Big Bang

On Jul 21, 4:10*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:
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 * * * * * * * *

Yes, I would like to consider a model of the Universe as an explosion
expanding into pre-existing, fixed space!

"Towards versus away from the explosion" actually becomes pretty
counter-intuitive in the model. If every particle follows an
unaccelerated path then every particle, in its own reference frame, is
AT the center of the explosion.

However, if a particle accelerates in one direction, then it is a bit
counterintuitive. If you were to accelerate forward, then an event in
your future, would move backward. But an event in the past--for
instance, the big bang, would move to your forward. So whatever
acceleration you perform, it causes the center of the explosion to
move in the opposite direction from what you would expect.

My own hypothesis is that most of the structure of the universe is
leftover from early Brownian Motion, in, perhaps the first couple of
Planck Times, perhaps thereafter. This is almost pure conjecture, but
I think that if super-massive particles were accelerated by collision
out of their original reference frame, they could have flown through a
fairly large region, leaving chaos in their wake. For instance,
matter momentarily accelerated by the passing high-gravity particle
begins to swirl and form into galaxies.

A modern day example of a particle outside its frame, would be the
muon's half-life increasing, and passing through much more of the
earth's atmosphere than expected. Consider if some monstrosity from
pre-Planck-time were accelerated to insane speeds through post-Planck-
time space, and it's half-life were extended by a factor of millions
or billions.

I would expect that such phenomena could cause streams of matter,
tendril-like, or cobweb-like, that would show up throughout the
universe. I admit that this is an explanation, not a prediction.
Knowing there are these "Fingers of God" out there, I sought an
explanation, and I think this one makes some sense, even though it may
seem a little fantastical.

Jonathan Doolin

On Jul 21, 7:46*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 21, 4:10*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:



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 * * * * * * * *

Yes, I would like to consider *a model of the Universe as an explosion
expanding into pre-existing, fixed space!

"Towards versus away from the explosion" actually becomes pretty
counter-intuitive in the model. *If every particle follows an
unaccelerated path then every particle, in its own reference frame, is
AT the center of the explosion.

However, if a particle accelerates in one direction, then it is a bit
counterintuitive. *If you were to accelerate forward, then an event in
your future, would move backward. *But an event in the past--for
instance, the big bang, would move to your forward. *So whatever
acceleration you perform, it causes the center of the explosion to
move in the opposite direction from what you would expect.

My own hypothesis is that most of the structure of the universe is
leftover from early Brownian Motion, in, perhaps the first couple of
Planck Times, perhaps thereafter. *This is almost pure conjecture, but
I think that if super-massive particles were accelerated by collision
out of their original reference frame, they could have flown through a
fairly large region, leaving chaos in their wake. *For instance,
matter momentarily accelerated by the passing high-gravity particle
begins to swirl and form into galaxies.

*A modern day example of a particle outside its frame, would be the
muon's half-life increasing, and passing through much more of the
earth's atmosphere than expected. *Consider if some monstrosity from
pre-Planck-time were accelerated to insane speeds through post-Planck-
time space, and it's half-life were extended by a factor of millions
or billions.

I would expect that such phenomena could cause streams of matter,
tendril-like, or cobweb-like, that would show up throughout the
universe. *I admit that this is an explanation, not a prediction.
Knowing there are these "Fingers of God" out there, I sought an
explanation, and I think this one makes some sense, even though it may
seem a little fantastical.

Jonathan Doolin

I thought maybe a little bit of ASCII art might help this
explanation: In the following diagrams, the * represents the big bang
event. The edge diagonal lines are the speed of light. Event a is
the event where a particle is struck, accelerating by a change in
rapidity of 100. (Using rapidity to keep the math linear.)

Frame A: particle is stationary then is struck by a force which
accelerates it to rapidity = 100

\ / /
\ a/ /
\ | /
*



Frame B: particle is moving with rapidity=-50, then is struck by a
force which accelerates it to rapidity 50

\ / /
\ / /
\ / /
a\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
*


Frame C: Particle is moving with rapidity = -100, then is struck by a
force which accelerates it to rapidity = 0.
\ |
\ |
\|
a\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ /
\ /
*

Frame A describes a very short period of time; perhaps the Planck Time
or less. Frame C could show a significant history of the universe,
depending on the accleration involved.

In between, with frame B is a very hot and dense era. You can see the
possibility that a super-particle with a very short half-life could
travel at nearly the speed of light through a long distance of very
dense material.

Dear Johnathan Doolin:

On Jul 21, 5:46*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
....
Yes, I would like to consider *a model of the
Universe as an explosion expanding into
pre-existing, fixed space!

There appears to be no unique center:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
There appears to be no pre-existing space
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#XIN
(... and if there were, how could mass "curve" it?)

"Towards versus away from the explosion"
actually becomes pretty counter-intuitive in the
model. *If every particle follows an unaccelerated
path then every particle, in its own reference frame,
is AT the center of the explosion.

Not possible with a fixed space.

However, if a particle accelerates in one direction,
then it is a bit counterintuitive. *If you were to
accelerate forward, then an event in your future,
would move backward. *But an event in the
past--for instance, the big bang, would move to
your forward. *So whatever acceleration you
perform, it causes the center of the explosion to
move in the opposite direction from what you
would expect.

No. You are talking about moving yet-to-be encountered interactions.
And we can see no center. There is no "smoking remains" in any
direction we can see.

My own hypothesis is that most of the structure
of the universe is leftover from early Brownian
Motion, in, perhaps the first couple of Planck Times,
perhaps thereafter. *This is almost pure conjecture,
but I think that if super-massive particles were
accelerated by collision out of their original reference
frame, they could have flown through a fairly large
region, leaving chaos in their wake. *For instance,
matter momentarily accelerated by the passing
high-gravity particle begins to swirl and form into
galaxies.

Except for your belief in pre-existing empty space, and your belief in
an explosion, this is not significantly different from the standard
model of cosmology.

*A modern day example of a particle outside its
frame, would be the muon's half-life increasing,
and passing through much more of the earth's
atmosphere than expected. *Consider if some
monstrosity from pre-Planck-time were accelerated
to insane speeds through post-Planck-time space,

.... accelerated by... what?

and it's half-life were extended by a factor of millions
or billions.

Nothing new to the particle, however.

I would expect that such phenomena could cause
streams of matter, tendril-like, or cobweb-like, that
would show up throughout the universe. *I admit that
this is an explanation, not a prediction. Knowing
there are these "Fingers of God" out there, I sought an
explanation, and I think this one makes some sense,
even though it may seem a little fantastical.

Just unsupported by observation is all.

David A. Smith

Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 21, 7:05*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 19, wrote:
On Jul 18, 1:42*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
....
*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."

None of which says "stationary". None of which speaks to
distribution / density variations in-the-large.

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.

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.

If that is what got you these clear misunderstandings, and
difficulties in comprehension, is it any wonder it was "ignored"? We
keep trying to bring your eyes back to the heavens, for the
observations to be had, yet you focus on your internal models
instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model
.... it clearly was not ignored, and is in fact discussed as a place in
the "terrain" between knowing nothing and the very little we still
know and guess at today. It is a place that must be left, in order to
see all that can be seen.

Nature is showing us the truth, not always clearly. But broken
models, when retained, only serve to blind us to the facts that broke
them.

We've got a fellow in s.p.r. that can't get past the works of Einstein
in 1905. Are you so stuck on Milne in 1935? Nature has taken him out
too...

David A. Smith

On Jul 22, 12:05*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 21, 7:05*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:





On Jul 19, wrote:
On Jul 18, 1:42*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
...
*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."

None of which says "stationary". *None of which speaks to
distribution / density variations in-the-large.





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.

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.

If that is what got you these clear misunderstandings, and
difficulties in comprehension, is it any wonder it was "ignored"? *We
keep trying to bring your eyes back to the heavens, for the
observations to be had, yet you focus on your internal models
instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model
... it clearly was not ignored, and is in fact discussed as a place in
the "terrain" between knowing nothing and the very little we still
know and guess at today. *It is a place that must be left, in order to
see all that can be seen.

Here. Let me quote the Wikipedia article to you:
"Besides lacking the capability of describing matter Milne's universe
is also incompatible with certain cosmological observations, in
particular it makes no prediction of the cosmic microwave background
radiation."

....and now let me quote Arthur Milne:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ilne_Model.jpg

"The particles near the boundary tend toward invisibility as seen by
the central observer and fade into a continuous background of finite
intensity."

To say that Milne's universe, "in particular, makes no predictionof
the cosmic microwave background radiation" is an out and out lie.


Nature is showing us the truth, not always clearly. *But broken
models, when retained, only serve to blind us to the facts that broke
them.

We've got a fellow in s.p.r. that can't get past the works of Einstein
in 1905. *Are you so stuck on Milne in 1935? *Nature has taken him out
too...

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 22, 12:05*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 21, 7:05*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:





On Jul 19, wrote:
On Jul 18, 1:42*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
...
*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."

None of which says "stationary". *None of which speaks to
distribution / density variations in-the-large.


No? If not, then why is there never consideration of the distribution/
density variation which is consistent with Special Relativity? Why do
we not consider a density which is the smallest in the center, where
the galaxies are comoving, and density increasing toward infinity as
you move out toward the region where galaxies are, relative to us,
moving near the speed of light?

Can you give me a meaningful reason that this is never considered,
anywhere, in the popular texts? As far as I know, only Milne and
Epstein have published it, and these texts are indeed maligned by the
proponents of the standard model--but to my knowledge, no honest
criticism has ever found fault with them.





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.

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.

If that is what got you these clear misunderstandings, and
difficulties in comprehension, is it any wonder it was "ignored"? *We
keep trying to bring your eyes back to the heavens, for the
observations to be had, yet you focus on your internal models
instead...


Yes, it is a wonder why it was ignored. Your contemptuous attitude
toward Milne and myself still do not amount to an honest criticism of
the model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model
... it clearly was not ignored, and is in fact discussed as a place in
the "terrain" between knowing nothing and the very little we still
know and guess at today. *It is a place that must be left, in order to
see all that can be seen.



Yes, it was ignored. First of all, I really doubt if the Milne Model
article would be there at all if I hadn't written the original draft.
Also, if you go to the discussion page for that article, you can see
that I find the Wikipedia article to be a massive misrepresentation of
Milne's Model.

Tim Shuba notes: "A central tenet of this encyclopedia is that
content is supposed to be mainly based on reliable, secondary
sources."

Unfortunately, there are no such reliable, secondary sources for
Milne's Model. Because it was generally ignored and/or
misrepresented.

Nature is showing us the truth, not always clearly. *But broken
models, when retained, only serve to blind us to the facts that broke
them.


If you gave some example of what those facts that "broke" the Milne
model, I would be interested in hearing them. From what I can tell,
it is your assumption that the total mass of the observable universe
is finite that creates the difference between the Milne Model and your
own. But it is unfair to measure a model that admits infinite
densities, and infinite mass in the observable universe (at t=0, and
x=ct) , using quantities that come from the assumption that the mass
in the observable universe is finite.

Address some internal inconsistency of the Milne Model, or some
specific observation of nature that is incompatible with the Milne
Model, and then you have earned the right to scoff at it all you
want.

We've got a fellow in s.p.r. that can't get past the works of Einstein
in 1905. *Are you so stuck on Milne in 1935? *Nature has taken him out
too...

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


The ability of nature to kill a man does not make that man's theories
invalid.

Thanks,
Jonathan Doolin

Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 22, 10:59*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 22, wrote:
On Jul 21, 7:05*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
....
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.

If that is what got you these clear misunderstandings,
and difficulties in comprehension, is it any wonder it
was "ignored"? *We keep trying to bring your eyes
back to the heavens, for the observations to be had,
yet you focus on your internal models instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model
... it clearly was not ignored, and is in fact discussed
as a place in the "terrain" between knowing nothing
and the very little we still know and guess at today.
*It is a place that must be left, in order to see all that
can be seen.

Here. *Let me quote the Wikipedia article to you:
"Besides lacking the capability of describing matter
Milne's universe is also incompatible with certain
cosmological observations, in particular it makes no
prediction of the cosmic microwave background
radiation."

...and now let me quote Arthur Milne:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ilne_Model.jpg

"The particles near the boundary tend toward
invisibility as seen by the central observer and fade
into a continuous background of finite intensity."

To say that Milne's universe, "in particular, makes
no prediction of the cosmic microwave background
radiation" is an out and out lie.

The CMBR "temperature" has been changing with time. We have several
indications that it too has been red shifting, We have data points
clustered around 9K from just a billion or so years ago, to 25K at
very great distances. Milne's background radiation is *clearly* not
the CMBR that Nature is showing us, and the Wikipedia entry is exactly
correct on this point.

Your religious fervor nothwithstanding...

David A. Smith

On Jul 22, 11:53*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Johnathan Doolin:

On Jul 21, 5:46*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
...

Yes, I would like to consider *a model of the
Universe as an explosion expanding into
pre-existing, fixed space!

There appears to be no unique center:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
There appears to be no pre-existing spacehttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#XIN
(... and if there were, how could mass "curve" it?)

"Towards versus away from the explosion"
actually becomes pretty counter-intuitive in the
model. *If every particle follows an unaccelerated
path then every particle, in its own reference frame,
is AT the center of the explosion.

Not possible with a fixed space.


By "fixed space," I mean not stretching over time, as you would expect
in the Standard Model. However, this does not mean that you cannot
perform either a Lorentz Transformation, around any event in
spacetime.

If this was your space-time diagram of seven paths through spacetime,
performing an LT around point (0,0) so that the one on the left was
not moving would make the paths on the right move over to the right.

\ \ \ | / / /
\ \ \ | / / /
\ \ \ | / / /
\ \ \ | / / /
\\\|///
*

If instead of seven paths, we considered an infinite set of paths,
with rapidity from -infinity to infinity, and performed LT's around
the origin, we can make any path we want vertical. And in this
reference frame where a particular particle's path is vertical, it
would be AT the center of the explosion.

David, I've seen your work in topics about Special Relativity, so I
know you have a fairly good understanding of LT's. I really recommend
you set up a set of events along these paths and verify what I am
saying. Use events such as (t=1,x=c) and (t=1,x=-c) to represent
events along the path of the outer edge of the universe. Perform a
Lorentz Transformation around (x=0,t=0) and see that every particle
would indeed see itself at the center of the universe.

I gather that the standard model does not allow such simplistic use of
the Lorentz Transformations on a large scale. But remember, in this
model, the scale of space is constant in time, so you CAN use the
Lorentz Transformations Equations. THAT is what I mean by "fixed
space."


However, if a particle accelerates in one direction,
then it is a bit counterintuitive. *If you were to
accelerate forward, then an event in your future,
would move backward. *But an event in the
past--for instance, the big bang, would move to
your forward. *So whatever acceleration you
perform, it causes the center of the explosion to
move in the opposite direction from what you
would expect.

No. *You are talking about moving yet-to-be encountered interactions.
And we can see no center. *There is no "smoking remains" in any
direction we can see.


Yes, we see the remains of the explosion. The earth under your feet,
the sun, the Milky Way Galaxy.

You are thinking of an explosion that happens in the distance, and you
are looking at it from afar. From that explosion, stuff moves toward
you, and hits you, and leaves smoking remains in the distance. But if
you ARE the matter in the explosion that's not the way you see it.
What you see instead is yourself, stationary, while everything else
moves away from you.

My own hypothesis is that most of the structure
of the universe is leftover from early Brownian
Motion, in, perhaps the first couple of Planck Times,
perhaps thereafter. *This is almost pure conjecture,
but I think that if super-massive particles were
accelerated by collision out of their original reference
frame, they could have flown through a fairly large
region, leaving chaos in their wake. *For instance,
matter momentarily accelerated by the passing
high-gravity particle begins to swirl and form into
galaxies.

Except for your belief in pre-existing empty space, and your belief in
an explosion, this is not significantly different from the standard
model of cosmology.


Well, good. I would hope that this model is similar enough to the
standard model to predict, for the most part, the same observations.

*A modern day example of a particle outside its
frame, would be the muon's half-life increasing,
and passing through much more of the earth's
atmosphere than expected. *Consider if some
monstrosity from pre-Planck-time were accelerated
to insane speeds through post-Planck-time space,

... accelerated by... what?


One possibility is simple thermal collisions. A second possibility is
that a decay reaction of an even larger particle could send out two or
more particles in opposite directions.

and it's half-life were extended by a factor of millions
or billions.

Nothing new to the particle, however.


Hmmm?

I would expect that such phenomena could cause
streams of matter, tendril-like, or cobweb-like, that
would show up throughout the universe. *I admit that
this is an explanation, not a prediction. *Knowing
there are these "Fingers of God" out there, I sought an
explanation, and I think this one makes some sense,
even though it may seem a little fantastical.

Just unsupported by observation is all.

David A. Smith

I don't understand what you mean by "unsupported by observation". I
believe the large scale structure of the universe is well known to be
tendril-like or cobweb-like:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ta/lssf.html

Jonathan Doolin

On Jul 22, 3:00*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 22, 10:59*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:



On Jul 22, wrote:
On Jul 21, 7:05*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
...
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.

If that is what got you these clear misunderstandings,
and difficulties in comprehension, is it any wonder it
was "ignored"? *We keep trying to bring your eyes
back to the heavens, for the observations to be had,
yet you focus on your internal models instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model
... it clearly was not ignored, and is in fact discussed
as a place in the "terrain" between knowing nothing
and the very little we still know and guess at today.
*It is a place that must be left, in order to see all that
can be seen.

Here. *Let me quote the Wikipedia article to you:
"Besides lacking the capability of describing matter
Milne's universe is also incompatible with certain
cosmological observations, in particular it makes no
prediction of the cosmic microwave background
radiation."

...and now let me quote Arthur Milne:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ilne_Model.jpg

"The particles near the boundary tend toward
invisibility as seen by the central observer and fade
into a continuous background of finite intensity."

To say that Milne's universe, "in particular, makes
no prediction of the cosmic microwave background
radiation" is an out and out lie.

The CMBR "temperature" has been changing with time. *We have several
indications that it too has been red shifting, We have data points
clustered around 9K from just a billion or so years ago, to 25K at
very great distances. *Milne's background radiation is *clearly* not
the CMBR that Nature is showing us, and the Wikipedia entry is exactly
correct on this point.

Your religious fervor nothwithstanding...

David A. Smith

There's nothing in Milne's description that suggests the background
radiation's should stay at a constant frequency--only that it would
have a finite intensity.

If you were in a section of the universe that had just cooled below
3000 K, then that background radiation would appear at a frequency
resembling 3000 K. It would be from the gas nearest you, which would
be almost comoving. As you wait a thousand years, the gas in your
immediate environment cools enough to see through, but there would be
gas nearly 1000 light years away which would just be cooling to 3000
K. However, that gas is traveling relativistically, and maybe Gamma ~
10. So it will appear to 10 times cooler.

Wait another few billion years, and you'll be able to see through that
gas. The gas that is now just cooling to 3000 K has a gamma factor of
about 1100. So the color of the light resembles about 2.73 Kelvin +/- .
0035.

So, yes, if you would take it seriously, and were honest with Milne's
Model, you should realize that the model is consistent with the
observations that you brought up. In fact, you would have predicted
the observations you bring up.

But in Milne's time, I doubt he spent a lot of time thinking about
that. Put yourself in his shoes--his model predicted a background of
finite intensity. He knew such a thing had never been observed,
though, and he may well have felt a bit like it was the one
troublesome bit that might have got it thrown out completely. The
lack of any evidence of the CMBR which his model predicted at the time
may well have made him doubt his own theory.

As for whether I am religious, or Milne was religious has absolutely
nothing to do with the quality of this theory. If you can find an
internal inconsistency, or some area where the model does not fit
reality, that would be a valid criticism. Also, lying and saying that
Milne's model does not predict the CMBR is not a valid criticism.

Jonathan Doolin

Dear Johnathan Doolin:

On Jul 22, 3:32*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 22, wrote:
On Jul 22, 10:59*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 22, wrote:
On Jul 21, 7:05*am, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
...
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.

If that is what got you these clear misunderstandings,
and difficulties in comprehension, is it any wonder it
was "ignored"? *We keep trying to bring your eyes
back to the heavens, for the observations to be had,
yet you focus on your internal models instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model
... it clearly was not ignored, and is in fact discussed
as a place in the "terrain" between knowing nothing
and the very little we still know and guess at today.
*It is a place that must be left, in order to see all that
can be seen.

Here. *Let me quote the Wikipedia article to you:
"Besides lacking the capability of describing matter
Milne's universe is also incompatible with certain
cosmological observations, in particular it makes no
prediction of the cosmic microwave background
radiation."

...and now let me quote Arthur Milne:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ilne_Model.jpg

"The particles near the boundary tend toward
invisibility as seen by the central observer and fade
into a continuous background of finite intensity."

To say that Milne's universe, "in particular, makes
no prediction of the cosmic microwave background
radiation" is an out and out lie.

The CMBR "temperature" has been changing with
time. *We have several indications that it too has
been red shifting, We have data points clustered
around 9K from just a billion or so years ago, to
25K at very great distances. *Milne's background
radiation is *clearly* not the CMBR that Nature is
showing us, and the Wikipedia entry is exactly
correct on this point.

Your religious fervor nothwithstanding...

There's nothing in Milne's description that suggests
the background radiation's should stay at a constant
frequency--only that it would have a finite intensity.

If you were in a section of the universe that had just
cooled below 3000 K, then that background radiation
would appear at a frequency resembling 3000 K. *It
would be from the gas nearest you, which would be
almost comoving. *As you wait a thousand years, the
gas in your immediate environment cools enough to
see through, but there would be gas nearly 1000 light
years away which would just be cooling to 3000
K. *However, that gas is traveling relativistically, and
maybe Gamma ~ 10. *So it will appear to 10 times
cooler.

Wait another few billion years, and you'll be able to
see through that gas. *The gas that is now just cooling
to 3000 K has a gamma factor of about 1100. So the
color of the light resembles about 2.73 Kelvin +/- .
0035.

So, yes, if you would take it seriously, and were honest
with Milne's Model, you should realize that the model is
consistent with the observations that you brought up. *In
fact, you would have predicted the observations you bring
up.

But in Milne's time, I doubt he spent a lot of time thinking
about that. *Put yourself in his shoes--his model predicted
a background of finite intensity. *He knew such a thing had
never been observed, though, and he may well have felt a
bit like it was the one troublesome bit that might have got
it thrown out completely. *The lack of any evidence of the
CMBR which his model predicted at the time may well
have made him doubt his own theory.

As for whether I am religious, or Milne was religious has
absolutely nothing to do with the quality of this theory. If
you can find an internal inconsistency, or some area where
the model does not fit reality, that would be a valid criticism.
*Also, lying and saying that Milne's model does not predict
the CMBR is not a valid criticism.

Milne's model does not predict / describe the CMBR we are presented
with, except in some cartoonish way. That you refuse to see that,
that you refuse to see that his theory has been considered (even
recently) and found fundamentally limited in applicability, is not my
problem. You accuse others of lying at will, and wear Milne like
armor.

It does not matter that a theory is self-consistent. Phlogiston /
caloric was self-consistent in its day. It matters how well it
describes Nature.

David A. Smith