Popping The Big Bang

Jim Greenfield wrote:

snip

Here I am! I even read your stuff. At least you give the appearance of
encouraging thought, even if you have entrenched ideas.
This is the link I would discuss
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html

I wrote a day or more ago that there are many possible
models. Select one you like and see if you can get the
math to work. When you get the math to work, you have
a reasonable model to discuss.

In the meantime, mainstream physics is actually a good
place to begin. BB belongs to that genre, as do many other
things. The atom is counter intuitive, why should the
rest of the universe be any different? There are a lot
of things that I haven't made complete peace with, but
I accept them on the basis that they fit into an overall
model which seems to work.

To be completely and absolutely certain about anything
in nature is, IMO, a disaster. The closed mind can't
ever hope to catch a new idea. You'll see a lot of that
around here, and more's the pity.

Hi Paul R. Mays ,
You say :
" If you follow the view that
the universe formed from a singularity ... "


The finite universe that we see today
was likely cause by
something that seems to have been a singularity ...
Effectively , it was infinity hot . Effectively .

If it were possible to gain Much more information ,
It's likely that the big bang fell
somewhere short of being a perfect singularity .

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

snip


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.

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 G

I wasn't implying that you were a kook, Jim. Please accept my apologies if
it seemed like I was.

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

"Bill Vajk" wrote in message
news:xR4ab.492004$uu5.84366@sccrnsc04...
Randy wrote:

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


snip


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.


Thanks for taking the time with me, Bill. Much appreciated.

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

(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.


Thanks again, David! As frustrating as this is to get a handle on, it's
still fascinating.

Amen.

David A. Smith



Thanks, David, for taking the time to help me out. It's much appreciated.

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

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

"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?

There is a misconception here, and it leads to the erroneous
statements which follow.

It is true that if acceleration is absolute, then we can
identify a frame of reference which has zero acceleration.
However, there are INFINITELY MANY such frames of reference,
all moving at different relative velocities.

The fact that acceleration is absolute has no bearing on
whether we can pick one of those infinitely many
unaccelerated frames as the "fixed" one.

Again we must defer
to observation or experiment

Another misstatement. The statement that "acceleration is
absolute" is connected with the physical principle that
you don't need observation to either confirm or measure
it. You make your acceleration measurements locally.

HOWEVER, we can use observation to see if there is any
thing out there which appears to be in an unaccelerated
frame.

and the most meaningful
thing we can say is that our zero of acceleration appears
to be the general frame of the fixed stars.

I can read this sentence as making that point: in looking
for an unaccelerated frame, there appears to be an "average
frame of the stars" that fits the bill. What are the
"fixed stars" though? There aren't any stars that are fixed.

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,

We aren't relying on any such thing. We can check each object
to see its state of acceleration. We don't use them to
measure ours.

We have no "concept of stationary". We have a concept of
"unaccelerated". That's different.

In the next breath, along comes Randy

Different Randy, not me.

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?

If we measure our local absolute acceleration, we can
use it to measure the acceleration of anybody else.


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.

He did? Where do you get that from? Is it the same confusion
you're showing above about the meaning of absolute
acceleration?

- Randy

Randy Poe wrote:

Bill Vajk:

"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?

There is a misconception here, and it leads to the erroneous
statements which follow.

Take it up with Adair (my article cited his text correctly and
provided references to the source.) It would appear he's still
alive and active:

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diam...orkbat-ON.html

Let me know when you've published the results of your disagreement
with him, I'll read the final version. For a couple of bucks you
might want to read the book and get the larger discussion he
propounds, especially since you disagree with it and Adair is
an acknowledged authority.

It is unreasonable for me to try to reproduce what amounts to
an entire chapter here in order to sate a nitpick or few and
I'm not up for the extensive defense his text which is correct
and speaks clearly for itself. This isn't a book review
newsgroup in any case.

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.

He did? Where do you get that from?

I don't know if you're having a memory problem or what, but as I
said we recently went through the entire aether discussion in this
newsgroup and I'm not going to resurrect all the information that
was published there.

Better yet, go read Einstein himself on the subject if you're
unaware of his writing on the subject while as much as for the
following reason as any other. Given your following statement
about the subject:

Is it the same confusion you're showing above about the meaning
of absolute acceleration?

we don't have a "discussion" in any event, but thanks anyway for
playing this game called engineering caliber physics.

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

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,

Ideas on causes of inflation are somewhat speculative,
you are just reaching the limits of current knowledge.

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

(Jim Greenfield) wrote in message . com...
(ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message om...
(Jim Greenfield) wrote in message . com...
(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?
Doing something -1 times is undoing it once.

I have a piece of rope with no knot in it. At this time, show me how
you undo said knot.

Easy! Just do nothing; your zero knots are undone.
-1 * 0 = 0

Undoing a step back once is taking a step forward.
-1 steps forward performed -1 times is 1 step.

Assumption again. You have assumed that a first step was taken in some
direction. If someone came along and saw you standing on spot B, they
have no idea whether you stepped from spot A, C or have always been
there! If no step had been taken, you couldn't untake it!

Assumes that I took a first step.

No. You can do the reverse of a step without ever having
taken a step at all.

If your'e on something!

Most people can walk backwards better when they're not
on drugs.


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.

If you don't like fiat money, use gold bars, or even cattle.
The result is the same.

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.

Nothing was said about your energy; I only was talking about
how your position had changed.

-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'??

Were talking about one person here.

See "Frames of Reference and the Barleys Tree" on sci. phys

Frames of reference are irrelevant to the argument. Re-read
the argument.


Cheers
Jim G

Perhaps you could show us a real-world justification of why
you think your answer for (-1)*(-1) is correct?

Presumption!! I did NOT give an answer, for the simple reason that one
does not exist. -1 used as other than a " 1 " is a meaningless and
non-existent entity. Therefore to multiply them is a nonsense.

Final example! Power=Current*Voltage. When you reverse the batteries
in a flashlight (one with an incandescent bulb), what happens to the
rate at which energy is used? Does it become meaningless?

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
"Randy" wrote in message
news:%G1ab.52$Qy4.3125@typhoon01...

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,

Ideas on causes of inflation are somewhat speculative,
you are just reaching the limits of current knowledge.

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