|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"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 |
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 |