|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
Jim Greenfield wrote:
snip Here I am! I even read your stuff. At least you give the appearance of encouraging thought, even if you have entrenched ideas. This is the link I would discuss http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html I wrote a day or more ago that there are many possible models. Select one you like and see if you can get the math to work. When you get the math to work, you have a reasonable model to discuss. In the meantime, mainstream physics is actually a good place to begin. BB belongs to that genre, as do many other things. The atom is counter intuitive, why should the rest of the universe be any different? There are a lot of things that I haven't made complete peace with, but I accept them on the basis that they fit into an overall model which seems to work. To be completely and absolutely certain about anything in nature is, IMO, a disaster. The closed mind can't ever hope to catch a new idea. You'll see a lot of that around here, and more's the pity. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
An Imperfect Singularity .
Hi Paul R. Mays ,
You say : " If you follow the view that the universe formed from a singularity ... " The finite universe that we see today was likely cause by something that seems to have been a singularity ... Effectively , it was infinity hot . Effectively . If it were possible to gain Much more information , It's likely that the big bang fell somewhere short of being a perfect singularity . |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message om... snip LOL...c'mon, man...that was a serious question. I'm just trying to understand this stuff....iow, I'm *not* a kook with a pet alternate theory of the nature of the universe. Me either Randy. I'm with you. But ask the hard questions of the BBs and DHR's and this is about all that you can expect- obfuscation, silence, or virulent abuse (because they have little else to offer!) Jim G I wasn't implying that you were a kook, Jim. Please accept my apologies if it seemed like I was. -- -Randy (OF+) 'Up the stairs. Into the fire.' |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"Bill Vajk" wrote in message news:xR4ab.492004$uu5.84366@sccrnsc04... Randy wrote: You're better off with a popular science book then asking on usenet if you want a generalized background info insight. snip Naw, pupils need professors, real students are always self teaching and need an occasional pointing in the right direction or a boost over some hurdle. My dad was enamored of the statement that "some learn because of their teachers, others learn despite their teachers." I think you probably belong to the later genre. Thanks for taking the time with me, Bill. Much appreciated. -- -Randy (OF+) 'Up the stairs. Into the fire.' |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:VB6ab.57652$Qy4.20049@fed1read05... Dear Randy: "Randy" wrote in message news:b8_9b.50$Qy4.3199@typhoon01... (formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:TUZ9b.57606$Qy4.2317@fed1read05... ... Every point on the surface of a balloon is equidistant from the balloon's center isn't it? This is also a common 2D (the surface of the baloon) analogy for the larger 3D case. We are on the skin, and what we see around us was received from points "further in" (in time anyway). Thanks, David. I had forgotten about that analogy. I wish I could get my mind around how it translates to 3-D, but I guess I need lots more math than I have. LOL It is not so much math here, although that would no doubt make it clearer. Try this. Imagine a series of balloons, inflating from a point. Say the ratio of radii of each "onion skin" is a constant. Now let light be emitted from any particular layer of skin, and pretend that it propagates a little more quickly than the various layers expand. The outermost layer (*now*, since we don't yet have reliable light-based information from tomorrow) would get the emitted light some long time later, from a layer that is no longer in that position. The source layer would be expanding less slowly than our layer currently, so the light would be red shifted.. That actually makes sense and supplies an answer to a question I hadn't quite been able to forum properly. As tadchem is wont to say, parables are like ropes. You can pull them a little, but you can't push them too far. One other quick question (which may show my extreme ignorance, but what the hell): If the BB started at a single point, when and how did the universe (or our portion of it) transition to what it is now? Instantly? After inflation? The current belief is that it expanded from a singularity. As if this could be what the inside of a Black Hole might be like. The "red shift" that I described above (a series of expanding balloons) is *not* truly velocity based, but more "change in gravitational potential" based. The past had a very high mass/energy density, compared to *now*. So, just as light is red shifted when generated on the Sun as compared to the same reaction *here*, the light generated *then* is red shifted as compared to *now*. I went through most of the stuff that Mr. Wormley provided, but.../shrug/...what can I say? Most of it was over my head. Heck, as a layman I think I understand quantum physics better than I understand Cosmology. LOL It is so big, and trying to understand how the Universe is "shaped" while not being able to get outside and look at it... We just aren't constructed to do that without some thought. *That* is where the math helps. You've helped tremendously. I have to admit that inflation still feels...tacked on...to BBT somehow, but I'm also guessing that if I had the math (and my one semester of calculus was 30 years ago LOL) that inflation *probably* flows naturally from what our observations of the universe tell us. Thanks again, David! As frustrating as this is to get a handle on, it's still fascinating. Amen. David A. Smith Thanks, David, for taking the time to help me out. It's much appreciated. -- -Randy (OF+) 'Up the stairs. Into the fire.' |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
Bill Vajk wrote in message news:rT2ab.486044$YN5.329332@sccrnsc01...
"If absolute acceleration exists, the state of zero acceleration must have some absolute meaning in terms of a reference system. What is the preferred frame of reference which has no acceleration? There is a misconception here, and it leads to the erroneous statements which follow. It is true that if acceleration is absolute, then we can identify a frame of reference which has zero acceleration. However, there are INFINITELY MANY such frames of reference, all moving at different relative velocities. The fact that acceleration is absolute has no bearing on whether we can pick one of those infinitely many unaccelerated frames as the "fixed" one. Again we must defer to observation or experiment Another misstatement. The statement that "acceleration is absolute" is connected with the physical principle that you don't need observation to either confirm or measure it. You make your acceleration measurements locally. HOWEVER, we can use observation to see if there is any thing out there which appears to be in an unaccelerated frame. and the most meaningful thing we can say is that our zero of acceleration appears to be the general frame of the fixed stars. I can read this sentence as making that point: in looking for an unaccelerated frame, there appears to be an "average frame of the stars" that fits the bill. What are the "fixed stars" though? There aren't any stars that are fixed. Now as you can clearly see, this is a popular (IMO) science book that does provide some food for thought. In particular, if we are relying on some distant "fixed stars" to establish a framework on which we base the concept of stationary, We aren't relying on any such thing. We can check each object to see its state of acceleration. We don't use them to measure ours. We have no "concept of stationary". We have a concept of "unaccelerated". That's different. In the next breath, along comes Randy Different Randy, not me. in this thread and raises the issue that to someone 13.? billion light years away we are accelerating at an ever increasing rate away from them......so how is it we can consider any point as not accelerating? If we measure our local absolute acceleration, we can use it to measure the acceleration of anybody else. Of course all this brings to the forefront the other recent discussion in this ng about an "aether." After all, in our example Adair (with a 1987 publication date, certainly recent enough) discusses (see above) "the general frame of the fixed stars." And too, Einstein came out in favor of some sort of framework too. He did? Where do you get that from? Is it the same confusion you're showing above about the meaning of absolute acceleration? - Randy |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
Randy Poe wrote:
Bill Vajk: "If absolute acceleration exists, the state of zero acceleration must have some absolute meaning in terms of a reference system. What is the preferred frame of reference which has no acceleration? There is a misconception here, and it leads to the erroneous statements which follow. Take it up with Adair (my article cited his text correctly and provided references to the source.) It would appear he's still alive and active: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diam...orkbat-ON.html Let me know when you've published the results of your disagreement with him, I'll read the final version. For a couple of bucks you might want to read the book and get the larger discussion he propounds, especially since you disagree with it and Adair is an acknowledged authority. It is unreasonable for me to try to reproduce what amounts to an entire chapter here in order to sate a nitpick or few and I'm not up for the extensive defense his text which is correct and speaks clearly for itself. This isn't a book review newsgroup in any case. Of course all this brings to the forefront the other recent discussion in this ng about an "aether." After all, in our example Adair (with a 1987 publication date, certainly recent enough) discusses (see above) "the general frame of the fixed stars." And too, Einstein came out in favor of some sort of framework too. He did? Where do you get that from? I don't know if you're having a memory problem or what, but as I said we recently went through the entire aether discussion in this newsgroup and I'm not going to resurrect all the information that was published there. Better yet, go read Einstein himself on the subject if you're unaware of his writing on the subject while as much as for the following reason as any other. Given your following statement about the subject: Is it the same confusion you're showing above about the meaning of absolute acceleration? we don't have a "discussion" in any event, but thanks anyway for playing this game called engineering caliber physics. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message om... "Randy" wrote in message news:%G1ab.52$Qy4.3125@typhoon01... LOL...c'mon, man...that was a serious question. I'm just trying to understand this stuff....iow, I'm *not* a kook with a pet alternate theory of the nature of the universe. Randy, Ideas on causes of inflation are somewhat speculative, you are just reaching the limits of current knowledge. Me either Randy. I'm with you. But ask the hard questions of the BBs and DHR's and this is about all that you can expect- obfuscation, silence, or virulent abuse (because they have little else to offer!) Jim, Perhaps you should ask yourself if your own attitude isn't a contributor to that. I replied to your posts civilly and you have ignored my reply. If you only respond to those that offer abuse, you will see nothing else. Best regards George |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message om... "Randy" wrote in message news:%G1ab.52$Qy4.3125@typhoon01... LOL...c'mon, man...that was a serious question. I'm just trying to understand this stuff....iow, I'm *not* a kook with a pet alternate theory of the nature of the universe. Randy, Ideas on causes of inflation are somewhat speculative, you are just reaching the limits of current knowledge. Me either Randy. I'm with you. But ask the hard questions of the BBs and DHR's and this is about all that you can expect- obfuscation, silence, or virulent abuse (because they have little else to offer!) Jim, Perhaps you should ask yourself if your own attitude isn't a contributor to that. I replied to your posts civilly and you have ignored my reply. If you only respond to those that offer abuse, you will see nothing else. Best regards George George, If I have taken that tone with you, I apologise. Your posts generally seem well thought out and sincere. It may have been a case of mistaken identity. Jim G |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Most Distant X-Ray Jet Yet Discovered Provides Clues To Big Bang | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 17th 03 04:18 PM |
alternatives to the big bang | Innes Johnson | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 8th 03 12:18 AM |
A dialogue between Mr. Big BANG and Mr. Steady STATE | Marcel Luttgens | Astronomy Misc | 12 | August 6th 03 06:15 AM |
Big bang question - Dumb perhaps | Graytown | History | 14 | August 3rd 03 09:50 PM |
One pillar down for Big Bang Theory | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 21st 03 12:27 PM |