![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[George Dishman wrote]
" wrote in message oups.com... George Dishman wrote: " wrote in message ups.com... So "The Big Bang" in is infinite directions????????? What a handy hiding place! The chances of tracing the origin being infinite also................. Hi Jim, Come on, you know better than that. The theory also says the universe was homogenous at large scales so conditions here were the same as everywhere else. The hydrogen atoms in your body were made in the bang. G'day George I think it much more likely that the H in my system has been in the form of emr particles (of whatever denomination- and including nutrinos etal), and higher on the nuclear table an INFINITE number of times. I just happen to be a combination of those in the H mode at this period. That would be an alternative view but I was addressing the apparent error in your understanding of the Big Bang model. In that, the hot, dense phase occurred everywhere, not at a single location. As for the homogoneity, pop the balloon (in vacuum), and the air LOOSES its homogeneity. In the balloon analogy, it is the (2D) rubber that represents our (3D) space. [EL] I was under the impression that balloons have centres. Where is the centre of the Balloon Universe? The rubber is homogenous but gets thinner as the balloon swells. I realise that BB purports that an "external" expansion carries matter with it, Nope, we discussed this at length many months ago. The expansion is of the three dimensions of space. Go back to our lengthy thread with Sean. [EL] Like a virtual expansion or something! The Big Bang model is standing on two empirical readings: The CMBR and the Red Shift. This model in contrast to a steady state (in which Einstein first believed) is only good enough if the steady state model was as clumsy as was proposed back then. If there was a steady state model that explains both of the Red Shift and the CMBR, you should agree that it would be superior to a clumsy non-causal trigger of a bang, that was big when size had no meaning at all. I do have such a model in my TKTODO that I shall publish back soon. Stay tuned, my friend. :-) in order to bring about the increase in volume of the universe, but it doesn't wash! The air molecules on one side have a gravitational attraction towards the other side (on average) which discount the homogenous expansion of the universe--- or is that why anti-gravity is required?? That is what creates galaxies. Over short ranges matter is drawn together by gravity while it is too weak at longer ranges and the universe continues to expand. The cosmological term is required only because the expansion appears to be speeding up when it was expected to be slowing down. George |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "EL" wrote in message oups.com... [George Dishman wrote] " wrote in message oups.com... George Dishman wrote: " wrote in message ups.com... So "The Big Bang" in is infinite directions????????? What a handy hiding place! The chances of tracing the origin being infinite also................. Hi Jim, Come on, you know better than that. The theory also says the universe was homogenous at large scales so conditions here were the same as everywhere else. The hydrogen atoms in your body were made in the bang. G'day George I think it much more likely that the H in my system has been in the form of emr particles (of whatever denomination- and including nutrinos etal), and higher on the nuclear table an INFINITE number of times. I just happen to be a combination of those in the H mode at this period. That would be an alternative view but I was addressing the apparent error in your understanding of the Big Bang model. In that, the hot, dense phase occurred everywhere, not at a single location. As for the homogoneity, pop the balloon (in vacuum), and the air LOOSES its homogeneity. 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. Where is the centre of the Balloon Universe? 13.7 billion years in the past ;-) The rubber is homogenous but gets thinner as the balloon swells. I realise that BB purports that an "external" expansion carries matter with it, Nope, we discussed this at length many months ago. The expansion is of the three dimensions of space. Go back to our lengthy thread with Sean. [EL] Like a virtual expansion or something! No, I'm just trying to explain the conventional model to Jim. 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. The Big Bang model is standing on two empirical readings: The CMBR and the Red Shift. This model in contrast to a steady state (in which Einstein first believed) is only good enough if the steady state model was as clumsy as was proposed back then. If there was a steady state model that explains both of the Red Shift and the CMBR, you should agree that it would be superior to a clumsy non-causal trigger of a bang, that was big when size had no meaning at all. 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. 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[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 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. 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 do know that you are just being clever to avoid admitting that there is no answer to such a question. 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? The rubber is homogenous but gets thinner as the balloon swells. I realise that BB purports that an "external" expansion carries matter with it, Nope, we discussed this at length many months ago. The expansion is of the three dimensions of space. Go back to our lengthy thread with Sean. [EL] Like a virtual expansion or something! No, I'm just trying to explain the conventional model to Jim. [EL] Correct you are. :-) 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 Big Bang model is standing on two empirical readings: The CMBR and the Red Shift. This model in contrast to a steady state (in which Einstein first believed) is only good enough if the steady state model was as clumsy as was proposed back then. If there was a steady state model that explains both of the Red Shift and the CMBR, you should agree that it would be superior to a clumsy non-causal trigger of a bang, that was big when size had no meaning at all. 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. 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. :-) EL |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "EL" wrote in message ups.com... [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 agree with you here. The use of the balloon is simply an aid to explain what can often be a difficult concept to beginners. 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. Yes. There are issues with how realistic a model it is. However, for its role it is suitable. If you need to explain the concept of a universe expanding without anything needing to move it can be helpful. I am not sure what would prove to be a better analogy. 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. Interesting concepts. The model is a teaching aid and shouldn't be attributed with any scientific credibility for anything else. The model really shouldn't be used to attempt to predict any thing or create new theories. I don't think its fair to state the "authors" of the analogy (if anyone ever knows who first came up with the idea!) are attempting to deny anything. If, you must it become obvious the model denies the existence of a third spatial dimension let alone anything else. Its an important part of cosmology to assume the universe is centre-less. This doesn't imply that everything within the universe is centre-less. For example, my car has a "centre." 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 The problem with cosmological studies, is by the very nature of it you are looking at things that happened in the distant past. Claims about the expansion, contraction (or both) of the universe are based on the principle that we do not occupy a significantly important point in time. It is entirely possible that the cosmological expansion we see 1x10^9 ly away is simply an ancient remnant, and "now" the "edge" of the universe is rushing back towards us. However, there is no way to ever test this theory so it must remain outside the realms of science for the time being. One important point in favour of continuing expansion is that large scale structures we see close to our local group are also expanding, in line with the rate we see at the edge of the visible universe. This implies that the expansion that occurred 13 billion years ago was still occurring a mere few hundred years ago. Still, as I said it is an interesting theory. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dear EL:
"EL" wrote in message ups.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" 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 What forces come into play to cause the contraction? Someone had to fabricate Dark Energy to describe the acceleration. What will you use to reverse expansion? ELectricity? if we do not even what light looks like now if it needed billions of years to arrive to smash our numb senses? Don't worry. Contraction would kill all life on this planet, when visible light was blue shifted with z = 5. David A. Smith |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NOMINATION: digest, volume 2453397 | Ross | Astronomy Misc | 233 | October 23rd 05 04:24 AM |
The Big Bang and the Search for Dark Matter (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 1st 04 05:30 PM |
Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? | Yoda | Misc | 102 | August 2nd 04 02:33 AM |
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 10th 03 04:39 PM |
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | September 10th 03 04:39 PM |