|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"Randy" wrote in message news:lSZ9b.49$Qy4.3174@typhoon01... "Chosp" wrote in message news:3gS9b.55349$cj1.1895@fed1read06... snip Clearly nowhere near as "persuive" as yourself. What caused "inflation"? Poor economics. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"Chosp" wrote in message news:mz1ab.55400$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.' |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"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... |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"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.' |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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. |
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 |