Popping The Big Bang

In sci.astro George Dishman wrote:

wrote in message
...

www.hypersphere.us

The effect is symmetrical at emission and reception
so should cancel, a blue shift at one and red shift
at the other. No?
George

I don't think so. Emission into any direction would produce
wavelengths for the frequecy produced. It is only at
the reception end where the transfer from one dimension to
another occurs. (assuming equal metrics) If we were actually
observing along the direction of the light, then there
would be no shift at either end.

Bjacoby
--
SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!

wrote in message
...
In sci.astro George Dishman wrote:

wrote in message
...

www.hypersphere.us

The effect is symmetrical at emission and reception
so should cancel, a blue shift at one and red shift
at the other. No?
George

I don't think so. Emission into any direction would produce
wavelengths for the frequecy produced.

The way you have drawn it, there is no unique wavelength
produced, the wavelength depends on the angle between
the tangent and chord assuming there is a single frequency.
Looking at your diagram again, would you not get different
values for the speed of light from multiplying wavelength
by frequency? Perhaps I'm not following your model.

It is only at
the reception end where the transfer from one dimension to
another occurs. (assuming equal metrics) If we were actually
observing along the direction of the light, then there
would be no shift at either end.

I think it would be helpful if you drew a detail like
figure 2 for the emitting end and consider what wavelength
and frequency would be measured by someone there. z is
defined as the ratio of the measurements at the ends since
that is effectively what we do when we compare a red-shifted
spectral line from a distant object with the same line
created in the lab.

George

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro J. Scott Miller wrote:
Jim Greenfield further bleated in ignorance:
So will a few mouthfulls of your 'raisin bread' help my ignorance? If
you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
description!

"seemed" is the operative word. My pet theory is that Red Shift is not
due to motion. There is/was no "big bang". Every way you look things
appear to be moving away because the distance shifts the light.

"Your" pet theory is an old one called "tired light". Google
on that phrase and you'll find lots of sites explaining
why the theory doesn't fit the red-shift data. You'll
also find a couple of sites trumpeting the theory.

- Randy

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote in message
...

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

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?

Up their sleeves, you never know when they might be needed again.

(Measurements are always being refined, and if events happened
within 1 billion years of t = 0 but we measure with an accuracy
of +/- 2 billion years, some proportion are expected to show
as t 0, it's just statistics).

In this case, the globular cluster ages are based *both* on observation
(the
main sequence turnoff) and upon theoretical models of stellar evolution.
Neither are based on the Hipparcos results, nor on the CMBR data. And
neither has changed substantially (to my knowledge) since the 'youthening'
of the BB universe, post-Hipparcos/CMBR. (13.7 +- 0.2)

So, what happened to those 15 to 18 billion year old globular clusters?
Or
are cosmologists just ignoring them?

I had thought your question was more rhetorical than genuine
but it seems I was mistaken ("Gee" "" ?)

In that case you would need to identify which clusters you
are thinking of or what papers gave the ages. Then we could
see what present values are. I'd be quite interested to see
what has caused the change in estimates or if they still
exceed the WMAP value.

The "WMAP probe measurements of the CMBR" are not "red-shifts that
vary
with distance in a systematic manner."

Neither are "globular clusters of 15-18 billion years".

Precisely. So why are you claiming redshift methods to address a post
that
doesn't deal with redshift measurements?

My post answered Jim's question "What is it's age?" I
was pointing out that there is more than one method that
supports the value I gave. Just because you asked "Gee,
how does it get globular clusters of 15-18 billion years
into it? " doesn't mean the thread is now devoted to
that.

What we see is radiation that matches a black-body curve
very accurately, and the age is based on the angular power
spectrum. Your tossing in the word 'random' is hardly
relevant to the discussion. I am crediting you with much
better knowledge of the subject than the cranks in the
group, so I didn't think I needed to point this out to
you, I think many of your statements are tongue-in-cheek
teasers, perhaps more for the benefit of the audience than
aimed at me.

I wasn't 'dissing' the measurements made in the CMBR. What I was pointing
out was that the resulting 'age of the universe predicted by the big bang'
that is based on those measurements is explicitly contradicted by
observation of objects 'older than the universe' contained within the
local
region.

Well your phrasing certainly made it sound as though you we
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.'

We don't 'see' the age of globular clusters either, what we see
is some EM radiation. It is only "popular theory" that turns
observations of globular clusters into an age as well.

For example, if we observe something is moving away from
us, it is an inescapable conclusion that it was closer in
the past. That follows from Newton's Laws.

If we move an object away from us, we will observe a redshift. However,
observing a redshift is not the same as 'observing something moving away.'
The redshift is an observation. The 'moving away' is the conclusion of a
theory. There is more than one way to make a 'redshift.'

I agree, but then you have to ask whether the other methods can
offer a credible alternative explanation, one that fits all the
observations.

The relationship
between the CMBR angular power spectrum and age is much
more complex, but the concept is the same.

The theoretical 'concept' is fine. It is simply contradicted by
observation. That's science.

Not quite. Assuming the cluster data is as you say, then
we have two incompatible observations, each of them with
associated uncertainties. Taking the uncertainty into
account, the ranges may overlap removing the problem.
Alternatively one must be wrong but we cannot say which
without further information. The best approach would be
to survey multiple independent values and uncertainties
and combine them appropriately to get the most likely
value. That is science IMHO.

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.

That is our best measurement at the moment, but not the
only one. There are many methods used, not all based on
the CMBR, and they give similar results.

I know of one other method -- the Hubble constant. And it does give
'similar' results. (10-15 BY IIRC the current best guess). But both
methods are contradicted by the observation of those 'too old' globular
clusters.

I'm no expert but I think I remember reading a year or so
ago a paper using measurements of white dwarfs that came
up with a lower limit in the 12Gyr range. In fact I think
it was related to globular clusters, I'll have to have a
dig around and see if I can find it again.

The direction from which they come and the spectrum are
very well defined. I take your tossing in the word 'random'
as if it had some significance to be merely playing to the
audience, for the benefit of doubters with less
knowledge of the subject.

CMBR photon directions are 'random'

I'm not sure what you mean. The resolution of WMAP tells
you very accurately (compared to COBE for example) where
each photon came from. This is neat BTW:

http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/wmap3.html

and from 'no definite source.' The
standard theoretical interpretation is fine. But it's still a theory.

So is the theory that relates observations to globular
cluster ages. We weren't around when they formed so
any age will always be an estimate derived from
observation by theory.

Now, can you tell me where those 'old globular clusters' went?

The clusters are still there, what current estimates are
for their ages is another matter, and there's no way I
could answer that without knowing which clusters you
mean. Even then, I'm not an astronomer and don't have
access to any of the subscription-based archives.

Or will you
continue to quibble about my wording of BB age predictions?

Oh, I'll certainly do that, at least as long as you
describe them in such biased terms ;-)

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote in message
...

In this case, the globular cluster ages are based *both* on observation
(the
main sequence turnoff) and upon theoretical models of stellar evolution.
Neither are based on the Hipparcos results, nor on the CMBR data. And
neither has changed substantially (to my knowledge) since the
'youthening'
of the BB universe, post-Hipparcos/CMBR. (13.7 +- 0.2)

So, what happened to those 15 to 18 billion year old globular clusters?
Or
are cosmologists just ignoring them?
snip
The theoretical 'concept' is fine. It is simply contradicted by
observation. That's science.

Not quite. Assuming the cluster data is as you say, then
we have two incompatible observations, each of them with
associated uncertainties. Taking the uncertainty into
account, the ranges may overlap removing the problem.
Alternatively one must be wrong but we cannot say which
without further information. The best approach would be
to survey multiple independent values and uncertainties
and combine them appropriately to get the most likely
value. That is science IMHO.


This looks like the sort of result you might have in mind:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0109526

The value is 15 +/- 4 Gyr but is still easily compatible with
an overal age for the universe of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.

I also came across this referring to measurements by Cowan in 1997.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...eedman6_2.html

15.2 +/- 3.7 Gyr and 13.8 +/- 3.7 Gyr are also about the range you
mention but these are for halo stars, not clusters. Again these
uncertainties are wide enough to be compatible with a cosmological
age of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.

This seems more relevant to clusters but the age lower limit is
only 12.07 Gyr. This is from 1995, before Hipparcos corrected
the distance estimates.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9509115

Also note this gives 14.6 +/- 1.7 Gyr for the clusters which they
equate to a lower limit on the age of the cosmos of 12.2 Gyr at 95%
confidence.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099

After Hipparcos you get:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704150

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704078

I know of one other method -- the Hubble constant. And it does give
'similar' results. (10-15 BY IIRC the current best guess).

You might find Ned Wright summary useful then

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

Some of these links came from that page.

.. But both
methods are contradicted by the observation of those 'too old' globular
clusters.

I'm no expert but I think I remember reading a year or so
ago a paper using measurements of white dwarfs that came
up with a lower limit in the 12Gyr range. In fact I think
it was related to globular clusters, I'll have to have a
dig around and see if I can find it again.

This is the one I remembered:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205087

It uses white dwarf cooling to get the age of M4.

Now, can you tell me where those 'old globular clusters' went?

The clusters are still there, what current estimates are
for their ages is another matter, and there's no way I
could answer that without knowing which clusters you
mean. Even then, I'm not an astronomer and don't have
access to any of the subscription-based archives.

I think this answers your question

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706128

Compare that to their earlier estimates:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099

The simple answer is that the clusters are further away than
they thought, there is no contradiction.

George

In sci.astro George Dishman wrote:

The way you have drawn it, there is no unique wavelength
produced, the wavelength depends on the angle between
the tangent and chord assuming there is a single frequency.
Looking at your diagram again, would you not get different
values for the speed of light from multiplying wavelength
by frequency? Perhaps I'm not following your model.

I think it would be helpful if you drew a detail like
figure 2 for the emitting end and consider what wavelength
and frequency would be measured by someone there. z is
defined as the ratio of the measurements at the ends since
that is effectively what we do when we compare a red-shifted
spectral line from a distant object with the same line
created in the lab.

OK, let me try again. At the source end, you have atoms
vibrating ata certain frequency giving off light. The
wavelength of which is determined by the speed of light etc.
This wavelength is measured the same in any direction from
the source including the higher dimensional directions.

But here's the catch. light heading out in any of our
three dimensions can't make it to the viewer because
space is curved and my assumption is that light doesn't
curve and follow our 3-space. I'm saying the light we
see from distant objects is actually following the
chord because that is the straight line to the object
from where we are.

Now the wavelength of the light as measured along the chord
isn't shifted at all. It's just plain old light transmission
through space. But the problem is that we as three dimensional
beings existing in our little 3-space, simply can't access
the direction of that chord in 4-space. Thus, what appears to
us in our world is a sympathetic "light" which because of the
angle our space makes with the true direction of the light,
appears to be shifted and have a longer wavelength. The speed of
light is not different. So yeah, the apparent shift DOES
depend upon the angle between the chord and the tangent
and that angle is a function of how distant the light source
is from the viewer. Of course that relationhip is only true
for objects on the surface of the hypersphere (in our 3-space).
Objects within the interior of the hypersphere could produce
large shifts without actually being that far away. I have suggested
that this just might be the situation with quasars. But I
have no real proof of that.

Bjacoby

--
SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!

In sci.astro Randy Poe wrote:

"Your" pet theory is an old one called "tired light". Google
on that phrase and you'll find lots of sites explaining
why the theory doesn't fit the red-shift data. You'll
also find a couple of sites trumpeting the theory.
- Randy

Randy,
My pet theory is NOT the old one called "tired light".
I propose NO loss of light frequency over distance. I do NOT
propose any questionable energy loss mechanisms for photons.
And yes, I did check the trumpeting while working on this. I also
checked the "tired light" debunking sites which I am pretty much
in agreement with. I do not believe photons loose energy (frequency)
while traveling space. In my theory, the red shift occurs
ONLY at the observer position and then only because the the
light is traveling at an angle with repect to our space.

Bjacoby
--
SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!

wrote in message ...
In sci.astro J. Scott Miller wrote:
Jim Greenfield further bleated in ignorance:
So will a few mouthfulls of your 'raisin bread' help my ignorance? If
you can't 'see' that the whole BBB's was proposed because the earth
'seemed' to be near the center of the universe, as every way we look
the red shift appears to show galaxies moving away, then YOU fit the
description!

"seemed" is the operative word. My pet theory is that Red Shift is not
due to motion. There is/was no "big bang". Every way you look things
appear to be moving away because the distance shifts the light.

www.hypersphere.us

bjacoby

I agree- I reckon that velocity, distance, gravity (either, or, all)
can produce red shift,(+ or -), but red shift does not automatically
indicate universal expansion, or a 'beginning of time'.

Jim G

CeeBee wrote in message .6.67...
"George Dishman" wrote in sci.astro:


My point is just that if you only respond to those
who are abusive, you get an unbalanced view of the
general tone of respondents. Your statement "all
that you can expect- obfuscation, silence, or
virulent abuse (because they have little else to
offer!)" seems to reflect that.



If I _state_ that the theory of general relativity predicts that time
travel is possible, so it must be false because we never saw people from
the future, and this under the heading "Einstein was wrong" it could well
be that people advised me to do some basic reading about it before
spouting my wisdom.

So maybe the responses could be caused by the derogatory tone of the
messages of this poster himself, who claimed that the big bang theory
stated we're in the center of the physical universe, and asked a.o. what
people at the edge saw when they looked at the edge of the universe.
And that all under the heading "popping the big bang".

Maybe he could simply have asked how the theory worked. But he didn't. And
he doesn't know how the theory works, yet made some pretty derogatory
statements about supposed flaws that were however caused by his own lack
of basic knowledge about it.

Usenet is infested with way too many trolls and kooks who believe they
hold the wisdom that science couldn't find during it's search of hundreds
of years, so some of the responses to him are quite explainable.

I will Assume here that Lorentz Contraction uses the velocity of light
in its formula to show length reduction at speed, and that this is a
very importantant fundamental of Relativity Theory.
So in the space provided, show in a billion words or less why a
submarine travelling on the surface is a different length to one below
at same speed. Good Luck!

Space here!
Jim G

wrote in message
...
In sci.astro George Dishman wrote:

The way you have drawn it, there is no unique wavelength
produced, the wavelength depends on the angle between
the tangent and chord assuming there is a single frequency.
Looking at your diagram again, would you not get different
values for the speed of light from multiplying wavelength
by frequency? Perhaps I'm not following your model.

I think it would be helpful if you drew a detail like
figure 2 for the emitting end and consider what wavelength
and frequency would be measured by someone there. z is
defined as the ratio of the measurements at the ends since
that is effectively what we do when we compare a red-shifted
spectral line from a distant object with the same line
created in the lab.

OK, let me try again. At the source end, you have atoms
vibrating ata certain frequency giving off light. The
wavelength of which is determined by the speed of light etc.
This wavelength is measured the same in any direction from
the source including the higher dimensional directions.

But here's the catch. light heading out in any of our
three dimensions can't make it to the viewer because
space is curved and my assumption is that light doesn't
curve and follow our 3-space. I'm saying the light we
see from distant objects is actually following the
chord because that is the straight line to the object
from where we are.

Now the wavelength of the light as measured along the chord
isn't shifted at all. It's just plain old light transmission
through space. But the problem is that we as three dimensional
beings existing in our little 3-space, simply can't access
the direction of that chord in 4-space. Thus, what appears to
us in our world is a sympathetic "light" which because of the
angle our space makes with the true direction of the light,
appears to be shifted and have a longer wavelength. The speed of
light is not different. So yeah, the apparent shift DOES
depend upon the angle between the chord and the tangent
and that angle is a function of how distant the light source
is from the viewer.

That's what I understood from your web page. Now
if you drew a second figure as I suggested for the
emitting end, the distance across the lab would be
very small so the difference between the wavelength
along the chord and that along the tangent would be
negligible. That supports your contention that
there would be a wavelength difference between the
ends.

However, consider how many wave crests are emitted
per second and how many are received per second.
If the length of the chord is not changing, the
numbers should be the same as there is no
suggestion of loss of crests along the line. That
suggests to me that the frequency should be the
same even though the wavelength has changed.

Of course that relationhip is only true
for objects on the surface of the hypersphere (in our 3-space).
Objects within the interior of the hypersphere could produce
large shifts without actually being that far away. I have suggested
that this just might be the situation with quasars. But I
have no real proof of that.

Multiply the wavelength by the frequency to get
the "speed of light" (perhaps a misnomer in this
hypothesis). If this product has its usual value
of c at the emitting end, what value does it
have at the receiving end for a quasar at z=5?

The bottom line is that I think you would find
that instruments sensitive to wavelength would
measure a red shift while instruments sensitive
to frequency would not. Also the speed of light
would appear to be reduced for distant objects
and would exhibit higher values of aberration.
At least these seem to be testable predictions
that your model makes IMO. What do you think?

George