Popping The Big Bang

"Randy" wrote in message news:Xriab.56$Qy4.3208@typhoon01...
(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:VB6ab.57652$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.

David,
Your paragraph above smacks of an idea that I have carried for some
time ref gravitational red shift.
As you point out, light from the sun is red shifted more than the same
emmitted frequency on earth, and this effect may have severely screwed
astronomical observations (calculations) thus- A heavy (high gravity)
star at say 500ly distant may APPEAR to be further away than a less
massive one at 600ly (forget the figures) because its light emmission
was slowed more at source, and therefore took longer to get here. What
do you think? Of course this indicates an Actual reduction of the
velocity of the photon through a vacuum, which may not sit too well
with R.

Cheerio
Jim G

Dear Jim Greenfield:

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

Your paragraph above smacks of an idea that I have carried for some
time ref gravitational red shift.
As you point out, light from the sun is red shifted more than the same
emmitted frequency on earth, and this effect may have severely screwed
astronomical observations (calculations) thus- A heavy (high gravity)
star at say 500ly distant may APPEAR to be further away than a less
massive one at 600ly (forget the figures) because its light emmission
was slowed more at source, and therefore took longer to get here. What
do you think? Of course this indicates an Actual reduction of the
velocity of the photon through a vacuum, which may not sit too well
with R.

A lot of what we assume about the Universe is based on local observation.

The inference is that there is no evidence that physical properties have
changed significantly (say more than 3% in 13 Gy), so what we see here,
should be similar to what we see there/then.

"Large" stars have some characteristics, and extreme red shift is not one
of those. There are red giants, but the spectra indicate they are just not
hot on the surface. Extremely massive stars, don't have a spectrum, since
they are largely dark, and we only see evidence of these if they have a
companion.

As distances get great, we no longer resolve stars, but general galactic
shapes. Further still, and even the galaxies are glorified "points".

The CMBR is a body such as you describe, but it is not dense, nor
particularly massive (well...). But it *is* deeply red shifted.
Presumably because the Universe in which it was immersed was very dense.
That means our clocks in the here-and-now run faster than the clocks
there-and-then.

The velocity of light is very much a function of the local "time base".
However rather than go off on my favorite rant, I will submit that
supernovae (especially type I) occur with a particular duration from
maximum to a certain percentage of maximum intensity with time. This
duration is proportional to the red shift of the received light between 3
and 5 Gy (to within 3%). So events then, even nuclear transitions, were
more or less evenly slowed.

David A. Smith

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!
How handy is it that 'space is expanding, taking matter with it'?? Yet
I've yet to observe anything expand without energy change, or been
advised of atoms getting larger-- and they surely contain space! So
just which 'space' will you nominate to expand? Is it that within
atoms, between molecules, between stars, or galaxies? Is it all
expanding, or just what suits the BB Theory? Last crap I saw posted in
BB support had it confined to 'groups of galxies'.

So, you don't know what current theories are and to demonstrate that you are
reduced to low language. Typical


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

No.

What do they observe when they 'look beyond'?

Us, in the past.

What are the dimensions of the universe?

Bigger than you can apparently imagine.

What is it's age?

13.7 billion years give or take .5 billion.

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

No, hence the answer to number 2 above.

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

Some people like to set up straw men when they don't understand reality,
thinking knocking those straw men down makes them smart. Instead, they simply
bleat in ignorance for all to see.

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

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.

No not at all, that's not what I meant.

Your posts
generally seem well thought out and sincere. It may have been a case
of mistaken identity.

Sincere certainly ;-)

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.

George

"Ben Sisson" wrote in message
...
From the shadows, the mysterious "George Dishman"
(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially
whispered:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

(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 is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt that this systematic
manner MUST BE doppler style expansion.

Science doesn't require proof "beyond any reasonable doubt",
it accepts the most likely explanation provided that gives
predictions that match reality. However, you might also like
to consider the evidence of time stretching of supernovae
light curves:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382

Since all the tests available
to us (like stellar candle supernovas etc) are dependant on currently
unprovable assumptions that all properties of light's behavior remain
constant over the age of the universe, all the conclusions drawn from
that hang by a thread - one knock against constant light behavior and
the whole thing falls down... and potential knocks have been found.

One theory:

Light emitted from a mass is (very slightly) redshifted due to the
gravitational effect of that mass on the light emitted. This is proven
fact and not in question.

Agreed.

Gravity appears to act at the speed of light
(I didn't catch the results of that test a few months ago but I'd be
surprised if it said differently).

I think it is now widely accepted that the test was not
sufficiently sensitive due to a misunderstanding of the
interpretation of the maths.

According to BB theory the further
back in time you look the greater the density of matter would be -
however that matter is stil weilding its gravity on us. This is more
or less irrelevant until you get far enough back that the mass, and
therefore the gravity, begins to have a significant effect.

Correct, and in fact this is the primary cause of the
anisotropy in the CMBR.

At the
most extreme, at the split second the universe (acc to BB theory)
began, the density (and therefore the amount of mass) should be
extreme.

This would manifest itself as a redshift in the light that seems to
get greater the further the light had to travel (and therefore had
been emitted earlier and therefore suffered from a higher degree of
gravitation from the density of the universe when it was emitted).
That's exactly what we see.

So you are suggesting that instead of interpreting the
red-shift as due to Doppler, hence given us evidence for
expansion because things were closer together in the past,
we should see it as evidence that the universe was denser
in the past and hence things were closer together and have
since expanded reducing the density to its present value?

Hmmmmm.

insert emoticon for puzzled look, scratching bald spot

...or maybe not. :-)

Which of these do you think would be most accurate:

a) The light was emitted when the universe was denser
and is seen when it is les dense therefore there
should be a gravitational red-shift.

b) At any time in its journey, the light sees equal
mean density ahead and behind hence is unaffected.

c) Density is variable within some statistics. As the
light approaches a dense region it is blue-shifted
and as it leaves it is red-shifted. The two are
symmetrical so should cancel, but if the density
reduces during the period the light is in the region,
the red-shift will be less than the blue-shift giving
a nett blue-shift.

The only real way to decide what is predicted is to apply
the GR equations and that is beyond me. I suspect your
description and "Doppler" might even be equivalent
depending on choice of coordinates ;-)

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm

George

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

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?

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).

{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."

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

Please use arguments that apply to the
subject at hand.

petulantYou started it./petulant

;-)

(The varying redshifts do not produce the value 13.7 +/-
0.2 that is under discussion.)

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.

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.

I had just had a beer and it improved my eyesight to
the extent that I could see the stars wheeling about
without a telescope. (observation of aberration)

A theory is not 'inescapable' in the scientific method. Only in religion.

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

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.

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.

George

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

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?


{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."

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?

Please use arguments that apply to the subject at hand.

petulantYou started it./petulant

;-)

Kindergarten.

(The varying redshifts do not produce the value 13.7 +/-
0.2 that is under discussion.)

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.

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.

I had just had a beer and it improved my eyesight to
the extent that I could see the stars wheeling about
without a telescope. (observation of aberration)

Not bad!

A theory is not 'inescapable' in the scientific method. Only in
religion.

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.'

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.

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.


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

Now, can you tell me where those 'old globular clusters' went? Or will you
continue to quibble about my wording of BB age predictions?

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

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

"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.

--
CeeBee


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


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2