"In Search of the Big Bang" (brief review)

In article 0hNme.1507$Pp.168@fed1read01,
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:
LLR provides a recession measurement (and whatever distance
factors are imbeded/ignored in the analysis). Deteminations of
the Moon's period are based on observation/measurement.

Does not "observation" involve measurement?

It also involves error bars, which the paper was silent on.

The paper also gave no way to distinguish between a hubble flow
increase in the earth moon distance and a tidal force increase.

The gist of the article is that because the measured
distance to the moon is slightly larger than a
predicted value we might be seeing hubble
expansion.

Which is clearly not the same as saying hubble
expansion has been observed.

I don't agree on "clearly not the same".

Even if you assume that the increase in distance is greater than the
"standard" theory, there is no reason to assume its hubble flow rather
than any other physical phenomon, especially when the value for the
hubble paramter doesn't match the cosmological value.

Dear Greg Hennessy:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
In article 0hNme.1507$Pp.168@fed1read01,
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:
LLR provides a recession measurement (and whatever
distance factors are imbeded/ignored in the analysis).
Deteminations of the Moon's period are based on
observation/measurement.

Does not "observation" involve measurement?

It also involves error bars, which the paper was silent
on.

Good point. LLR is usually in the range of +/- 0.10 cm/year or
less. And is *compensated* to be a center-to-center measurement,
not surface to surface as some have surmised.

The paper also gave no way to distinguish between a hubble flow
increase in the earth moon distance and a tidal force increase.

Pardon me, but wasn't the *difference* between tidally driven
increase (evident in the period) and a *possible* "hubble flow"
increase distinguishing enough? That is what he spent time
deciphering, was the *difference* between the two.

The gist of the article is that because the measured
distance to the moon is slightly larger than a
predicted value we might be seeing hubble
expansion.

Which is clearly not the same as saying hubble
expansion has been observed.

I don't agree on "clearly not the same".

Even if you assume that the increase in distance is
greater than the "standard" theory, there is no
reason to assume its hubble flow rather than any
other physical phenomon, especially when the value
for the hubble paramter doesn't match the
cosmological value.

Notwithstanding tidally-driven recession, is not "hubble flow"
another physical phenomenon that is in evidence in the Universe
at large? What other candidates do we have to choose from, that
are not captured in the Moon's increasing period? Secular
increase in the density of gas between the Earth and Moon,
perhaps...

The "we didn't go to the" Loonies will be glad to hear that their
"protective shield" got a little thicker. ;)

David A. Smith

George Dishman wrote:
"EL" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip stuff anwered in other replies

We always look at compounded histories of light, and nothing is where
it seems to be now. Thus, the most outer is not expanding in the sense
of going away from us now, but rather WAS going away very long time ago
from where we came to be before we ever come to be. If what we see now
to have been going away then was coming closer later, much later that
we need a long time to realise that it is contracting, then why does
anyone persist to claim that the universe must be expanding now if we
do not even what light looks like now if it needed billions of years to
arrive to smash our numb senses?

First, there is a parallel to the concept of escape
velocity. If you through a stone in the air and
measure it over a short period, you can predict when
it will reach its maximum height or if it is moving
so fast that it will never stop. Distant galaxies
are moving away from us sufficiently fast that they
would never stop given the gravitational slowing
produced by the measured mean density of matter.
However, they would always be slowing down.

Second, when we look at galaxies closer to us, we see
light that was emitted more recently. Measurements of
Type Ia supernovae indicate that expansion in recent
times is actually greater than in the past so the
galaxies are accelerating away from us.

George, ALL the astronomical 'measurements' of galaxy velocities are
based on the assumption that c=c+v ie that since a red shift is seen,
the galaxy MUST be moving rel us. I suspect that you think that the
demise of the threads (and privately) which dealt with red shift and
BB, was that
the debunkers (Androcles, Henri etc) had been convinced of this
formula.
'Fraid not! As all times, distances (and thereby directions) inferred
from astronomical data/views depend on this erroneous assumption, we
are kidding ourselves if ANY history of the universe, and understanding
of its make-up, past, present, and future, is anything but conjecture.

As for the balloon, I was considering it as but a containing membrane-
forget the surface! When the ballonn is popped, the density of the gas
contained is not immediately equal. In a vacuum (space), the density
will ALWAYS be greater at the center- the molecules closer together. As
an analogy for BB, balloon models mean diddly when considering the
reality:
the CONTENTS. Accepting the view that the universe is homogenous and
isotropic, BB doesn't gell!

c'=c+v explains all!

Cheers
Jim G

George

[George Dishman wrote]
"EL" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip stuff anwered in other replies

We always look at compounded histories of light, and nothing is where
it seems to be now. Thus, the most outer is not expanding in the sense
of going away from us now, but rather WAS going away very long time ago
from where we came to be before we ever come to be. If what we see now
to have been going away then was coming closer later, much later that
we need a long time to realise that it is contracting, then why does
anyone persist to claim that the universe must be expanding now if we
do not even what light looks like now if it needed billions of years to
arrive to smash our numb senses?

First, there is a parallel to the concept of escape
velocity. If you through a stone in the air and
measure it over a short period, you can predict when
it will reach its maximum height or if it is moving
so fast that it will never stop. Distant galaxies
are moving away from us sufficiently fast that they
would never stop given the gravitational slowing
produced by the measured mean density of matter.
However, they would always be slowing down.

Second, when we look at galaxies closer to us, we see
light that was emitted more recently. Measurements of
Type Ia supernovae indicate that expansion in recent
times is actually greater than in the past so the
galaxies are accelerating away from us.

George
[EL]
And the conclusion IS:
WE ARE AT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE.
The big bang must have started right at the centre of the earth. :-)
Proof:
"away from US" used several times.
Thus US here are at the centre of observation, hence everything is
relative to US here and now.
It is so amazing how a moving earth in a moving solar system in a
moving galaxy is keeping its billions of years long big bang position.
Was Aristotle right all those years!
I wonder if the earth is carried by elephants or turtles too. :-)

EheheL.

[George Dishman wrote]
What is inside then is "The Past"
which of course is always increasing.
[EL]
That is a very wonderful idea, George.
Relativity has a bad effect on you my friend, take a vacation. :-)
Your wedding pictures' album has the past Inside. ;-)
The past is everywhere you look indeed because we can hardly see the
future. ;-)
I present a cube and a sphere to you and ask you what you see, then you
answer "The past".
True, they must be but that would make cubes and spheres identical from
such a perspective.
Now we are trying to be less stoned. :-)
So we put a cube in one hand and a sphere in the other and ask about
the difference.
The universe is technically infinite outside the context of the quantum
model of everything.
That is because only the quantum denies the existence of space.
Einstein (Later, a few years before he died) preferred to think of
matter expanse rather than occupying space.
Time and space were merged hypothetically while hypocritically using
separate dimensions for time and space.
I never saw any proposed unified dimension for space and time.


Well, there is a way out called "Hyperbola", but
believe me when I tell you that every mass MUST have a virtual centre,
which is not a virtual geometric coordinate.
The Big Bangers failed to realise that the cross section of the
universe must be hyperbolic to explain all their contradictions that
they did not explain. Einstein did know it but he either had not the
time or was just reluctant to argue with imbeciles shoving CMBR
empirical data in his face, so he gave up.

There are many problems with the analogy but it
is usually used only to convey the idea that
something can be finite yet unbounded. Prior to
the discovery that the expansion is accelerating,
it could be shown that a finite universe would
produce a "Big Crunch" because being closed in
space also implied being closed in time. With the
non-zero cosmological constant, that is no longer
true and any combination is possible.
[EL]
Exactly.
Any combination is possible.
A dynamic one is extremely evident.
A dynamic steady state.
Just like all cosmological structures are strikingly teaching us before
we go mentally blind.

Where is the centre of the Balloon Universe?

13.7 billion years in the past ;-)
[EL]
Are you now confusing the where with the when, shame on all those
Minkowski charts you drew. ;-)

I am confusing nothing, I gave the right answer,
you just asked the wrong question. (Spot the wink)
[EL]
Yes you wink indeed. :-)
But make no habit of protesting questions when you have no correct
answer. ;-)
The only logical concept that can have a geometrical centre anywhere is
infinity.
The universe is infinite and BOUNDED not the other way around.
The boundary is the zero-point topology that determines significance.


I do know that you are just being clever to avoid admitting that there
is no answer to such a question.

Since the centre is in the past, you have to run
time back and see which point in space was at the
centre at t=0. Since cosmological age is represented
by the radius of the balloon, your question becomes
which point on the surface is at the centre when the
radius is zero. The answer of course is all of them
or "everywhere".
[EL]
True but silly when we seek the centre of today's universe.
We cannot test an assumption's validity if you follow the consequences
of the assumption assuming its validity.
My question is that assuming that the Big Bang model was correct then
that past starting point is logically evolving as a reference to
whatever is accelerating away from that point ALL THE TIME and not just
at the instant of the bang. This implies that if there is any proposed
assumption that the universe is STILL expanding, then it must be still
expanding away from that still existing centre, WHICH IS ANY OBSERVER
ON EARTH.
Does that make sense!

Not because the universe is a 2D surface that as no volume but because
the universe is bounded and infinite rather than finite and unbounded.
Topologically speaking, only infinity can have a centre anywhere, but
where is that brave- heart who can stand tall and say that Einstein was
wrong on things and very correct on other things?

Einstein thought the universe was static which is
why he added the cosmological constant in the first
place. He was wrong and called it his 'greatest
blunder'.
[EL]
I like that, because I have a list of "blunders" to which that was the
greatest. ;-)


As I said above, we can no longer be sure. However,
the most recent best value results for Omega_total
is 1.010 +/- 0.009 which suggests it is just over 1
but I think most people expect it to be exactly 1.

The thread in question ran for
months and included hundreds of posts. You
would need to catch up a lot to follow this.
I'll try to find the subject line later if
you want to.
[EL]
No need for that, as I believe me to be the 1994 fire- starter. :-)

The main thread had the subject line "Red shift
and homogeneity", Nov 2003. I think there were
other threads around that time on the same lines
but that one had 165 messages:

http://tinyurl.com/7vax8
[EL]
I consider myself to be an authentic debunker of the BB model, sorry.
I see no physical essence in assuming all matter to originate from a
single point.
I see no physical essence in illogical contradictions of unjustified
"keeping" then "releasing" all matter from a point. My alternative
logical analysis of the zero-point topological boundary is much more
tenable and extremely consistent.
[EL]
Thank you George, I am humbly doing my best.
I believe in my work as the meaning of my life.
I hardly care to impress anyone, and I certainly do not believe in
vanity affairs.
Naturally, I must verify the consistency of my model and explain the
readings accordingly.
The big difference between the classical steady state and mine is that
there is absolutely nothing steady in my model other than the topology,
which encapsulates the dynamic structure. That is how the topologically
peripheral galaxies are always slower than any inner ones, which
renders light emitted by the said outer ones Red Shifted as received by
any inner ones as the distance increases over time. The background
microwaves are significantly constant but insignificantly variant
because of the extreme relation between the micro-scale and the
macro-scale. No significant changes can be expected within a time
window of 100,000 years.

You seem to be suggesting the CMBR could be
redshifted light from galaxies. If so, that
has been ruled out because the spectral shape
is incorrect. Galaxies aren't black body
emitters. I thought Ned Wright had a graph
showing the deviation but I can't find it at
the moment.
[EL]
Of course I do not suggest such thing at all.
In fact, I give a much more tenable reasoning for the CMBR.
Let me say for the moment that it is the everywhere background
modulations of the pulse of existence.
We cannot detect the zero-point fluctuations directly by any means, not
now and not in the future.
The best we can detect is its higher order effects when being modulated
by the steady state energy that chaotically fills the universe. No need
for assuming any big bangs that was originally dreamt by a cleric or a
man that was destined to become a priest. And God said, let there be
light......BANG.

In fact, light is a consequence of matter, not the other way around.

EL

yt56erd wrote:
yt56erd wrote:
wrote:
There always is gravity Twake. But it is nonsigular. It is spread out.
The original energy must be spread out so that its gravity won't
be so strong as to prevent the big bang expansion.
Light/energy has gravity in General Relativity.

Began as light?
The original energy couldn't be light. It would produce matter/anti
matter in
equal amounts. Matter/anti matter would be alltogether in one place
without any possibility of seperating out.

Not possible.

well dick.

what does nonsigular mean?

gravity works on mass. the original energy consisted of massless
photons. how did gravity play?

it produced matter/antimatter in almost equal amounts. your
understanding of this subject is so bad its painful.

how do you like that dick?

well how do you like it?

Nick wrote:
nothing

well dickwad. i am going to follow whereever your asslike posts appear.
you are nothing but vapourus questions. do you even know the answer to
what time it is?

go to school, graduate, get a job, get laid, get a life then try to
talk to the big boys here dickwad.

In article D5Rme.1537$Pp.1442@fed1read01,
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:
Good point. LLR is usually in the range of +/- 0.10 cm/year or
less. And is *compensated* to be a center-to-center measurement,
not surface to surface as some have surmised.

I acutally had in mind the errors in the predicted value, not the
measured value, which I'm pretty sure will be much larger.

Pardon me, but wasn't the *difference* between tidally driven
increase (evident in the period) and a *possible* "hubble flow"
increase distinguishing enough?

No, since there is no way to distinguish between them.

If you want to claim that the paper showed a *possible* hubble flow,
I'll not object much, but to claim it *observed* it is a while
different matter.

What other candidates do we have to choose from, that
are not captured in the Moon's increasing period?

The burden does not lie upon me to come up with other possible
explanations, if the author of the paper wants to claim he observed an
effect it is up to him to list all the other possible reasons, and the
reasons for excluding them.

Dear Greg Hennessy:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
In article D5Rme.1537$Pp.1442@fed1read01,
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:
....
Good point. LLR is usually in the range of +/- 0.10
cm/year or less. And is *compensated* to be a
center-to-center measurement, not surface to
surface as some have surmised.

I acutally had in mind the errors in the predicted
value, not the measured value, which I'm pretty
sure will be much larger.

The lunar recession value *I* have seen published is just a
little over one magnitude larger than its error bars. I don't
know what the error bars are on published lunar period data.

Pardon me, but wasn't the *difference* between
tidally driven increase (evident in the period) and
a *possible* "hubble flow" increase
distinguishing enough?

No, since there is no way to distinguish between
them.

The increase in the lunar period is entirely "tidally driven
increase". Subtracting this increased radius (essentially) from
the observed increase, is "distinguishing between them".

If you want to claim that the paper showed
a *possible* hubble flow, I'll not object much,

I think you give up a little easily. ;)

but to claim it *observed* it is a while
different matter.

I don't know how to soften this up much more. The paper
presents, with things overlooked not as clear as it should have
been, observations that are discrepant. The discrepancy is on
the order of the "hubble flow". Of course, the lunar recession
value *itself* is on the order of the "hubble flow".

You are right. Because it looks like a cow, doesn't mean it is a
cow. We haven't heard it "moo", yet.

What other candidates do we have to choose
from, that are not captured in the Moon's
increasing period?

The burden does not lie upon me to come up
with other possible explanations, if the author
of the paper wants to claim he observed an
effect it is up to him to list all the other
possible reasons, and the reasons for
excluding them.

I know of only the two mechanisms that would describe this
difference. "Hubble flow" and increasing density of the space
between the laser and the lunar reflectors. Gain of mass by the
Earth-Moon system would be contraindicated. The Earth-Moon
system will (be expected to) additionally be radiating gravity
waves to the Universe at large, and no doubt be receiving same.
Such would have an effect difficult to determine, without
glaciating the Earth to minimize tides, to get a calibration
curve. Of course, we have that in the tidal record...

Thanks.

We have NOT observed hubble expansion between the Earth and the
Moon. We have observed an apparent anomalous increase in the
distance between the Earth and the Moon, over and above the
tidally driven increase. The magnitude of this anomalous
increase is on the order of the "hubble flow".

Better?

David A. Smith

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
In article D5Rme.1537$Pp.1442@fed1read01,
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:
Good point. LLR is usually in the range of +/- 0.10 cm/year or
less. And is *compensated* to be a center-to-center measurement,
not surface to surface as some have surmised.

I acutally had in mind the errors in the predicted value, not the
measured value, which I'm pretty sure will be much larger.

Pardon me, but wasn't the *difference* between tidally driven
increase (evident in the period) and a *possible* "hubble flow"
increase distinguishing enough?

No, since there is no way to distinguish between them.

Greg, you and David both seem to be discussing
the discrepancy in the change of radius of the
orbit as a possible direct consequence of the
Hubble flow. I don't quite follow that. If there
was a slight radial expansion, surely it wouldn't
be progressive.

Imagine the Moon is moving perpendicularly to the
Earth-Moon line but at a speed which is marginally
too slow to maintain the orbit. In a short time,
it would move closer to the Earth. If you then add
expansion, that could just balance the inwards
motion thus what we would see would be a stable
circular orbit but at a speed fractionally slower
than would be expected for the radius.

In reality, the discrepancy would probably be less
than the accuracy of the measurement of GM for the
Earth but in principle, I don't see why you both
think there would be a resulting secular increase
of the radius.

I had a look at the paper David mentioned and it is
only cited by one other:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306091

Although much of it is beyond me, equation (63)
seems to be relevant to the discussion.

Hoping you can clue me in ...

George

"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
.....
And the conclusion IS:
WE ARE AT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE.
The big bang must have started right at the centre of the earth. :-)
Proof:
"away from US" used several times.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

"Away from us" applies everywhere.

Thus US here are at the centre of observation, hence everything is
relative to US here and now.
It is so amazing how a moving earth in a moving solar system in a
moving galaxy is keeping its billions of years long big bang position.
Was Aristotle right all those years!
I wonder if the earth is carried by elephants or turtles too. :-)