Big Bang

Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 22, 1:47*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote:
On Jul 22, wrote:
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.

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.

Then how do you get the acceleration of expansion, amazingly fast,
slowing to nearly a standstill, then acceleration of the matter in the
Universe? Where did the necessary energy come from, and how did it
get distributed so evenly?

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.

Doesn't cover the acceleration history.

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 won't waste my time performing an exercise that does not model
*this* 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."

The toy Universe you seek to describe does not fit what I see.

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.

Most of which was NOT present in the CMBR glow, so it was created
later. Perhaps in energetic quasars and supernovae similar to ones
that we can see over billions of light years.

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.

Yes, and you look back, and see the center, the place you were
accelerated from by the explosion. THERE IS NO CENTER.

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.

Except for the points I have already made, and probably more that it
diverges from...

*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.

Consider then that such a massive particle would define the background
or static "time rate", and we'd be able to detect a preferential
direction from that. As it is, our motion agrees with our motion wrt
the "CMBR rest frame", agrees with the average rest frame of the
galaxies we can see.

So your particle must have decayed before the CMBR quenched, or
perhaps not been all that massive, but either way still be outside our
Rindler horizon. Basically it no longer matters.

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

Nothing new to the particle, however.

Hmmm?

The particle's halflife does not change to the particle. Only to a
"rest" observer.

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.

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

How we got the minor variances in density that unfold into "tendrils
and cobwebs", variances that are observable in the CMBR, is not worse
than some other's guesses.

I was refering to your failure to describe gravitation, via curvature
of spacetime, which model describes expansion of space without any
other modifiers (albeit with the incorrect value). I was referring to
your ignoring that we can see no center of the Universe, such as would
be left behind by an explosion. I was referring to your ignoring that
we can see no empty space "ahead" of us in any direction, but that
there are galaxies there that are moving away with "speeds"
proportional to their distance. You have to put us in a special
place, and have a very unusual explosion, to obtain such a result.

David A. Smith

On Jul 23, 10:18*am, dlzc wrote:
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

Now you are being more reasonable.

Your statement "Milne's model does not predict / describe the CMBR we
are presented with, except in some cartoonish way." is not a lie, but
acknowledges the fact that Milne's model DOES predict the CMBR, and
then follows it with an opinion, that the prediction is "cartoonish."

Milne did *not* know the size or the age of the universe, for
instance, so he had no idea whether the background would ever be
observed or what frequency of light it would be. He probably didn't
know exactly what the surface would consist of, that it would be a
blackbody spectrum; etc. He didn't know whether the light be time-
dilated to 2.73 K or if it would be time-dilated to .0000002K, so he
didn't know if it would be ever measured. He didn't know our relative
speed so he didn't know the anisotropy would be 2.73 +/-.0035 K.

All he knew was it would definitely be a finite intensity. With the
knowledge he had at the time, that's all he predicted.

Cartoonish or not, he did predict it.

Jonathan Doolin

On Jul 23, 10:42*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Jonathan Doolin:

On Jul 22, 1:47*pm, Jonathan Doolin wrote: On Jul 22, wrote:
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


The claim is made that there is no unique center. Neither A, nor B in
the diagram can make the claim that they are at the center. They are
both equally justified. However, If you trace their motions back to
where they met, they will both agree that that event occurred at their
present positions. They will agree that that event, where they were
both together at (r=0, t=0) is at the center.

So in this way, there IS in fact a unique center, but it is an event;
not a position.



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.

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.

Then how do you get the acceleration of expansion, amazingly fast,
slowing to nearly a standstill, then acceleration of the matter in the
Universe? *Where did the necessary energy come from, and how did it
get distributed so evenly?



Using the Milne model, the overall distribution of the universe, as
measured from the initial event, r=0, t=0, is symmetrical around the
big-bang event. I would presume either an equipartition of radial
momentum, or an equipartition of rapidity of the original matter. If,
as I suggested earlier, the original matter consisted of
superparticles which underwent quantum decay, then this would be a
source for the accelerations that kept the universe from being so
perfectly uniform that it would never form galaxies.

These accelerations, if they occurred anywhere other than the origin,
(the big-bang-event) (r=0, t=0) would cause the "acceleration of
expansion" as you call it, or "inflation" as it is often referred.

I diagrammed this effect with ascii art in another post in this
thread.




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.

Doesn't cover the acceleration history.


Since I was discussing the case where "every particle follows an
unaccelerated path."

Right. Since all the LT's I suggested you do here are at (r=0, t=0)
there cannot be any acceleration history, since that would involve
accelerations at different times, t.

If you want to consider the acceleration history, you *should*
consider accelerations at later times, and verify that such later
accelerations would indeed cause "inflation" from the perspective of
the accelerated particles.

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 won't waste my time performing an exercise that does not model
*this* Universe.


I am snipping a few paragraphs, because I feel that I have addressed
most of your objections, above. Most of it focused on the "No Unique
Center" objection. There is no unique center *position*, however, all
inertial bodies should be able to trace back to a unique central
*event* where everything was close together.


Consider then that such a massive particle would define the background
or static "time rate", and we'd be able to detect a preferential
direction from that. *As it is, our motion agrees with our motion wrt
the "CMBR rest frame", agrees with the average rest frame of the
galaxies we can see.

So your particle must have decayed before the CMBR quenched, or
perhaps not been all that massive, but either way still be outside our
Rindler horizon. *Basically it no longer matters.

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

Nothing new to the particle, however.

Hmmm?

The particle's halflife does not change to the particle. *Only to a
"rest" observer.


I discussed this in the post with the ascii art. Considering the
frame B, in that diagram, I outlined the idea in more detail. Frame
B showed the frame where the particle is moving to the left with
rapidity=50, and then was struck and began moving to the right with
rapidity = 50.

I probably should have chosen larger numbers, say for instance,
rapidity = +/- a million or a billion, or 10^47. Who knows. But the
point is, that any rest frame, the particle is traveling through a
large swath of dense space, while it's half-life is extended greatly.

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.

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

How we got the minor variances in density that unfold into "tendrils
and cobwebs", variances that are observable in the CMBR, is not worse
than some other's guesses.



I was refering to your failure to describe gravitation, via curvature
of spacetime, which model describes expansion of space without any
other modifiers (albeit with the incorrect value). *

I, personally, have no explanation for gravity. Ostensibly, Milne
introduces a rationale for gravity in the latter half of Relativity,
Gravitation, and Cosmology, but I did not have the mathematical
background to follow it. For now, you can call me ignorant and
uneducated on this particular topic.

On the other hand, I don't think that the curvature of spacetime is as
universally applicable as you want to make it. "All coordinate
systems are in principle, equivalent, and the choice of a special
system is purely a question of expediency. Just as in three-
dimensional space for a problem with spherical symmetry one would use
spherical coordinates, so for example for a static metric one will
favour time-orthogonal coordinates." (Hans Stephani, General
Relativity)

If all coordinate systems are in principle, equivalent, why *not* use
a static metric to describe the universe at large? Why is this not
expedient?


I was referring to
your ignoring that we can see no center of the Universe, such as would
be left behind by an explosion.

The center of the universe, according to all non-accelerated observers
would be in their own location.

*I was referring to your ignoring that
we can see no empty space "ahead" of us in any direction, but that
there are galaxies there that are moving away with "speeds"
proportional to their distance. *

The center of the universe, according to "accelerated" observers,
should indeed be "ahead" of them. Yes, there should be a slight
decrease in density in that direction, toward the center, and then, an
increase in density as you go beyond that center. But I doubt that
such a thing would be noticed unless you were very carefully looking
for such a thing.

You have to put us in a special
place, and have a very unusual explosion, to obtain such a result.

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -



I think the explosion would quite likely be, as I said above, an
equipartition of rapidity, or an equipartition of momentum. The
kinematics of this "toy model" as you call it, should at least be
given a fair shake.

Jonathan Doolin

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.

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 * * * * * * * *

Managed to find my copy of Peebles--I'm able to make a little more
sense of it now than I did six years ago. Here is what I'm troubled
by today.

Peebles Chapter 1. "The metric tensor for a flat space time... is the
unique nonsingular spherically symmetric solution to Einstein's field
equations in the absence of any matter... This solution allows us to
postulate that a particle can move arbitrarily far from all the rest
of the matter in the universe, to regions where the matter density
makes a quite negligible contribution to Einstein's Field Equations...
But this metric tensor defines definite inertial frames for the
particle. That is, we have a solution to the field equation that
defines inertial frames arbitrarily far from the rest of the matter in
the universe: That certainly is contrary to Mach's ideas. The way
around the dilemma within general relativity theory is to add boundary
conditions to eliminate the unwanted anti-Machian solution."

Now, Einstein adopted, as Mach's principle, the idea that inertial
frames of reference are determined by the distribution and motion of
matter in the universe. Like myself, Milne rejected Mach's principle,
simply based on the fact that it just doesn't seem right. My inertial
frame is based on my inertia. When I look out into the stars, I see
them based on where they are related to me, but in MY frame of
reference, not some weird combination of my frame and all the other
matter in the universe. So on the face of it, I would say Mach's
Principle is false, and to eliminate the unwanted anti-Machian
solution is premature.

There isn't any logical reason to discount the Milne model. The Milne
model represents Peeble's "unwanted solution" when you reject Mach's
Principle.

In article ,
Jonathan Doolin writes:
Peebles Chapter 1. "... That is, we have a solution to the field
equation that defines inertial frames arbitrarily far from the rest
of the matter in the universe: That certainly is contrary to Mach's
ideas."

My inertial frame is based on my inertia.

Why is your frame _inertial_? It certainly isn't if you happen to be
attached to the Earth.

There isn't any logical reason to discount the Milne model.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Milne model." If it's the one you
suggested earlier, with galaxies expanding from a central point into
pre-existing space, the reason for rejection isn't that the model is
illogical, it's that it contradicts observations.

More generally, what observation do you think would differ depending
on whether Mach's principle is true or false?

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

On Aug 5, 3:39*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:
In article ,
*Jonathan Doolin writes:

Peebles Chapter 1. "... *That is, we have a solution to the field
equation that defines inertial frames arbitrarily far from the rest
of the matter in the universe: That certainly is contrary to Mach's
ideas."
* My inertial frame is based on my inertia.

Why is your frame _inertial_? *It certainly isn't if you happen to be
attached to the Earth.

There isn't any logical reason to discount the Milne model.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Milne model." *If it's the one you
suggested earlier, with galaxies expanding from a central point into
pre-existing space, the reason for rejection isn't that the model is
illogical, it's that it contradicts observations.

You and David keep repeating this mantra, that the Milne model
contradicts observations, but I hope I've made clear already that the
Milne model is consistent with the CMBR. And then the redshift of the
CMBR is on the order of 1100, with apparent temperature of 2.73 K +/-.
035 K from the dipole anisotropy.

In some surveys it appears that there are cobweb-like superstructures
of galaxies. I have already argued that none of this is inconsistent
with Milne's Model. So if you disagree, point to some specific
detail.

Also, if I understand properly, according to the Hubble Deep Field
survey, there are galaxies going out to about 12 billion light years,
at a redshift of about 6, suggesting galaxies that are traveling away
at about 0.96c.

Look at the space-time diagram below. The outermost cone represents
the big-bang, and would be the source of the CMBR. The second
outermost cone represents the region where galaxies are forming. The
vertical line towards the center represents our galaxy's timeline.

This is a very rough sketch of how Milne's model is consistent with
observations.

\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ / / /
\ \/ / /
\ \ / /
\ \/ /
\/ /
\ /
\ /



More generally, what observation do you think would differ depending
on whether Mach's principle is true or false?

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

Okay. First of all, Mach's principle is more along the line of "no
one is competent to predict what would happen." So instead of giving
an example of what Mach's an observation that would be different, let
me give examples of predictions Mach's Principle might say are "out of
bounds."

The Twin Paradox. One regularly hears of the twin paradox, where one
twin goes away and comes back, and is much younger than the stay-at-
home twin. This paradox is ultimately solved by the fact that the
traveling twin does something that the stay-at-home twin does not:
accelerate.

A fine resolution to a problem, but very rarely do we find in the
literature a description of what the traveling twin actually sees. We
do not describe in detail how the stay-at-home twin's image departs at
less than half the speed of light, and then returns superluminally.
We don't examine the fact that in the accelerating twin's reference
frame, the stay-at-home twin lurches away from him. We don't bother
having a revelation that the events associated with the stay-at-home
twin actually shot further away.

What Mach's Principle does is, it gives us permission to ignore these
profound implications of Special Relativity.

So Lorentz Transformation equations would say "Yes, all those events
have moved, from the very nearest, out to infinite distance." Mach's
Principle would say that the effects inertial frames are dependent on
the distribution of mass of the whole universe. As I've heard other
people say it, "General relativity applies globally, but Special
Relativity should only be applied locally."

What I would say is that both apply globally, but where gravitation is
concerned you've got that inverse-square distance law, so in the vast
majority of cases, you can ignore it.

In article ,
Jonathan Doolin writes:
I hope I've made clear already that the
Milne model is consistent with the CMBR.

You haven't. Why would this model predict an isotropic CMBR? Or
even any CMBR at all in directions away from the center? But that
wasn't my main objection.

Have you worked out the redshift-velocity relation for the Milne
model? Is it even isotropic? For small velocities, everything will
be linear, but what about at redshifts from 0.5 to 2?

Also, if I understand properly, according to the Hubble Deep Field
survey, there are galaxies going out to about 12 billion light years,
at a redshift of about 6, suggesting galaxies that are traveling away
at about 0.96c.

The record redshift at the moment is a bit over 6.

This is a very rough sketch of how Milne's model is consistent with
observations.

I'm afraid you need to put in some numbers. Don't forget to consider
all possible directions.

let me give examples of predictions Mach's Principle might say are
"out of bounds."

I'm afraid none of that makes any sense to me. There are certainly
written descriptions of what the "traveling twin" sees, and I don't
see how that relates to Mach's principle anyway. And special
relativity (which amounts to a prescription for coordinate
transformation) answers any question within its domain (basically any
situation where space curvature is unimportant).

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

This small section of my July 22 post bears repeating.

On Jul 22, 11:53*am, dlzc wrote:
And we can see no center. *There is no "smoking remains" in any
direction we can see.

I replied:

"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."

I wanted to repeat and stress this, because it is an extremely
important point, and I think it got buried in my lengthy response.

If you have a literal "big bang" you will not see smoking remains at
the center, because you ARE the center. What you will see instead is
calm at the center, where the particles are swirling and forming into
galaxies. We are looking at the Big Bang from inside--not from
outside. At the outer edges of the big bang, there is a surface of
plasma we can see. Because this plasma is moving away from us at
nearly the speed of light, it has not aged much from the beginning of
the universe, and it is redshifted from about 3000 K to about 2.73
Kelvin.

Jonathan Doolin

On Aug 10, 1:00*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:
In article ,
*Jonathan Doolin writes:

*I hope I've made clear already that the
Milne model is consistent with the CMBR.

You haven't. *Why would this model predict an isotropic CMBR? *Or
even any CMBR at all in directions away from the center? *But that
wasn't my main objection.


If you have a literal "big bang" you will not see smoking remains at
the center, because you ARE the center. What you will see instead is
calm at the center, where the particles are swirling and forming into
galaxies. We are looking at the Big Bang from inside--not from
outside. At the outer edges of the big bang, there is a surface of
plasma we can see. Because this plasma is moving away from us at
nearly the speed of light, it has not aged much from the beginning of
the universe, and it is redshifted from about 3000 K to about 2.73
Kelvin.

You would expect isotropy because it all came from the same singular
event.


Have you worked out the redshift-velocity relation for the Milne
model? *Is it even isotropic? *For small velocities, everything will
be linear, but what about at redshifts from 0.5 to 2?


It would be isotropic or have a dipole anisotropy. It is easiest to
explain through the use of a space-time diagram--this one is similar
to the others I've drawn, and I have events labeled (*, x, a, b, n)

n
\ | /
\ | /
a\ | /
\| /
x\ /b
\ /
*

* is the big bang
n is the event we are experiencing now
a is the event we see when we look toward the near part of the CMBR
b is the event we see when we look toward the distant part of the
CMBR.

The plasma at a is receding faster than the plasma at b , and so will
appear cooler. (As David pointed out the temp of the CMBR is reducing
over time. I explained to him why this was happening--that the
visible surface is continually cooling, and revealing a faster-moving,
more time-dilated surface beneath. The more time dilation, the less
the apparent temperature. So all the way up the cone the visible
surface of the plasma is moving faster, and so the temperature will be
decreasing, and hence, the temp at event a will be less than the temp
at event b.)

As for redshifts between 0.5 and 2, I used z+1 = sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
and found that corresponds to velocities of .384c, and 0.8c, and to
gamma factors of 1.083 and 1.67. In my previous reply, I drew a
rather contorted space-time diagram where our local galaxy undergoes
many sudden unexplained relativistic accelerations. This one is
slightly different because the inner cone and outer cone are
symmetrical.

\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ / / /
\ \ / / /
\ \/ / /
\ \ / /
\ \/\ / /
\/ \/
\ /
\ /

All the accelerations are speculative. The first acceleration due to
a massive quantum decay. The second and later accelerations due to
either friction, collision, or gravity. The point I was trying to
make, though, was that because all of the particles in the universe
can be assumed to take part in such motions, this needs to be taken
into account when doing the modeling.

But for the moment, let me ignore all those accelerations to address
your question of redshifts between 0.5 and 2. There are three effects
that are of interest here. Time dilation, length contraction, and
propagation time delay. My first inclination is to say that length
contraction--which would make that region more dense (in the radial
direction) is going to somewhat cancel for time dilation and the time-
delay, which both cause us to look into an earlier time in the
universe.

I think, though, that there is a more robust means to approaching this
problem, is to model a symmetric Big Bang model by hyperbolic arcs in
space-time. For instance one hyperbolic arc represents the events
where recombination takes place. Another hyperbolic arc represents
the events where galaxies first begin to form. Rays can be drawn to
intersect those arcs to identify what we are seeing, and what we
should be seeing in every direction. Then by determining what our
position is within each hyperbolic arc, we can triangulate and
position ourselves in the universe.

Of course, we may find that the universe is not symmetrical like I've
drawn it above, but perhaps a-symmetrical, like this

\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ / / /
\ \/ / /
\ \ / /
\ \/ /
\/ /
\ /
\ /





Also, if I understand properly, according to the Hubble Deep Field
survey, there are galaxies going out to about 12 billion light years,
at a redshift of about 6, suggesting galaxies that are traveling away
at about 0.96c.

The record redshift at the moment is a bit over 6.

This is a very rough sketch of how Milne's model is consistent with
observations.

I'm afraid you need to put in some numbers. *Don't forget to consider
all possible directions.


(In my previous reply, I drew a rather contorted space-time diagram
where our local galaxy undergoes many sudden unexplained relativistic
accelerations.)

As I said, it is a very rough sketch. Even without any numbers, the
point I was trying to make was that any large acceleration along the
way has a large effect on our final view of the universe. There are
some simplifying parameters that can allow you to do a few things
without considering all directions. For instance, within a sphere,
you can recognize your final position within it using only one
direction. By looking at the CMBR dipole anisotropy we should be able
to establish our absolute position relative to the Big Bang event,
using only one direction.

After you've got that absolute position, one might be able to use some
variation on the "hyperbolic arcs" method I described above to
establish the motion of the other galaxies within the sphere.

*let me give examples of predictions Mach's Principle might say are
"out of bounds."


(I must have said something here that didn't make sense to you. Were
you unfamiliar with the idea that when you make a relativistic
acceleration toward a body, that it lurches away from you, then
appears to approach superluminally?)

I'm afraid none of that makes any sense to me. *There are certainly
written descriptions of what the "traveling twin" sees, and I don't
see how that relates to Mach's principle anyway. *And special
relativity (which amounts to a prescription for coordinate
transformation) answers any question within its domain (basically any
situation where space curvature is unimportant).

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

Are you saying, then, that as soon as gravity is involved, you no
longer apply special relativity? Are you saying that the coordinate
transformations are somehow only prescribed, "locally," in the region
where gravitation is constant, or not present at all? Where is your
"cutoff" where you no longer apply the Lorentz coordinate
transformation?

For that matter, where is your "cutoff" to stop applying the ROTATION
coordinate transformation? Is there some level of gravity where it no
longer works to turn a map in the direction you are facing? Or are you
saying that there is some absolute maximum limit to the scale of the
map, so if you draw the map so one inch equals 100 billion light
years, is rotation transformation no longer valid?


Claiming that a "prescription for coordinate transformation" is only
applicable in some undetermined "domain" is an application of Mach's
Principle. Mach's Principle says that we are not competent to
determine the nature of motion of bodies 100 billion light years from
here, so indeed, neither rotation nor Lorentz Transformation should
work.

But common sense says that if I turn 30 degrees to the left or right,
every object in the universe turns at the same angle. It is a simple
coordinate transformation.
Likewise, my relative rapidity with objects 100 billion light years
away changes just the same as my relative rapidity with the objects
right in front of me, when I accelerate toward them. Thus it will all
be subject to the same prescription for coordinate transformation.

I realizethere are 75 years of Standard Cosmology proponents who all
disagree, but they have built their science up from this foundation of
Mach's Principle--i.e. no foundation at all.

Jonathan Doolin

On Aug 10, 1:00*pm, (Steve Willner) wrote:
There are certainly
written descriptions of what the "traveling twin" sees, and I don't
see how that relates to Mach's principle anyway. * * * * *

I am looking over the article in Wikipedia on "Twin Paradox" and
either you have been reading a reference that is not in the popular
literature, or you are mistaken. Wikipedia attempts to keep to
"reliable third-party published sources."

In the article, there are three space-time diagrams, but all of them
are in the reference frame of the stationary twin. There are two
other reference frames which should be shown as well--that of the
traveling twin on his outbound journey, and that of the traveling twin
on his inbound journey. While it is possible that Wikipedia has
missed these sources you have read, I think it more likely that most
"reliable third party sources" have decided, instead of applying the
Lorentz Transformations honestly, they've fallen for this pithy
"Principle of Equivalence" hogwash, that pretends acceleration and
gravity are the same thing, and they can simulate the whole of Special
Relativity by calculating the path integral of ds^2.

The only discussion on Wikipedia of what the traveling twin "sees" is
what the traveling twin "sees" when he looks at his own clock. There
is no discussion of what the traveling twin sees if he actually
watches the stay-at-home twin. Except at one point they make the
contorted proposition that "the traveling twin may analyze the
turnaround phase as if the stay-at-home twin were freely falling in a
gravitational field and as if the traveling twin were stationary."
Whatever the results of such a contorted physics revisionism, you
still have to deal with the fact that there are basically three
inertial reference frames involved, and in those three reference
frames all the events have explicit nonambiguous locations.

If you don't take into account those explicit nonambiguous coordinate
locations as predicted by Lorentz Transformations, that means you are
REJECTING the use of Special Relativity. And what this all has to do
with Mach's Principle is that apparently, all Einstein wanted to do
once he figured out the special theory of relativity is to find some
excuse to reject its use. Mach's Principle and the Principle of
Equivalence were two means to that end.

Jonathan Doolin

Jonathan Doolin