The Oldest Light in the Universe

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
"Hagar" wrote in message
...


COBE determined that the background radiation is indeed NOT uniform, but
rather blotchy. Even though that difference is measured in fractions of
a
degree K, nonetheless it matches the "clumpiness" of galaxy cluster
distribution throughout the observable universe.

Maybe you should revisit the figures. What's the magnitude
of the "blotchiness"? I think you'll find that the background
is remarkably uniform, and that the deviations are very, very
tiny in temperature.

"Blotchy" picture link attached:
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/

"Hagar" wrote in message
...

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...
"Hagar" wrote in message
...


COBE determined that the background radiation is indeed NOT uniform,
but
rather blotchy. Even though that difference is measured in fractions
of
a
degree K, nonetheless it matches the "clumpiness" of galaxy cluster
distribution throughout the observable universe.

Maybe you should revisit the figures. What's the magnitude
of the "blotchiness"? I think you'll find that the background
is remarkably uniform, and that the deviations are very, very
tiny in temperature.

"Blotchy" picture link attached:
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/

The pictures there are lacking a legible measurement
scale that would allow their interpretation as to
actual variation magnitude.

Take a look here instead:

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/COBEimp.html

Here's a brief quote:

"There were variations in signal from the early
Universe at a level of one part in 100,000."

That's pretty small.

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
... So now, with the Hubbell, we can almost see the Big Bang?
So what exactly is stopping us, why can't we in fact see it?
If we could see it, it sure would solve a lot of arguments,
and answer a lot of questions.

Maybe we have to be at just the right distance from where the Big Bang
happened, so that the light can have all of those billions of years to get
to us?

Mark


There is no such thing as "distance from where the Big Bang happened."
The Big Bang was the origin of the Universe as a whole. The present
Universe, and every place in it, originated in the Bang. The places
have got a lot further apart since then, but none of them has any special
status; they are _all_ "where the Big Bang happened."

As for "seeing" the Big Bang, if you mean detecting the radiation from
it, we did that decades ago. The expansion of the Universe since the
Bang has reduced the frequency of the radiation to something around
the frequency in your microwave oven, IIRC.

"Anthony Buckland" wrote in message
...

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...
... So now, with the Hubbell, we can almost see the Big Bang?
So what exactly is stopping us, why can't we in fact see it?
If we could see it, it sure would solve a lot of arguments,
and answer a lot of questions.

Maybe we have to be at just the right distance from where the Big Bang
happened, so that the light can have all of those billions of years to
get to us?

Mark


There is no such thing as "distance from where the Big Bang happened."
The Big Bang was the origin of the Universe as a whole. The present
Universe, and every place in it, originated in the Bang.

Then you are saying there was not an explosion, but that the stars and
galaxies just appeared randomly out of nothingness.

Are you sure you want to do that?

What you are proposing is creationism.

I'll compromise with you:

The Big Bang was an explosion at what is today the center of the universe,
and God set off the explosion.

And before the Big Bang was a flat world that existed forever backward in
time, which became the primordial egg from which the Big Bang exploded.

We are getting to where we can almost see the Big Bang.

If we see it, maybe we will be able to see the world that existed before it.

It's only your theory that hydrogen and helium was not created in enough
quantities
this has nothing to do with if NASA has a brain or not !

you have no eveidence to prove that the age is much more than 13.7 billion
years


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" skrev i en meddelelse
...
DoubleA That data needs lots of anolizing over many years. It took me
over 45 years for me to to come up with 22 billion years(afterthe BB).
Give me a break. Reality is if NASA had any brains they would know that
hydrogen and helium have not yet been created in enough quantities in
the space time they give for shinning stars.go figure Bert


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 10117 spam-mails
Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent en gratis SPAMfighter her.

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Anthony Buckland" wrote in message
...
... There is no such thing as "distance from where the Big Bang happened."
The Big Bang was the origin of the Universe as a whole. The present
Universe, and every place in it, originated in the Bang.

Then you are saying there was not an explosion, but that the stars and
galaxies just appeared randomly out of nothingness.

Are you sure you want to do that?

What you are proposing is creationism.

....

I never said there wasn't an explosion. There was one, it was the
Big Bang, it involved the entirety of the Universe, it led to the present
state of the Universe. I'm about (see anthonybuckland.com) the last
person to be likely to propose creationism.

You're far from the first person to get hung up on the idea that the
Big Bang happened at some particular place. But if you can get past
that hangup, you may gain a richer vision of the Universe and its
history.

"Anthony Buckland" wrote in message
...

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"Anthony Buckland" wrote in message
...
... There is no such thing as "distance from where the Big Bang happened."
The Big Bang was the origin of the Universe as a whole. The present
Universe, and every place in it, originated in the Bang.

Then you are saying there was not an explosion, but that the stars and
galaxies just appeared randomly out of nothingness.

Are you sure you want to do that?

What you are proposing is creationism.

...

I never said there wasn't an explosion. There was one, it was the
Big Bang, it involved the entirety of the Universe, it led to the present
state of the Universe. I'm about (see anthonybuckland.com) the last
person to be likely to propose creationism.

You're far from the first person to get hung up on the idea that the
Big Bang happened at some particular place. But if you can get past
that hangup, you may gain a richer vision of the Universe and its
history.

Wouldn't a Big Bang that occurred all over the place have a harder time
setting itself off?

I'm thinking in our galaxy of billions of stars,and still much hydrogen
helium clouds we should see a new star being born once a week(or more)
Why not? Are they being born and the cloud is blocking out their light?
Is the cloud not dense enough? Is the cloud waiting for a shock wave of
heavy elements from a supernova blast? Less dust means less planets.
less dust might mean less stars Could the first blast that took place
the moment fusion started blasted the stars heavy elements into
space,and left most on the stars surface be the answer why our Sun has
iron . Could this iron be locked in the layer of the Sun's "convection
zone?" Could heavy elements create the surface's granular appearance(I
have a picture of the Sun's surface as I type this. Iron makes for
charge particles Sun spots are charge particles Hmmmm So I'll
theorize that the first two layers of the Sun its "photosphere" and its
"Convective" zone hold the iron of the Sun. Outward force and heavy
elements are balanced in these outer layers of the Sun.. This thought
just jumped in Iron's charged particles show they exist by producing
two mass ejections on opposite sides of the Sun,and thus sending charged
particles into space. Funny once our thinking gets started it
can go on an on. The Sun gave us life so it could see itself Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
I'm thinking in our galaxy of billions of stars,and still much hydrogen
helium clouds we should see a new star being born once a week(or more)
Why not? Are they being born and the cloud is blocking out their light?
Is the cloud not dense enough? Is the cloud waiting for a shock wave of
heavy elements from a supernova blast? Less dust means less planets.
less dust might mean less stars Could the first blast that took place
the moment fusion started blasted the stars heavy elements into
space,and left most on the stars surface be the answer why our Sun has
iron . Could this iron be locked in the layer of the Sun's "convection
zone?" Could heavy elements create the surface's granular appearance(I
have a picture of the Sun's surface as I type this. Iron makes for
charge particles Sun spots are charge particles Hmmmm So I'll
theorize that the first two layers of the Sun its "photosphere" and its
"Convective" zone hold the iron of the Sun. Outward force and heavy
elements are balanced in these outer layers of the Sun.. This thought
just jumped in Iron's charged particles show they exist by producing
two mass ejections on opposite sides of the Sun,and thus sending charged
particles into space. Funny once our thinking gets started it
can go on an on. The Sun gave us life so it could see itself Bert


BeeertBrain, before you make a complete ass of yourself, go out and purchase
this month's Scientific American. It will, hopefully (if you can read), put
your "iron on the outside of the Sun" theory to rest. By the same token, it
will enlighten you on other aspects of star formation and progression to
their final demise, things about which you seem to be totally clueless.

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
I'm thinking in our galaxy of billions of stars,and still much hydrogen
helium clouds we should see a new star being born once a week(or more)
Why not? Are they being born and the cloud is blocking out their light?


Stars have been observed in all stages of development.


Is the cloud not dense enough? Is the cloud waiting for a shock wave of
heavy elements from a supernova blast? Less dust means less planets.
less dust might mean less stars Could the first blast that took place
the moment fusion started blasted the stars heavy elements into
space,and left most on the stars surface be the answer why our Sun has
iron . Could this iron be locked in the layer of the Sun's "convection
zone?"


Iron is fairly heavy. Don't you think most of it would sink towards
the Sun's center?


Could heavy elements create the surface's granular appearance(I
have a picture of the Sun's surface as I type this. Iron makes for
charge particles Sun spots are charge particles Hmmmm So I'll
theorize that the first two layers of the Sun its "photosphere" and its
"Convective" zone hold the iron of the Sun. Outward force and heavy
elements are balanced in these outer layers of the Sun.. This thought
just jumped in Iron's charged particles show they exist by producing
two mass ejections on opposite sides of the Sun,and thus sending charged
particles into space. Funny once our thinking gets started it
can go on an on. The Sun gave us life so it could see itself Bert


The Sun also gives a lot of people melanoma!

Double-A