#1
|
|||
|
|||
big bang question
I have heard it said that one piece of evidence of the big bang is that it
is dark at night. I for the life of me can't figure out why that would be, although if I recall it made sense when I fgirst read it. I may be confusing a couple things I read also |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Moos" wrote in message news:n89fe.1109$Fn1.203@trnddc03...
I have heard it said that one piece of evidence of the big bang is that it is dark at night. I for the life of me can't figure out why that would be, although if I recall it made sense when I fgirst read it. I may be confusing a couple things I read also Look up Olbers' Paradox. If the Universe were static and eternal then no matter in what direction one looked one's line of site should intersect the surface of a star, the result being that the sky should be uniformly bright, and in fact the same brightness as the surface of the average star (ouch!). The resolution of the paradox (which thus renders it non paradoxical) involves assuming a limited lifetime for the universe. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Greg Neill
writes "Dan Moos" wrote in message news:n89fe.1109$Fn1.203@trnddc03... I have heard it said that one piece of evidence of the big bang is that it is dark at night. I for the life of me can't figure out why that would be, although if I recall it made sense when I fgirst read it. I may be confusing a couple things I read also Look up Olbers' Paradox. The resolution of the paradox (which thus renders it non paradoxical) involves assuming a limited lifetime for the universe. Strictly speaking, "one resolution", not "the resolution". There are others, but they don't seem to apply because that one seems to work :-) -- Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Moos wrote:
I have heard it said that one piece of evidence of the big bang is that it is dark at night. I for the life of me can't figure out why that would be, although if I recall it made sense when I fgirst read it. I may be confusing a couple things I read also To elaborate on what the other two posters state, the paradox is rendered non paradoxical because of the finite age of the universe and the finite speed of light. Only those objects that lie roughly inside a sphere whose radius is the distance light can travel in the age of the universe have had sufficient time to send us light that we can even see. Objects outside this sphere simply have not had such time, but as the universe ages, in principle they two will come into view. In addition, a secondary solution is that as the universe has expanded, it has redshifted light produced initially in the visible part of the spectrum to wavelengths we cannot see (the ultimate example of this is the light of last scatter released into a matter-neutral universe some 300,000 to half million years after the initial expansion we today call the big bang. That radiation has been redshifted by a factor of about 1000, putting it in the microwave part of the spectrum after starting off in the red end of the visible spectrum. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Having a night sky tells us the universe is finite. Bert
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message ... Dan Having a night sky tells us the universe is finite. Bert finite in age, but not finite in size. I mean, other things seam to point out that it is finite in size, but not the night sky, right? Also, how do we use redshift to judge distance? I always thought that it only told us the speed at which something is moving towards or away from us. And since we don't know where the big bang originated, how can we use redshift to judge distance? Or am I misundertanding something? I am a creationist who is realistic about science. In other words, I believe "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" sums up about 12 billion (or whatever the current estimate is) years of universal history. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan ~ Having a night sky
Tells us the universe is finite." ~ Bert "Finite in age, But not finite in size. I mean, o Other things, too, seam to point out That size is finite in size, But not the night sky, right?" ~ Dan Moos "Dan ~ Know! No moo or doggie DNA for you." ~ Folly |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
HiDan The age and size of the universe would be much the same. If its
size is 13.5 billion Light years than it is 13,5 billion years old. However Guth had it inflating out some 2 billion LY in the BB first part of a second,and that means its size should be that much bigger than its age. The end result on universe's age and size will be my 22 billion LY It is hard to imagine in 1905 the Milky Way was what was considered the universe. Powerful telescopes made it bigger and bigger Gravity lens made it bigger and bigger,and now with giant radio telescopes my 22 billion LY size is just over the horizon. Bert |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
nightbat wrote
Dan Moos wrote: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message ... Dan Having a night sky tells us the universe is finite. Bert nightbat Yes, the disturbed portion we can observe is finite, Bert, but not to energies potential for further enlargement or total renormalization. The absence of space night light background indicates limited amount of total Universe non uniform momentum restricted to condensed energy particles and bodies under gravitational stress. Dan finite in age, but not finite in size. I mean, other things seam to point out that it is finite in size, but not the night sky, right? nightbat Not exactly, because energy has no limiting beginning time because it is eternal. Non uniform momentum without designer also could not have an beginning because you need an action to cause reaction or non uniformity. Dan Also, how do we use redshift to judge distance? I always thought that it only told us the speed at which something is moving towards or away from us. nightbat The observed red shift of cosmic body(ies) provide a present basis for their presumed shift away or distant estimation from observer's frame. If theoretically the base quantum energy space field is expanding faster in observed Universe perimeters while non-quantifibly condensing in strong gravity field factor, the expansion or red shift of the embedded space bodies is not conclusive to affirmative Universe expansion but affirmation simply to its constant renormalization attempt dynamics. The physical observed Universe is not static but in a constant flux state of attempted uniform momentum reality. Dan And since we don't know where the big bang originated, how can we use redshift to judge distance? Or am I misundertanding something? nightbat There can be no beginning Big Bang due to energy's non creation or its destructibility, I explained mathematical proof implication of this to the net science groups many years ago. Even Hawking has finally just recently understood this and reversed himself because he too after 30 years finally got it. Dan I am a creationist who is realistic about science. In other words, I believe "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" sums up about 12 billion (or whatever the current estimate is) years of universal history. nightbat If you claim you are a religious based creationist and mix disciplines you cannot be realistic about science for both theologies or subjects are not presently the same. Religion is faith based while science is empirical evidence, observation, or anchored postulate and mathematical proof based. Your religious beliefs have no barring in science, not even philosophy meritorious, further your belief in deity and creation premise is outside the purview of present science. The reference to your Creation Biblical reference is, In the beginning God purportedly said " Let there be light " and the waters of the dark firmament were separated not created, get it right. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed. You can't create something that has no origination, just designer effect transform its initial or natural property base state. Without religious designer input premise then non uniform momentum always was because for every action there is a reaction. Designer non BB but purely physical separation of waters creation or non-uniform momentum continuum, take your choice, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. ponder on, the nightbat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Moos wrote:
snip Also, how do we use redshift to judge distance? I always thought that it only told us the speed at which something is moving towards or away from us. And since we don't know where the big bang originated, how can we use redshift to judge distance? Or am I misundertanding something? Years of observation of very distant objects (say, ten Mpc or more) have shown that in general the farther away they are, the faster they appear to be receding. (Hence the notion that the universe is expanding.) It is this known trend that allows distances to be estimated from redshifts; the 'conversion factor' relating them is called the Hubble constant. As for where the big bang occurred, current theory certainly does have an answer: right here -- and everywhere else in the universe as well. -- Odysseus |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory | Br Dan Izzo | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 31st 04 02:35 AM |
is there a center to the Big Bang cosmology? | Mad Scientist | Misc | 12 | August 27th 04 12:08 AM |
ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?) | Lord Blacklight | Astronomy Misc | 56 | November 21st 03 02:45 PM |
Hypothetical astrophysics question | Matthew F Funke | Astronomy Misc | 39 | August 11th 03 03:21 AM |