Popping The Big Bang

In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield

wrote
on 16 Sep 2003 21:57:39 -0700
:
roy wrote in message news:2895284.totUt5CqIz@localhost...
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

Exactly! So what we both see is an illusion (expansion et al)
Fill a room with balloons. Pop them all at once. Whence goes the
material contained there-in? Nowhere man!

Depends on the material. If the material is moist air
(from, say, human lungs) it will probably stick around.
If the material is helium it will rise up to the top of the
room and probably escape through the ventilation system.

I'm not sure how this connects with the expansion of the Universe. :-)

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics, Jim Greenfield

wrote
on 16 Sep 2003 22:19:12 -0700
:
(ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message om...
(Jim Greenfield) wrote in message . com...
But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her)

-1 steps forward is one step back.

I am standing still. I take a step back. Am I -1 meters from where I
started?

Depends.

If you face east, standing on the origin of an
arbitrary uncoordinate system, and take 1 step
back (1 m length), you are now 1m west from
that origin. With normal interpretations,
that's -1m east. However, one can just as
easily say 1m west, or change the coordinate
system.

As it is, (-1) * (-1) = (1) is consistent with
(-1) * (1) = (-1) and (1) * (-1) = (-1), and of
course (1) * (1) = (1). In fact, it's a requirement
from 0 * a = a * 0 = 0 and the distributive law:

(1) * (1) = 1
(1) * (-1) = (-1)
(1) * (1 + (-1)) = 1 + (-1) = 0

(ditto for (-1) * (1))

and

(-1) * (1) = (-1)
(-1) * (-1 + 1) = 0
(-1) * (-1) + (-1) * (1) = 0
(-1) * (-1) = - (-1) * (1) = -(-1) = (1)

Or one can treat it as a more, erm, complex problem,
using complex scale/rotations. +i is a 90 degree
counterclockwise rotation, for example. -1 is a
180 degree rotation. Two 180 degree rotations is
a 360 degree rotation -- a no-operation.

[snip for brevity]


Getting -$1 is losing $1.
Undoing losing $1 is gaining $1.

Was it you who caused the Wall Street Crash? They found their money
was only illusionary to.

Money is currently highly illusory. The bills in
one's billfold are merely token representations thereof,
acceptable by those who still trust the Government (which
is most of us :-) ). However, what money "really" is is
far from clear; we abolished the gold standard long ago,
for example (and good riddance, for a number of reasons).
Ideally, the communists would have the right idea and the
amount of money would depend on one's labor and/or one's
needs. However, there are many issues here, not the least
of which is also the idea of generating things worth more
than the raw materials going thereinto; the human body,
for instance, if rendered into its constituent elements
(mostly carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen), would probably be
worth a few bucks at most. (One hopes the body is a
corpse in that case, of course.)


If you walking to the east at -1 mph,
you are walking west at 1 mph.

Great! If I find myself tiring, I'll just reverse direction to regain
my lost energy.

KE = 1/2 m v^2. The square of a negative number is positive.

I should note that physically, walking is a fairly complex
motion. One puts one foot in front of the other, and falls
a bit. The other foot then moves in front of the first
foot, and the body rises, then falls a bit again. Over
time, this uses up energy, as the body is bobbing along,
and also the legs are being accelerated and decelerated.
To counterbalance, many will swing their arms as well.

Reversing direction won't do much, although using a
bicycle might.


-1 hours from now is 1 hour ago.

It's a given that instant did occur.

If you are walking west at 1 mph,
you were 1 mile to the east an hour ago.
If you are walking east at -1 mph,
your position in -1 hours is 1 mile to the east.

Same old presumption (you've known it too long to be an 'assumption')
BTW!!! A person walking east is separating from him going west at
2mph, or aren't we allowed to discuss them both at once, in case they
may be in 'the wrong frame of reference to suit'??

If two people are walking away from a common-point at 1 mph,
in opposite directions, they are *not* walking away from each
other at 2 mph, although the difference between 2 mph and
the actual value, 2 * sqrt(1 - (1)(1) / (c^2)), is extremely
miniscule. (c = 670616629 mph, approximately. The
multiplier is therefore about 1 - 1.1118*10^-19, with these
particular units. 1.1118 * 10^-19 mile is about
1.789*10^-15 m, or maybe about the size of a quark.)

Cheers
Jim G

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

George Dishman wrote in message
...

"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.

Funny. They were there before Hipparcos! Where did the cosmologists hide
them?

{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.

The "WMAP probe measurements of the CMBR" are not "red-shifts that vary with
distance in a systematic manner." Please use arguments that apply to the
subject at hand. (The varying redshifts do not produce the value 13.7 +/-
0.2 that is under discussion.)

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.

I like the Freudian typo you produced. I think I'll borrow it for other
posts.

"Abservation" -- combination of avert (or abscess) and observation. The
ability to avoid seeing something that contradicts one's prior conceptions.
Or the ability to forget about an observation seen earlier, if it
contradicts a new conception.

A theory is not 'inescapable' in the scientific method. Only in religion.
A theory is never the same as an observation. In this case, the observation
is a bunch of random photons of no definite origin. The conclusion of the
theory is that the age of the universe is 13.7 BY.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

(Jim Greenfield) wrote in sci.astro:


Your arrogance cable must have a kink in it! If you think that nothing
exists without YOU to observe it, the motor is screaming, and you are
headed for a cliff!
PS There were 2 rocks on a hillside before man saw them; pity you
can't stand not being the center of attention.


I didn't ask you to prove you're an utter twit and a nagging troll, but
thanks anyhow.

--
CeeBee


Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2

"Randy" wrote in message
news:lSZ9b.49$Qy4.3174@typhoon01...

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:3gS9b.55349$cj1.1895@fed1read06...


snip

Clearly nowhere near as "persuive" as yourself.


What caused "inflation"?

Poor economics.

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:mz1ab.55400$cj1.14706@fed1read06...

"Randy" wrote in message
news:lSZ9b.49$Qy4.3174@typhoon01...

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:3gS9b.55349$cj1.1895@fed1read06...


snip

Clearly nowhere near as "persuive" as yourself.


What caused "inflation"?

Poor economics.





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

"Randy" wrote in message
news:%G1ab.52$Qy4.3125@typhoon01...

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:mz1ab.55400$cj1.14706@fed1read06...

"Randy" wrote in message
news:lSZ9b.49$Qy4.3174@typhoon01...

"Chosp" wrote in message
news:3gS9b.55349$cj1.1895@fed1read06...


snip

Clearly nowhere near as "persuive" as yourself.


What caused "inflation"?

Poor economics.





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



Depends on who you talk too...

If you follow the view that the universe formed from
a singularity (Quantum Point[Mays], Chaos Point [Williams])
then the basic concept is that from that yet to be defined unified
energy form a finite amount of matter and a finite amount of
anti-matter was converted. At a very early point the matter and
anti-matter annihilated each other and there was just a bit more
matter than anti-matter so we end up with a matter based universe.

This period of annihilation is the inflationary period where the
kinetic, inertial and thermal energies were imparted into the
matter of the universe we observe today...

Randy wrote:

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.

You're better off with a popular science book then asking
on usenet if you want a generalized background info insight.

For light reading you might try Sagan's Cosmos which, despite
the anticipated complaints of some of the usual complainers
here, does give the beginner some sense of the universe.
(available at www.abebooks.com for as little as $1.58
plus shipping.)

A slightly more obscure book was put out by Oxford called
_The Great Design_ by Robert K. Adair (at the time, the
Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics at Yale.) It gets one
a bit more into the inner workings of things. (available
at www.abebooks.com for as little as $5.22 plus shipping.)

Adair writes the sorts of things that Schwan^Hrtz and a few
others completely missed in their studies.

"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? Again we must defer
to observation or experiment and the most meaningful
thing we can say is that our zero of acceleration appears
to be the general frame of the fixed stars. The
acceleration of the entire mass of the universe, defined
empirically as the acceleration of the fixed stars, seems
to establish a zero for measurements of acceleration."[1]

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, then where is the
validity of our view regarding their stationary character when
they form part of an ever expanding universe?

Well of course they're the same stars, and because they appear
to recede at the same rate in all radial directions from where
we "sit" we say we can establish a baseline of zero acceleration.

Perhaps statistically.

In the next breath, along comes Randy 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?

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.

So, Randy, if you actually get what you're asking for isn't
quite what you think the result will be. What you'll achieve
for whatever studying and research you do is sufficient
understanding to be able to ask brilliant questions while
knowing for a fact just how brilliant they actually are.

So I can recommend this book to you (and others like Schwan^Hrtz,
who have these tremendous gaps in basic knowledge) to get you
heading in the right general direction.

Best of luck in your studies (called living.)

[1] p. 104. _The Great Design_, Adair, Oxford Paperbacks, 1987
ISBN 0-19-506069-5

P.S. to Littlemanwearingbigboypants: I can hand it to you as written
by authoritative authors, but I can't make you understand it.

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:rT2ab.486044$YN5.329332@sccrnsc01...
Randy wrote:

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.

You're better off with a popular science book then asking
on usenet if you want a generalized background info insight.

Yeah, you're probably right about that, Bill. I'm duly chastised.


For light reading you might try Sagan's Cosmos which, despite
the anticipated complaints of some of the usual complainers
here, does give the beginner some sense of the universe.
(available at www.abebooks.com for as little as $1.58
plus shipping.)

With all of the new discoveries over the last decade or so, is "Cosmos"
still relevant?


A slightly more obscure book was put out by Oxford called
_The Great Design_ by Robert K. Adair (at the time, the
Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics at Yale.) It gets one
a bit more into the inner workings of things. (available
at www.abebooks.com for as little as $5.22 plus shipping.)

Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a shot.



snip

So, Randy, if you actually get what you're asking for isn't
quite what you think the result will be. What you'll achieve
for whatever studying and research you do is sufficient
understanding to be able to ask brilliant questions while
knowing for a fact just how brilliant they actually are.

Damn. I really hate not being quite sure if I've been insulted or not. LOL

I think I've found a fairly layman-friendly explanation of inflation.
Unfortunately it doesn't explain why the "vacuum energy was very large
during a brief period early in the history of the Universe", but I'm
guessing I wouldn't have the math to understand why anyway. ;-)


So I can recommend this book to you (and others like Schwan^Hrtz,
who have these tremendous gaps in basic knowledge) to get you
heading in the right general direction.

Best of luck in your studies (called living.)

Students also have professors, if I'm not mistaken.


[1] p. 104. _The Great Design_, Adair, Oxford Paperbacks, 1987
ISBN 0-19-506069-5

P.S. to Littlemanwearingbigboypants: I can hand it to you as written
by authoritative authors, but I can't make you understand it.


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

Randy wrote:

You're better off with a popular science book then asking
on usenet if you want a generalized background info insight.

Yeah, you're probably right about that, Bill. I'm duly chastised.

Naw, the presumption that you should be able to ask questions and
raise issues in forums like this one was the original premise of
usenet, so you had the right idea. The problems you encountered in
taking this approach actually lie elsewhere. Back in the days when
this was called "net.physics" you would actually have stood a
good chance of having some relevant on line tutelage.

For light reading you might try Sagan's Cosmos which, despite
the anticipated complaints of some of the usual complainers
here, does give the beginner some sense of the universe.
(available at www.abebooks.com for as little as $1.58
plus shipping.)

With all of the new discoveries over the last decade or so, is "Cosmos"
still relevant?

Sure, why not. You're not going to make your living at science,
apparently. You are looking for a good grounding and Sagan will
give you that. If you want to pursue the knowledge base even
further then any/all corrections will take care of themselves
as you expand into greater depth.

So, Randy, if you actually get what you're asking for isn't
quite what you think the result will be. What you'll achieve
for whatever studying and research you do is sufficient
understanding to be able to ask brilliant questions while
knowing for a fact just how brilliant they actually are.

Damn. I really hate not being quite sure if I've been insulted or not. LOL

You asked some good questions, no insult intended.

Best of luck in your studies (called living.)

Students also have professors, if I'm not mistaken.

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.