, that we can point to and say "AHA, now we have SHOWN that
Arthur Milne, Lewis Carol Epstein, and Jonathan Doolin's hypothesis is
FALSE" then so be it. I'm sure me and Epstein and Milne aren't the
only ones to think this stretching of space idea is hokey.

But to dismiss the idea out of hand because you just CAN'T BELIEVE the
mass of the universe might be infinite, or worse yet, because the
model is "uninteresting" (as Peeble's dismissed it) then you're merely
propagating the 75 ears of bad science.

Jonathan Doolin

*Expecting to find some monstrous logical
contradiction in the standard picture, though, seems a bit naive.


--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner * * * * * *Phone 617-495-7123 * *
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA * * * * * * * *

.... and I have been naive. I have been expecting to find a
contradiction in the standard model, based on its incompatibility with
my own ideas.

However, I am becoming more and more convinced that the standard model
IS internally consistent, and is probably the ONLY logical conclusion,
once you assume the mass of the universe is finite.

So I no longer expect to find a logical contradiction in the standard
model. I only think that if you assume, instead, the mass of the
universe is infinite, you will find another internally consistent
model, but one with completely different conclusions--conclusions I
outlined in last night's post

The infinite mass assumption should not be rejected out of hand, but
should be explored with just as much care as the finite mass
assumption.

Thank you,
Jonathan Doolin

In article ,
Jonathan Doolin writes:
The simple fact is, proponents of the standard model have not
justified their assumption that the universe is homogeneous on a large
scale.

It's the simplest assumption, and so far, it's consistent with the
data. Other ideas have been proposed.

They have not justified their assumption that the matter is
all comoving.

No one assumes this.

They have not justified their assumption that the
matter in the universe is finite.

Matter in the _observable_ Universe is finite. (The adjective is
important.) Otherwise the density would be infinite, which is
contrary to observation (as you may have noticed!). There are, in
fact, quite good measurements of the average density of the
observable Universe.

As to the rest, there are quite a few observational constraints that
any theory has to meet. The evidence that the observable Universe
was hotter and denser in the past is overwhelming.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On Jul 20, 5:03*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:
In article ,
*Jonathan Doolin writes:

The simple fact is, proponents of the standard model have not
justified their assumption that the universe is homogeneous on a large
scale.

It's the simplest assumption, and so far, it's consistent with the
data. *Other ideas have been proposed.

*They have not justified their assumption that the matter is
all comoving.

No one assumes this.


Steve,

Yes. I think it was referred to as the "Dust" model, or something
along that line. I wish I could remember where I read it, but
unfortunately most of what I know came from library books, which have
long ago been returned. It may have been in "Space-Time Physics"

Whatever the book was, it did an excellent job of talking about
spacetime diagrams, until it got to the juicy part about doing a
Lorentz Transformation on a space-time diagram, which was apparently
deemed uninteresting, unworthy, or impossible, and then it all of a
sudden introduced this infinite homogeneous comoving matter
distribution, just completely out of the blue, called "Dust"

I expected it to be one of perhaps several matter distributions, at
least one of which should be described by the matter all coming from a
single point, and flying out at inertial velocities. However, the
book did not come around to that obvious example. Nor did it did not
introduce any other examples at all. It gave the "Dust" model, and
then, without explanation or justification, started to use that model
as the *actual* model for the universe.

*They have not justified their assumption that the
matter in the universe is finite.

Matter in the _observable_ Universe is finite. *(The adjective is
important.) *Otherwise the density would be infinite, which is
contrary to observation (as you may have noticed!). *There are, in
fact, quite good measurements of the average density of the
observable Universe.


The adjective is important, of course. In the standard model, It
would seem there is more and more matter popping into the observable
universe over time. (If the "outrun.html" animation referenced
earlier was representative of the standard model, then the constant
speed of light is overtaking the slowing stretching of space, bringing
more and more of the cosmos into view as time passes. I actually have
some misgivings about accepting this part of the standard model. The
temptation is to point to this as one of the examples where "Reductio
ab adsurdam" should apply. But being that as it may--I can't really
pinpoint, for now, exactly what internal inconsistencies might be
related to matter popping into the observable universe as the light
finally reaches us.

On the other hand, you're making the claim that infinite density is
impossible.
I can see this idea bugs you, but are you sure it is internally
inconsistent? Assuming that the redshift is due entirely to recession
velocity, you cannot say that infinite density is contrary to
observation, because we know perfectly well we cannot see past the
surface of last scattering. Presumably, beyond that surface, the
universe gets more and more dense. Because there is no limit to the
gamma factor, but there is a limit to the speed, the matter would
become length contracted and time dilated. So the density of the
universe would tend to infinity as you look out toward the outer
surface..

As to the rest, there are quite a few observational constraints that
any theory has to meet. *The evidence that the observable Universe
was hotter and denser in the past is overwhelming.


You've brought this up twice now, but I don't see how this is under
debate.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner * * * * * *Phone 617-495-7123 * *
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA * * * * * * * *

Thanks for your time,
Jonathan Doolin

On Jul 19, 9:33*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 18, 1:42*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:



On Jul 18, wrote:
On Jul 18, 7:24*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 17, wrote:
On Jul 16, 2:16*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 16, wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:50*am, Antares 531 wrote:

Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
our space?

Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.

Not really. *Using the laws of physics we have now,
and compressing the Universe from its current
temperature / size, to a much smaller size... yields
very high temperatures. *Witness the CMBR radiation,
that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a
glowing hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. *This
(CMBR quench) was supposedly 300,000 years after
the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it was
much hotter than this before.

Inferno =/= Explosion

There is one detail of that explanation I don't understand.
*You're saying that the CMBR radiation is coming from
(or came from) hydrogen plasma.

That is what those that know say. *It is consistent with
the data.

*That plasma is out beyond all of the galaxies in the
universe,

No, the stuff-that-was-plasma is right here with us still.
*Some of it captured into stars, but the rest is still
scooting around in random directions (locally).

First of all, thank you, David, for your detailed response.
*I *think* you are representing the standard model of
cosmology fairly well (not to be confused with the
standard model in particle physics.)

Every discipline has its standard model. *The one with
the best fit to observation, and maps to all known
observations in the discipline.

I think the point that you are making that is hardest to
justify is that hydrogen atoms are still producing photons
from the big bang, locally.

I did not claim that. *No one claims that. *The
hydrogen stopped releasing light 13-odd billion
years ago. *When a salmon swims just a tiny bit
faster than the current, it just takes a long time to
get anywhere. *So with photons trying to get away
from each observer's Rindler horizon.

*First of all, you must say how locally. *Are these
hydrogen atoms in between the galaxies, within our
galaxy, or within our solar system?

Imagined problem is not mine.

Secondly, you must have a mechanism by which
those hydrogen atoms continue to produce a thermal
spectrum despite the fact that in our local region they
should be so far spread out that they cannot possibly
interact.

Solarsheath, stellarsheaths, the "missing normal
matter"... evidence of matter between the stars and
galaxies. *Sparse if you want to breathe it.

I don't think any proponent of the standard model has
answered these questions.

Because they know what the theory is, because they
*read* the material. *Place one hand over each ear.
*Between those two hands is the finest computer and
best friend you will ever have. *But you need to use it
for something other than keeping your ears apart.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
... please feel free to use the links on that page,
and *read and understand*.

Your outrage and insults are noted. *However, the
time-stamp on this post is also noted, 1:56 pm, vs.
10:13 am on my earlier post, where I had already
addressed this foolishness.

Good.

*You still need to justify your assumption that the matter
in the universe is all evenly distributed and stationary.

We can see that it is uniformly distributed in the large, and we can
see that its local motion is pretty close to the motions we see in our
local cluster. *Granted we can only detect "radial" components (in
many cases) with a limited number of centuries of observation time.


http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/bad.html#CDM

Quote: ["dust" means any form of matter which does not exert a
pressure which is comparable to its energy density, or in other words
any form of matter which is cool enough that its particles are not
moving at relativistic speeds. Most cosmologists think of entire
galaxies as constituting the "grains" of this dust!]

In the referenced animation:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html

According to the standard model, the entire universe is constituted of
"grains" of dust that are all moving at nonrelativistic speeds. In
the grand scope of possible speeds, there is verrrry little difference
between saying "nonrelativistic motion" and saying "comoving."

Or rather you, personally, don't. *Just one person
among all the standard model proponents needs
to justify this assumption.

The "assumption" as stated is false, and is known to be false. *There
are large voids, now. *And "static" is not anywhere to be found. *Any
such claims as applied to the Universe at the time of the Big Bang
will be better founded, with the proviso that without distance, there
is neither "non-uniformity in distribution", or "motion".

*I'm not calling you an idiot, like you are calling me.

I did not call you an idiot. *I pointed out that you did not attempt
to learn anything from the links provided. *Until you posted again. *I
blame texting... bad habits of "opening mouth" before thinking.

*I am merely pointing out 75 years of bad science.

Are you that old? *Because it is clear you simply have not been paying
attention.

David A. Smith

I'm old enough to read a book written by Milne in 1935 and to see that
75 years of cosmologists have completely misrepresented or ignored it.

Regards,
Jonathan Doolin

In article ,
Jonathan Doolin writes:
On the other hand, you're making the claim that infinite density is
impossible.

I'm making the claim that it's not what we observe the Universe to be
like here and now. What happened in the first couple of Planck times
is far beyond our current knowledge.

If you want consider a model of the Universe as an explosion
expanding into pre-existing, fixed space, you need to look at how
observations would differ from the usual model. The first thing I'd
think of is the redshift-distance relation (which in the standard
model is _not_ a velocity-distance relation), but perhaps there are
other observables. For example, should we observe higher densities
in some directions (looking towards versus away from the explosion)?
Are the predictions of an "explosion model" consistent with
observations?

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA