Popping The Big Bang

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:70uab.61285$Qy4.8026@fed1read05...

... 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.

....and this last sentence supports my feeling that atomic clocks may
be altered by gravity, and are therefore inaccurate in 'real time'

Type Ia supernovae are produced when a white dwarf acretes
enough material to reach a certain threshold. It makes them
particularly useful since they detonate at a well defined
mass. There will be a small red-shift for light leaving
such an event but it will be the same for all since they all
have the same mass. The actual red-shift is proportional to
distance and much larger than could be produced by the
gravitational effect.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:70uab.61285$Qy4.8026@fed1read05...

... 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.

....and this last sentence supports my feeling that atomic clocks may
be altered by gravity, and are therefore inaccurate in 'real time'

Type Ia supernovae are produced when a white dwarf acretes
enough material to reach a certain threshold. It makes them
particularly useful since they detonate at a well defined
mass. There will be a small red-shift for light leaving
such an event but it will be the same for all since they all
have the same mass. The actual red-shift is proportional to
distance and much larger than could be produced by the
gravitational effect.

George

These white dwarfs in this scenario are undoubtably useful, so long as
the assumptions as to their distance and size are not arrived at by
'walking back the cat' of c and red-shift.
Diagrams in Prof Wright's tutorial show red-shift increasing with
distance, but this is not Doppler. An ASSUMPTION must have been made,
that the universe was expanding faster at the earlier time, which we
are viewing at large distance. Bodies must have been moving away
relative to us at higher speed closer to the time of BB.
This whole red-shift thing is very problematical! The shifts are
compared to get distance (speed?) OK? But if the very distant bodies
were designated 0, then everything closer would have a blue shift.
This would indicate "The Big Crunch" being imminent, and right about
here, but as the two positions are only based on an arbitrary base
line, both may be wrong.
I understand that the spectrums are based on observation of emmission
of radiation from different elements here, but does not comparison of
red-shift assume that we know the exact composition of all the stars?

Jim G
(for a second there, I thought I glimpsed street lights in the
distance)

Dear Jim Greenfield:

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
....
Type Ia supernovae are produced when a white dwarf acretes
enough material to reach a certain threshold. It makes them
particularly useful since they detonate at a well defined
mass. There will be a small red-shift for light leaving
such an event but it will be the same for all since they all
have the same mass. The actual red-shift is proportional to
distance and much larger than could be produced by the
gravitational effect.

Good response, George...

These white dwarfs in this scenario are undoubtably useful, so long as
the assumptions as to their distance and size are not arrived at by
'walking back the cat' of c and red-shift.
Diagrams in Prof Wright's tutorial show red-shift increasing with
distance, but this is not Doppler. An ASSUMPTION must have been made,
that the universe was expanding faster at the earlier time, which we
are viewing at large distance. Bodies must have been moving away
relative to us at higher speed closer to the time of BB.

This is not "motion away", but the "creation of new space". We have the KE
now that we had at just after the BB, and 2-300 km/sec is no great "blast".

This whole red-shift thing is very problematical! The shifts are
compared to get distance (speed?) OK? But if the very distant bodies
were designated 0, then everything closer would have a blue shift.
This would indicate "The Big Crunch" being imminent, and right about
here, but as the two positions are only based on an arbitrary base
line, both may be wrong.

0 is established as compared to the observer, not to any particular
distant/ancient formation. Another valid frame might be to establish 0 for
net zero KE wrt all the mass visible in the Universe.

I understand that the spectrums are based on observation of emmission
of radiation from different elements here, but does not comparison of
red-shift assume that we know the exact composition of all the stars?

Not the exact composition. Just needs to have some of certain elements to
make the identification easier. There are characteristic lines associated
with calcium that stand out. There may be others...

NIST publishes a list of all the various wavelengths created by all the
different atoms.

David A. Smith

"JG" == Jim Greenfield writes:

JG "George Dishman" wrote in message
JG ...

Type Ia supernovae are produced when a white dwarf acretes enough
material to reach a certain threshold. It makes them particularly
useful since they detonate at a well defined mass. There will be a
small red-shift for light leaving such an event but it will be the
same for all since they all have the same mass. The actual
red-shift is proportional to distance and much larger than could be
produced by the gravitational effect.

JG These white dwarfs in this scenario are undoubtably useful, so
JG long as the assumptions as to their distance and size are not
JG arrived at by 'walking back the cat' of c and red-shift.

The size of the white dwarfs does not enter the distance estimates
directly. The question is, When a WD explodes, does it produce an
explosion of constant brightness? We think the answer to that is,
yes, because there is a maximum size a WD can obtain before it explodes.


JG Diagrams in Prof Wright's tutorial show red-shift increasing with
JG distance, but this is not Doppler. An ASSUMPTION must have been
JG made, that the universe was expanding faster at the earlier time,
JG which we are viewing at large distance. Bodies must have been
JG moving away relative to us at higher speed closer to the time of
JG BB. This whole red-shift thing is very problematical! The shifts
JG are compared to get distance (speed?) OK? But if the very distant
JG bodies were designated 0, then everything closer would have a blue
JG shift. This would indicate "The Big Crunch" being imminent, and
JG right about here, but as the two positions are only based on an
JG arbitrary base line, both may be wrong. I understand that the
JG spectrums are based on observation of emmission of radiation from
JG different elements here, but does not comparison of red-shift
JG assume that we know the exact composition of all the stars?

You seem to have fallen prey to the common misconception that the Big
Bang occurred at a point. It did not. It occurred everywhere. We
are not at the "center" of the Universe. Everything[*] is getting
farther away from everything else. All of the supernovae are getting
farther away from each other and from us. Yes, this is difficult to
visualize.
[*] I need to add as a footnote that when I write "everything," I mean
that on sufficiently large scales everything is expanding away from
everything else. "Sufficiently large scales" means objects that are
separated by more than about 40 Mpc.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:70uab.61285$Qy4.8026@fed1read05...

... 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.

....and this last sentence supports my feeling that atomic clocks may
be altered by gravity, and are therefore inaccurate in 'real time'

Type Ia supernovae are produced when a white dwarf acretes
enough material to reach a certain threshold. It makes them
particularly useful since they detonate at a well defined
mass. There will be a small red-shift for light leaving
such an event but it will be the same for all since they all
have the same mass. The actual red-shift is proportional to
distance and much larger than could be produced by the
gravitational effect.

George

These white dwarfs in this scenario are undoubtably useful, so long as
the assumptions as to their distance and size are not arrived at by
'walking back the cat' of c and red-shift.

Of course. Distances are based on what is called the
"Distance Ladder". It starts by using simple parallax
to measure the distance to nearby stars using the
diameter of the Earth's orbit as a baseline, but that
technique is limited to relatively short range. Other
ways are used beyond that but they are calibrated from
the parallax results.

There is a graphical overview at the bottom of this
page but there are lots of sites that will give you
more on the Distance Ladder.

Diagrams in Prof Wright's tutorial show red-shift increasing with
distance, but this is not Doppler.

Doppler is the most obvious explanation (though at
larger ranges you have to be careful about definitions)
and matches what we see. There are few alternative
explanations for the shift and none AFAIK that aren't
ruled out by other observations.

An ASSUMPTION must have been made,
that the universe was expanding faster at the earlier time, which we
are viewing at large distance. Bodies must have been moving away
relative to us at higher speed closer to the time of BB.

No, that follows from our measurements of gravity. If
you throw a brick up fast, it slows down (crudely).

This whole red-shift thing is very problematical!

I agree, it isn't easy to understand. That doesn't
mean it is wrong.

The shifts are
compared to get distance (speed?) OK?

The relationship between red-shift and distance is
determined by measurements that use other means to find
distance. If it is caused by Doppler, obviously there
would be a time in the past when things were more dense
and therfore hotter (for the same reason that a bicycle
pump gets hot as you pump up the tyres). It was predicted
that we should be able to see the 'glow' of that heat and
when people looked, it was found.

But if the very distant bodies
were designated 0, then everything closer would have a blue shift.

If a train passes you in the station blowing its
whistle, the note is lower as it goes away from you.
If you designate the train as '0', the note is still
lower. Nature doesn't care about our designations.

This would indicate "The Big Crunch" being imminent, and right about
here, but as the two positions are only based on an arbitrary base
line, both may be wrong.
I understand that the spectrums are based on observation of emmission
of radiation from different elements here, but does not comparison of
red-shift assume that we know the exact composition of all the stars?

No, each element has a number of characteristic lines. We
can identify the elements from the ratio of the wavelengths
and the amount present from the strength of the lines so
the spectrum tells us the composition as well as the shift.

(for a second there, I thought I glimpsed street lights in the
distance)

Careful, that's a favourite topic of mine ;-)

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:70uab.61285$Qy4.8026@fed1read05...

... 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.

....and this last sentence supports my feeling that atomic clocks may
be altered by gravity, and are therefore inaccurate in 'real time'

Type Ia supernovae are produced when a white dwarf acretes
enough material to reach a certain threshold. It makes them
particularly useful since they detonate at a well defined
mass. There will be a small red-shift for light leaving
such an event but it will be the same for all since they all
have the same mass. The actual red-shift is proportional to
distance and much larger than could be produced by the
gravitational effect.

George

These white dwarfs in this scenario are undoubtably useful, so long as
the assumptions as to their distance and size are not arrived at by
'walking back the cat' of c and red-shift.


Diagrams in Prof Wright's tutorial show red-shift increasing with
distance, but this is not Doppler.

Doppler is the most obvious explanation (though at
larger ranges you have to be careful about definitions)
and matches what we see. There are few alternative
explanations for the shift and none AFAIK that aren't
ruled out by other observations.

An ASSUMPTION must have been made,
that the universe was expanding faster at the earlier time, which we
are viewing at large distance. Bodies must have been moving away
relative to us at higher speed closer to the time of BB.

No, that follows from our measurements of gravity. If
you throw a brick up fast, it slows down (crudely).

This whole red-shift thing is very problematical!

I agree, it isn't easy to understand. That doesn't
mean it is wrong.

The shifts are
compared to get distance (speed?) OK?

The relationship between red-shift and distance is
determined by measurements that use other means to find
distance. If it is caused by Doppler, obviously there
would be a time in the past when things were more dense
and therfore hotter (for the same reason that a bicycle
pump gets hot as you pump up the tyres). It was predicted
that we should be able to see the 'glow' of that heat and
when people looked, it was found.

(see below my idea on CMBR)

But if the very distant bodies
were designated 0, then everything closer would have a blue shift.

If a train passes you in the station blowing its
whistle, the note is lower as it goes away from you.
If you designate the train as '0', the note is still
lower. Nature doesn't care about our designations.

George, this is exactly why I can't see the Doppler connection.
The Dop shift occurs right by me as the train goes by. After that, the
whistle note has the same frequency- just a diminishing amplitude. I
can't tell how far away the train is by its whistle- only its
direction as it passes. This is an important point ??

This would indicate "The Big Crunch" being imminent, and right about
here, but as the two positions are only based on an arbitrary base
line, both may be wrong.
I understand that the spectrums are based on observation of emmission
of radiation from different elements here, but does not comparison of
red-shift assume that we know the exact composition of all the stars?

No, each element has a number of characteristic lines. We
can identify the elements from the ratio of the wavelengths
and the amount present from the strength of the lines so
the spectrum tells us the composition as well as the shift.

OK

On CMBR:
EMR shining on black body (maybe dust or gas or larger lump of matter)
'warms' it, and this heat energy is then re-radiated, but at a longer
wavelength (this may be less energetic too). This 'secondary EMR may
repeat the cycle with other black bodies many times. The re-radiating
seems to based on a potential difference of heat between bodies, and
the CMBR is the lowest common denominator of wave length to this heat
potential. That is, bodies at 2.3K produce no further reduction and
just keep bouncing it around.

Jim G

Subject: Popping The Big Bang
From: Joseph Lazio
Date: 9/24/03 10:19 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

"JG" == Jim Greenfield writes:

JG "George Dishman" wrote in message
JG ...

Type Ia supernovae are produced when a white dwarf acretes enough
material to reach a certain threshold. It makes them particularly
useful since they detonate at a well defined mass. There will be a
small red-shift for light leaving such an event but it will be the
same for all since they all have the same mass. The actual
red-shift is proportional to distance and much larger than could be
produced by the gravitational effect.

JG These white dwarfs in this scenario are undoubtably useful, so
JG long as the assumptions as to their distance and size are not
JG arrived at by 'walking back the cat' of c and red-shift.

The size of the white dwarfs does not enter the distance estimates
directly. The question is, When a WD explodes, does it produce an
explosion of constant brightness? We think the answer to that is,
yes, because there is a maximum size a WD can obtain before it explodes.


JG Diagrams in Prof Wright's tutorial show red-shift increasing with
JG distance, but this is not Doppler. An ASSUMPTION must have been
JG made, that the universe was expanding faster at the earlier time,
JG which we are viewing at large distance. Bodies must have been
JG moving away relative to us at higher speed closer to the time of
JG BB. This whole red-shift thing is very problematical! The shifts
JG are compared to get distance (speed?) OK? But if the very distant
JG bodies were designated 0, then everything closer would have a blue
JG shift. This would indicate "The Big Crunch" being imminent, and
JG right about here, but as the two positions are only based on an
JG arbitrary base line, both may be wrong. I understand that the
JG spectrums are based on observation of emmission of radiation from
JG different elements here, but does not comparison of red-shift
JG assume that we know the exact composition of all the stars?

You seem to have fallen prey to the common misconception that the Big
Bang occurred at a point. It did not. It occurred everywhere. We
are not at the "center" of the Universe. Everything[*] is getting
farther away from everything else. All of the supernovae are getting
farther away from each other and from us. Yes, this is difficult to
visualize.

I am just lurking on the general discussion.

With respect to the "common misconception that the Big Bang occurred at a
point" . . . Yes indeed there is such a misconception of the Big Bang theory.
It is promoted by a significant fraction of 'experts' who should know better, .
.. . on Radio, TV and in print. (NOT by you!) I have heard
astronomer/cosmologist after astronomer/cosmologist talk about the time that
the universe was the size of a grapefruit (or plum, or pomogranite, or
whatever).

It reminds me of the story that my professor told me about hearing another
professor give an incorrect explanation of something to a class. "I told him
that what he was telling them was wrong and he replied that of course he knew
that it was wrong, but that it was much easier for the class to understand!"

Earl Gasner
=========================



[*] I need to add as a footnote that when I write "everything," I mean
that on sufficiently large scales everything is expanding away from
everything else. "Sufficiently large scales" means objects that are
separated by more than about 40 Mpc.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...
Diagrams in Prof Wright's tutorial show red-shift increasing with
distance, but this is not Doppler.

Thanks for the clarification you give below, I see
what you meant now.

Doppler is the most obvious explanation (though at
larger ranges you have to be careful about definitions)
and matches what we see. There are few alternative
explanations for the shift and none AFAIK that aren't
ruled out by other observations.
snip
But if the very distant bodies
were designated 0, then everything closer would have a blue shift.

If a train passes you in the station blowing its
whistle, the note is lower as it goes away from you.
If you designate the train as '0', the note is still
lower. Nature doesn't care about our designations.

George, this is exactly why I can't see the Doppler connection.
The Dop shift occurs right by me as the train goes by. After that, the
whistle note has the same frequency- just a diminishing amplitude. I
can't tell how far away the train is by its whistle- only its
direction as it passes. This is an important point ??

It is very important indeed. Once the train has passed you
it travels at a constant speed away from you so you hear a
steady note but it is lower than you would hear if you were
on the train. How much lower the note sounds depends on the
speed of the train. Now suppose you are in a busy station.
100yds from you there is a goods train just pulling out at
a steady 10mph. A local train on another track is 200yds
away and moving smoothly at 20mph while the express just
went through and is 300yds down the track moving at 30mph.
What you hear is three notes from the three trains and the
further away the train, the lower the note you hear. That
is what we see when we look at galaxies, the red-shift
from each galaxy is proportional to its distance (and no,
the distance is not determined from the red-shift). We can
tell the shift because we can identify specific lines from
individual elements and compare them to the same lines
produced in the lab on Earth.

Now imagine you had filmed those trains passing through
the station. Play the film backwards and you would find
they all passed you at the same time, about 20 seconds
before the moment I described above. For galaxies it is
more complex because the speed has been changing but the
logical conclusion is the same, they were all close
together some time ago, and it appears that was about
13.7 billion years ago.

On CMBR:
EMR shining on black body (maybe dust or gas or larger lump of matter)
'warms' it, and this heat energy is then re-radiated, but at a longer
wavelength (this may be less energetic too).

A black body radiates at all wavelengths but there is a
peak in the spectrum. The wavelength of that peak and
the total power radiated depend only on the temperature
of the material. The temperature is stable if the total
power radiated is equal to the power absorbed. If it
absorbs more than it radiates then the temperature will
rise while if it absorbs less the temperature will fall.

This 'secondary EMR may
repeat the cycle with other black bodies many times.

Right. If things are stable for a long time, the energy
absorbed and emitted by each body will reach a balance.
The peak wavelength then tells us the average temperature.

The re-radiating
seems to based on a potential difference of heat between bodies,

[Nitpick: Temperature difference, not potential
difference.]

and
the CMBR is the lowest common denominator of wave length to this heat
potential. That is, bodies at 2.3K produce no further reduction and
just keep bouncing it around.

The power is proportional to T^4, for two otherwise
identical black bodies, one at 1.2K will radiate
16 times less heat than one at 2.4K.

However, think what the consequences of your suggestion
would be. We can see galaxies clearly with hardly any
blurring from dust in-between from over 12 billion
light years away, yet at 13.7 billion we see only an
opaque shell of material. Your alternative puts us at
the exact centre of a transparent sphere within a
relatively dense, cold, opaque gas cloud. Are you sure
that's what you want to suggest?

Also, since we see a red shift for all distant galaxies,
there is every reason to think that, regardless of the
cause, it would affect the light from the black body
material too. That means we are at the coldest point
in a spherically symmetrical region that gets hotter
as you get further away from us. If not, we should
see a mix of wavelengths shifted from the uniform
peak emitted by the material. More distant material
must be hotter so that its peak is red-shifted to
exactly coincide with that of cooler, nearer material.
The spectrum we see is an exact fit for a single
layer of material, not a blend over distance.

This all sounds very fishy to me ;-)

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
m...
Diagrams in Prof Wright's tutorial show red-shift increasing with
distance, but this is not Doppler.

Doppler is the most obvious explanation (though at
larger ranges you have to be careful about definitions)
and matches what we see. There are few alternative
explanations for the shift and none AFAIK that aren't
ruled out by other observations.
snip
But if the very distant bodies
were designated 0, then everything closer would have a blue shift.

If a train passes you in the station blowing its
whistle, the note is lower as it goes away from you.
If you designate the train as '0', the note is still
lower. Nature doesn't care about our designations.

But you (might) be making that arbitrary +/- (towards vs away) for
direction.
This 'human choice' has caused me grief in other posts. Reverse the
signage would reverse the direction???

George, this is exactly why I can't see the Doppler connection.
The Dop shift occurs right by me as the train goes by. After that, the
whistle note has the same frequency- just a diminishing amplitude. I
can't tell how far away the train is by its whistle- only its
direction as it passes. This is an important point ??

It is very important indeed. Once the train has passed you
it travels at a constant speed away from you so you hear a
steady note but it is lower than you would hear if you were
on the train. How much lower the note sounds depends on the
speed of the train. Now suppose you are in a busy station.
100yds from you there is a goods train just pulling out at
a steady 10mph. A local train on another track is 200yds
away and moving smoothly at 20mph while the express just
went through and is 300yds down the track moving at 30mph.
What you hear is three notes from the three trains and the
further away the train, the lower the note you hear. That
is what we see when we look at galaxies, the red-shift
from each galaxy is proportional to its distance (and no,
the distance is not determined from the red-shift). We can
tell the shift because we can identify specific lines from
individual elements and compare them to the same lines
produced in the lab on Earth.

You should have been a science teacher

Now imagine you had filmed those trains passing through
the station. Play the film backwards and you would find
they all passed you at the same time, about 20 seconds
before the moment I described above. For galaxies it is
more complex because the speed has been changing but the
logical conclusion is the same, they were all close
together some time ago, and it appears that was about
13.7 billion years ago.

Yeh
What a head-banger! Here again we have the material of the universe
close together 13.7bya, but a picture of the universe at that time
(the picture of the outer shell, that is), also 13.7bly away

On CMBR:
EMR shining on black body (maybe dust or gas or larger lump of matter)
'warms' it, and this heat energy is then re-radiated, but at a longer
wavelength (this may be less energetic too).

A black body radiates at all wavelengths but there is a
peak in the spectrum. The wavelength of that peak and
the total power radiated depend only on the temperature
of the material. The temperature is stable if the total
power radiated is equal to the power absorbed. If it
absorbs more than it radiates then the temperature will
rise while if it absorbs less the temperature will fall.

This 'secondary EMR may
repeat the cycle with other black bodies many times.

Right. If things are stable for a long time, the energy
absorbed and emitted by each body will reach a balance.
The peak wavelength then tells us the average temperature.

The re-radiating
seems to based on a potential difference of heat between bodies,

[Nitpick: Temperature difference, not potential
difference.]

and
the CMBR is the lowest common denominator of wave length to this heat
potential. That is, bodies at 2.3K produce no further reduction and
just keep bouncing it around.

The power is proportional to T^4, for two otherwise
identical black bodies, one at 1.2K will radiate
16 times less heat than one at 2.4K.

However, think what the consequences of your suggestion
would be. We can see galaxies clearly with hardly any
blurring from dust in-between from over 12 billion
light years away, yet at 13.7 billion we see only an
opaque shell of material. Your alternative puts us at
the exact centre of a transparent sphere within a
relatively dense, cold, opaque gas cloud. Are you sure
that's what you want to suggest?

Because I subscribe to the idea that the sphere we can 'see' is only
due to the limitations of our vision, the concept of a 'center of the
universe' is anathema to me (that 1/0 thing). That 'transparent
sphere' might be analogous to peering into fog.

Also, since we see a red shift for all distant galaxies,
there is every reason to think that, regardless of the
cause, it would affect the light from the black body
material too. That means we are at the coldest point
in a spherically symmetrical region that gets hotter
as you get further away from us. If not, we should
see a mix of wavelengths shifted from the uniform
peak emitted by the material. More distant material
must be hotter so that its peak is red-shifted to
exactly coincide with that of cooler, nearer material.
The spectrum we see is an exact fit for a single
layer of material, not a blend over distance.

I am suspicious here that the distance to that 'single layer of
material' is this reversed cat. If we could travel 2bly away, I
suspect the same spectrums looking in all directions would be
observed. Otherwise we really MUST be near the 'center.

This all sounds very fishy to me ;-)
George

Me Too!
Jim G

In sci.astro George Dishman wrote:

This all sounds very fishy to me ;-)

Me Too! (tm AOL)

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