A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Popping The Big Bang



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 16th 03, 06:55 AM
Jim Greenfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Popping The Big Bang

"Randy" wrote in message news:lWk9b.43$Qy4.2964@typhoon01...
"Catherine Hampton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 03:46:33 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Are you trolling Greenfield? There is no edge--everywhere is the center.


I doubt he's trolling. This is a misunderstanding I've bumped into among
non-science people time and again when they're trying to understand
space-time.

My experience is that the "mental map" most people have of space-time

isn't
too different from what Newton held, although (of course) nowhere near as
sophisticated. Most people are slaves to their mental images of reality;

they
might know, but don't really accept, that space-time as a whole can't be
painted and doesn't "look" like any picture their minds can build. It

takes a
non-trivial grasp of mathematics (well past the standard high school two

years
of Algebra, one year of Geometry, and perhaps one of Trigonometry) before

a
person has the mental tools to begin to understand just how strange the
universe is.

Isn't it wonderful? Not that so few people have those tools, but that at

least
some do?


It's wonderful if you have the tools, but it's *damned* frustrating when you
don't.

I *hate* not being able to understand stuff and I have to admit I just don't
get some (or maybe even most LOL) of modern cosmology.

Many questions, but no desire for ridicule. ;-)


Observe, Randy, that the ridicule is directly proportional to the
contradictions in the opposing arguement.
Here we have Catherine, her tools in hand, come to insult and
belittle.
But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her) AND
she reserves the right to use the square root of (-1) to 'prove'
something with her magic and imaginary formula. Why not just use her
hair brush? That is just as convincing to those who refuse to swallow
this R and BB crap!!

Jim G

--
-Randy (OF+)
'Up the stairs.
Into the fire.'



  #22  
Old September 16th 03, 07:24 AM
Jim Greenfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Popping The Big Bang

roy wrote in message news:2175542.99oyr7YbeT@localhost...
Jim Greenfield wrote:

With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
the heavens.
Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago,
and can see its glory in all directions.


We are not at the centre of the universe (as far as I know) but at
the centre of cosmological expansion. Each and every point in space
is by BB a place where expansion begins and thus at a centre of
cosmological expansion. Given enough time (i believe about 15bly)
then we (Earth) would indeed become a centre of our *observable*
universe since expansion velocity at 14-15 billion light years would
be greater than C and light from those distant objects could never
reach us.

Not so those poor souls at the extremities!


Our observable universe may only be analogous in size to the whole
universe as a speck is to our own observable universe. An object at
15 billion light years distant to us is in this way not really at
the edge of the universe but only at the edge of our visible universe.
What's at the true extremities of the universe which may be much
larger than our visible universe? Nothing. It's theoretically just
empty expanded spacetime. Thus there are no observers
sitting out on the true edge looking into the inky abyss (false
vacuum if it still exists at this time).

If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly
away,


That is estimated age of the universe. Who said it represented the
distance to the edge? It may turn out that at an age of 13.7bly we
are indeed at the centre of our observable universe by now. That is
not the same thing as being at the centre of the universe at large.

the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to
'see' as far as us (half of it).
AND this doesn't take into account the fact that the material of
their home has travelled out from "The Big Bang" for 13.7 billion
years (and that's allowing light speed for matter), and then
emmitted light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7
billion years for the trip = light and mass travelling about the
universe for 27.4 by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!!


Anyone living at the edge of our observable universe has their own
observable universe of 13.7 billion years age and visible horizon
just like ours but of course they will see another vista.

So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years
away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their
view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they
look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss?


No, they may be looking at a rareified region of the universe.


Roy, about now the Big Bang Theory arguement has changed so much from
the concept of an expansion coming from a singularity, producing a
universe of a particular age, dimension and history, that the term
should be altogether scrapped!
You'll notice that supporting posters even talk in terms of infinity
(an oxymoron to BB), and their squirms to explain isotropy and
homogeneity in an expanding universe are breathtaking in the leaps of
logic.
Mind you, "logic" in the eyes of a Big Banger is the ability to jump
at will from one 'frame of reference' to another- as it is with the
DHRs
A while ago, it would have been unusual to get even a shrug from a BB
about the view out from the edge of the universe (or most likely,
screaming and supercillious abuse); now the possibility of the view
being the same as ours (thus taking the universe to infinity) is
accepted by many as a given.
(The guy in "Lord of the Ring" fought on like that with an arrow in
his heart, but he still died-- bring on a similar fate for the the
Original Theory)

Jim G
  #23  
Old September 16th 03, 12:16 PM
roy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Popping The Big Bang

Jim Greenfield wrote:



Second, and importantly, to maintain isotropy and homogeneity in an
expanding universe endows the closer to center galxies with some
form of telepathy! An expanding smoke cloud does not maintain
homogeneity- neither would an expanding universe! Simple geometry
shows the outer galaxies spreading faster, so the inner ones need a
mechanism to maintain an equal separation.....
("POP")


I don't see how you justify that. As far as I know BB argument states
that recessional effects on mass distribution will be the same for
both the observer and the observed. When we see galaxies speeding away
and "rareifying" as groups in their region the same is happenning here
to our groups. Neither place theirs or ours is special or different
in terms of recession. Expansion is, roughly speaking, a product of
hubble and distance. East or West makes no difference.

roy





Jim G


  #25  
Old September 16th 03, 07:56 PM
greywolf42
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Popping The Big Bang


George Dishman wrote in message
...

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

Any way- answer the post or shut up!


First things first:

What is it's age?


13.7 +/- 0.2 based on the WMAP probe measurements of the
CMBR:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html


Gee, how does it get globular clusters of 15-18 billion years into it?

{snip}

(Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )


Some people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend. Some
people are afraid of what we see. We still see it and it is
still there whether anyone comprehends it or not.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html


But we don't 'see' the age of the universe. What we see is some random EM
radiation. It's only popular 'theory' that converts the observation into an
'age of the universe.' It's not 'revealed truth.'

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


  #26  
Old September 16th 03, 08:51 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Popping The Big Bang


"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote in message
...

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

Any way- answer the post or shut up!


First things first:

What is it's age?


13.7 +/- 0.2 based on the WMAP probe measurements of the
CMBR:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html


Gee, how does it get globular clusters of 15-18 billion years into it?


Easy, one goes out and buys some globular clusters of 15-18 billion
years and liberally sprinkles them about, there aren't any there at
the moment.

{snip}

(Some people are afraid of the dark, and BBs and DHRs of 1/0 )


Some people are afraid of what they cannot comprehend. Some
people are afraid of what we see. We still see it and it is
still there whether anyone comprehends it or not.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html


But we don't 'see' the age of the universe. What we see is some random EM
radiation.


What we 'see', or more accurately measure, is red-shifts
that vary with distance in a systematic manner.

It's only popular 'theory' that converts the observation into an
'age of the universe.' It's not 'revealed truth.'


That's science for you, the inescapable result of applying
simple maths to abservation. Sorry it doesn't suit your
preferences.

George


  #27  
Old September 16th 03, 09:06 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Popping The Big Bang


"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message

...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

First things first:


What is it's age?


13.7 +/- 0.2 based on the WMAP probe measurements of the
CMBR:
:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html

Lets assume 13.701 for the sake of this discussion.

Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east?


(I assume "west" means in some arbitrary direction and "east"
means in the opposite direction. A being 13.7 billion light
years away is unlikely to share our definitions of east and
west.)

If we look 13.7 bly west, we might see a clump of hydrogen
and helium gas as it was 1 million years after the 'bang'
that would later become a galaxy. A being living there then
could only see 100 million light years in any direction
where they would see the CMBR that we measure, and within
that region they would see little more than clumps of gas
that would later become galaxies.


Yes! That IS what we Should see, but photos of very distant galaxies
Don't show that. We Don't see 'clumps of gas', but galaxies which may
be similar to our own.
If they were 13 b years younger, one would expect them to look
different.


They do. As several people have said, you should read
up on the subject or you will embarras yourself.

A being (called Jim) living in that galaxy 13.7 billion
years later could look east and see a clump of hydrogen
and helium gas as it was 1 million years after the 'bang'
that would later become our galaxy.

What do they observe when they 'look beyond'?


Jim would see the same as us, galaxies distributed evenly
throughout the whole region he could observe. If he looked
west he could see a patch of hydrogen and helium gas 13.7
bly away, as it was 1 million years after the 'bang', that
would later become a galaxy. That galaxy's light has not
yet reached us. A being (called Sheila) living in that
galaxy 13.7 billion years later would see the same as Jim
and us, galaxies distributed evenly throughout the whole
region she could observe. If she looked east, she would
see the patch of gas destined to become Jim's galaxy as
it was 1 million years after the 'bang', and if she
looked west, ...


STOP RIGHT HERE! Why didn't you elaborate?


The ellipsis indicates that you should continue the
sequence. I have written almost identical text three
times. You should be able to see the pattern and
repeat it as often as you like for yourself.

What are the dimensions of the universe?


Very much bigger than the patch we can see, possibly
infinite. Imagine repeating the above series of beings
seeing clumps of gas that would become galaxies containing
other beings at least billions of times.


This is Exactly My Point! I to believe the universe to be infinite--
not constricted by the boundaries and limitations of some sudden past
singular event.


Until a couple of years ago, "Big Bang" theory also said
the same. Space and time are related in GR and unless the
universe was going to collapse in a "Big Crunch", it had
to be infinite, and there wasn't enough matter to do that.

The acceleration of the expansion detected a few years ago
came as a bit of a surprise and a recent paper suggests that
it is possible for the universe to be finite without ending
in a crunch so infinite size is less certain but still quite
likely.

Has light from one side of the universe reached the other?


The universe doesn't have sides.


Sooner or later some Big Banger will go on about living on an
expanding 'membrane' similar to a balloon. That would represent the
sides I refer to here.
I agree; there are no sides because the
dimensions are infinite.
George, the concepts of infinity and BB are oxymoronic and
incompatible.


With just the observed density of matter, space in BB theory
could only be infinite in BB theory, and that has been known
since long before I joined this group many years ago. You
really should find out more about it before embarrassing
yourself with remarks like that.

George


  #29  
Old September 17th 03, 02:44 AM
Jim Greenfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Popping The Big Bang

Bill Vajk wrote in message news:LUc9b.352142$Oz4.132093@rwcrnsc54...
Jim Greenfield wrote:

snip

Any way- answer the post or shut up!
Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east?


snip

Jim,

You are not seeing the universe as it is, but rather as it was,
with distance concurrently representing time slices. Each
successively more distant sphere you look at represents how
the universe looked in successively more distant pasts.


I understand that entirely. That is what what makes the age and size
of the universe contradictary in BBT- in one breath they claim the age
as 13.7by , which is oxymoronic to that light having left that
position at that time. The age would need to be more than double, even
allowing for an expansion at light speed.

Consider that when that when some of the most distant light
was made this earth didn't yet exist. We are seeing snapshots
of many different pasts, none of which exists any longer.
And in fact, when light left the most distant, and many
even closer places, this earth didn't even exist yet, but
we have come along to intercept some of that light.


Yes

Considering a universe which folds over on itself, 13.7 bly
east and 13.7 bly west of here might be closer neighbors
than you realize.


Just when I thought that you were making sense, you come up with this
clanger!!...that the edges might be closer than the half way point!

The universe doesn't have to make sense to you. It is up to
you to make sense of the universe that is, and it is a
universe which is proving to be difficult to understand.


Yes, but it's time to try other than BB tweaking.

PS Have you seen evidence of galaxies previously calculated at, say,
1by distance, passing in front of another at 500 million? I wont be
surprised

Cheers
Jim G
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:18 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.