Evidence keeps coming in for Big Bang cosmology

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/.../wmap_pol.html

Ringside Seat to the Universe's First Split Second

03.16.06

You don't get much closer to the big bang than this.

Scientists peering back to the oldest light in the universe have
evidence to support the concept of inflation, which poses that the
universe expanded many trillion times its size faster than a snap of
the fingers at the outset of the big bang.

....


Previous observations have focused on the temperature patterns of this
light, which have provided an accurate age of the universe and
insights into its geometry and composition. The temperature
differences, varying by about a millionth of a degree, point to
density differences---a little more matter here, a little less matter
there. Over the course of millions of years, gravity exploited the
density differences to create the structure of the universe---stars
and galaxies separated by vast voids.

The new WMAP observations give not only a more detailed temperature
map, but also the first full-sky map of the polarization of the
microwave background.

This major breakthrough enables scientists to obtain much deeper
insight into what happened within the first trillionth of a second,
when cosmic inflation perhaps occurred. The polarization signal is at
least 100 times fainter than the temperature signal.
--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in message...
...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/.../wmap_pol.html

Ringside Seat to the Universe's First Split Second

03.16.06

You don't get much closer to the big bang than this.

Scientists peering back to the oldest light in the universe have
evidence to support the concept of inflation, which poses that the
universe expanded many trillion times its size faster than a snap of
the fingers at the outset of the big bang.

So, uhm, Wally... nothing can travel at the speed of
light, but now, a whole universe can expand at much
greater than the speed of light. How does this affect/
support/negate the theory of relativity?

--
SMILE! it increases your face value.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

Painius wrote:

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in message...
...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/.../wmap_pol.html

Ringside Seat to the Universe's First Split Second

03.16.06

You don't get much closer to the big bang than this.

Scientists peering back to the oldest light in the universe have
evidence to support the concept of inflation, which poses that the
universe expanded many trillion times its size faster than a snap of
the fingers at the outset of the big bang.

So, uhm, Wally... nothing can travel at the speed of
light, but now, a whole universe can expand at much
greater than the speed of light. How does this affect/
support/negate the theory of relativity?

Relativity theory says nothing can travel faster than c *through
space*. It doesn't say anything about what space can do.

Time to drag out everyone's favourite analogy again: imagine an ant
standing near a dot marked "O" on the surface of a partly inflated
balloon, and suppose she can crawl no faster than a speed I'll call
A. If she starts running away from O, after time T has elapsed, she
can be no further from O than A*T, right?

But now suppose we pump more air into the balloon, such that every
point on it is carried away from its neighbours, with speed B, by the
expansion. As a consequence, if the ant is standing still, after the
same time interval she will find herself to be B*T away from O. If
she's also running away at top speed, her total displacement is (A +
B)*T. To an observer at O, she seems to have a 'superformic'
velocity, A + B, but in her own frame of reference she's not breaking
the speed limit.

Other analogies that could be brought to bear involve moving
sidewalks, conveyor belts, and escalators.

--
Odysseus

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in message...
...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/.../wmap_pol.html

Ringside Seat to the Universe's First Split Second

03.16.06

You don't get much closer to the big bang than this.

Scientists peering back to the oldest light in the universe have
evidence to support the concept of inflation, which poses that the
universe expanded many trillion times its size faster than a snap of
the fingers at the outset of the big bang.

So, uhm, Wally... nothing can travel at the speed of
light, but now, a whole universe can expand at much
greater than the speed of light. How does this affect/
support/negate the theory of relativity?

Relativity theory says nothing can travel faster than c *through
space*. It doesn't say anything about what space can do.

Time to drag out everyone's favourite analogy again: imagine an ant
standing near a dot marked "O" on the surface of a partly inflated
balloon, and suppose she can crawl no faster than a speed I'll call
A. If she starts running away from O, after time T has elapsed, she
can be no further from O than A*T, right?

But now suppose we pump more air into the balloon, such that every
point on it is carried away from its neighbours, with speed B, by the
expansion. As a consequence, if the ant is standing still, after the
same time interval she will find herself to be B*T away from O. If
she's also running away at top speed, her total displacement is (A +
B)*T. To an observer at O, she seems to have a 'superformic'
velocity, A + B, but in her own frame of reference she's not breaking
the speed limit.

Other analogies that could be brought to bear involve moving
sidewalks, conveyor belts, and escalators.

--
Odysseus

Fascinating, and thank you, O!... Now, you say "To an
observer at O, she seems to have a 'superformic' velocity,
A + B, but in her own frame of reference she's not breaking
the speed limit."

If you or i were the observer at O, what in our universe
would correspond to the ant? Something we haven't seen
yet? something we might predict?

--
SMILE! goose.tickle.tickle.goose

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

Painius wrote:

snip

... Now, you say "To an
observer at O, she seems to have a 'superformic' velocity,
A + B, but in her own frame of reference she's not breaking
the speed limit."

If you or i were the observer at O, what in our universe
would correspond to the ant? Something we haven't seen
yet? something we might predict?

AFAICT any part of the universe that may be receding from us faster
than c is in effect disconnected from our part; we and it would be
outside each other's light-cones. Objects (galaxies) somewhat nearer,
just this side of the 'boundary', would appear so extremely
red-shifted that they'd only be detectable (if at all) in long-wave radio.

--
Odysseus

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

snip

... Now, you say "To an
observer at O, she seems to have a 'superformic' velocity,
A + B, but in her own frame of reference she's not breaking
the speed limit."

If you or i were the observer at O, what in our universe
would correspond to the ant? Something we haven't seen
yet? something we might predict?

AFAICT any part of the universe that may be receding from us faster
than c is in effect disconnected from our part; we and it would be
outside each other's light-cones. Objects (galaxies) somewhat nearer,
just this side of the 'boundary', would appear so extremely
red-shifted that they'd only be detectable (if at all) in long-wave radio.

--
Odysseus

So we really have no way of telling how much of the "early
universe" is beyond our light cone. This makes the theory
of a "Big Bang" beginning seem arbitrary to me. The evidence
we now recognize as in support of the BB could have other
meanings, yes?

--
SMILE! nothing is always absolutely so.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

nightbat wrote

Painius wrote:

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

snip

... Now, you say "To an
observer at O, she seems to have a 'superformic' velocity,
A + B, but in her own frame of reference she's not breaking
the speed limit."

If you or i were the observer at O, what in our universe
would correspond to the ant? Something we haven't seen
yet? something we might predict?

AFAICT any part of the universe that may be receding from us faster
than c is in effect disconnected from our part; we and it would be
outside each other's light-cones. Objects (galaxies) somewhat nearer,
just this side of the 'boundary', would appear so extremely
red-shifted that they'd only be detectable (if at all) in long-wave radio.

--
Odysseus

So we really have no way of telling how much of the "early
universe" is beyond our light cone. This makes the theory
of a "Big Bang" beginning seem arbitrary to me. The evidence
we now recognize as in support of the BB could have other
meanings, yes?

--
SMILE! nothing is always absolutely so.

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

nightbat

Please Officer Painius don't tell Officer Zinni that don't get
him started.

carry on,
the nightbat

"nightbat" wrote...
in message ...
nightbat wrote

Painius wrote:

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

snip

... Now, you say "To an
observer at O, she seems to have a 'superformic' velocity,
A + B, but in her own frame of reference she's not breaking
the speed limit."

If you or i were the observer at O, what in our universe
would correspond to the ant? Something we haven't seen
yet? something we might predict?

AFAICT any part of the universe that may be receding from us faster
than c is in effect disconnected from our part; we and it would be
outside each other's light-cones. Objects (galaxies) somewhat nearer,
just this side of the 'boundary', would appear so extremely
red-shifted that they'd only be detectable (if at all) in long-wave
radio.

--
Odysseus

So we really have no way of telling how much of the "early
universe" is beyond our light cone. This makes the theory
of a "Big Bang" beginning seem arbitrary to me. The evidence
we now recognize as in support of the BB could have other
meanings, yes?

nightbat

Please Officer Painius don't tell Officer Zinni that don't get
him started.

carry on,
the nightbat

But Commander! i *have* to keep in practice, else my
wonderful and unique abilities'll get rusty. And besides,
the Zeen Musheen can't hold a candle, and you know it.
Shoot, cutie John has trouble holding a flashlight! How
many people do you know who can't grasp the concept
of "virtual" when put together with "instantaneous"?

Let the coffeeboy wannabeeee take his best bang. g

--
The bigger yer SMILE! the better yer STYLE!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

nightbat wrote

Painius wrote:

"nightbat" wrote...
in message ...
nightbat wrote

Painius wrote:

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

snip

... Now, you say "To an
observer at O, she seems to have a 'superformic' velocity,
A + B, but in her own frame of reference she's not breaking
the speed limit."

If you or i were the observer at O, what in our universe
would correspond to the ant? Something we haven't seen
yet? something we might predict?

AFAICT any part of the universe that may be receding from us faster
than c is in effect disconnected from our part; we and it would be
outside each other's light-cones. Objects (galaxies) somewhat nearer,
just this side of the 'boundary', would appear so extremely
red-shifted that they'd only be detectable (if at all) in long-wave
radio.

--
Odysseus

So we really have no way of telling how much of the "early
universe" is beyond our light cone. This makes the theory
of a "Big Bang" beginning seem arbitrary to me. The evidence
we now recognize as in support of the BB could have other
meanings, yes?

nightbat

Please Officer Painius don't tell Officer Zinni that don't get
him started.

carry on,
the nightbat

But Commander! i *have* to keep in practice, else my
wonderful and unique abilities'll get rusty. And besides,
the Zeen Musheen can't hold a candle, and you know it.
Shoot, cutie John has trouble holding a flashlight! How
many people do you know who can't grasp the concept
of "virtual" when put together with "instantaneous"?

Let the coffeeboy wannabeeee take his best bang. g

--
The bigger yer SMILE! the better yer STYLE!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

nightbat

Very well, since you put it that way Officer Painius, continue
exercising your freedom of deeper mental creative abilities and
extending attempts to get Officer Zinni to use profound latent mental
faculties apparently unused in years. Be careful however to not tax the
coffee boy undeveloped brains too much for I do not need brain spasm
casualties and neuro chaotic unchecked synopsis of leaking and exploding
grey matter in attempts to grasp your simplest of indications. Have an
on call wet wipe up nurse close by just in case the weaker ones just
can't handle your extreme abstract convergent deductions.

carry on,
the nightbat

nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Painius wrote:

"nightbat" wrote...
in message ...
nightbat wrote

Painius wrote:

"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

Painius wrote:

snip

... Now, you say "To an
observer at O, she seems to have a 'superformic' velocity,
A + B, but in her own frame of reference she's not breaking
the speed limit."

If you or i were the observer at O, what in our universe
would correspond to the ant? Something we haven't seen
yet? something we might predict?

AFAICT any part of the universe that may be receding from us faster
than c is in effect disconnected from our part; we and it would be
outside each other's light-cones. Objects (galaxies) somewhat nearer,
just this side of the 'boundary', would appear so extremely
red-shifted that they'd only be detectable (if at all) in long-wave
radio.

--
Odysseus

So we really have no way of telling how much of the "early
universe" is beyond our light cone. This makes the theory
of a "Big Bang" beginning seem arbitrary to me. The evidence
we now recognize as in support of the BB could have other
meanings, yes?

nightbat

Please Officer Painius don't tell Officer Zinni that don't get
him started.

carry on,
the nightbat

But Commander! i *have* to keep in practice, else my
wonderful and unique abilities'll get rusty. And besides,
the Zeen Musheen can't hold a candle, and you know it.
Shoot, cutie John has trouble holding a flashlight! How
many people do you know who can't grasp the concept
of "virtual" when put together with "instantaneous"?

Let the coffeeboy wannabeeee take his best bang. g

--
The bigger yer SMILE! the better yer STYLE!

Indelibly yours,
Paine http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

nightbat

Very well, since you put it that way Officer Painius, continue
exercising your freedom of deeper mental creative abilities and
extending attempts to get Officer Zinni to use profound latent mental
faculties apparently unused in years. Be careful however to not tax the
coffee boy undeveloped brains too much for I do not need brain spasm
casualties and neuro chaotic unchecked synopsis of leaking and exploding
grey matter in attempts to grasp your simplest of indications. Have an
on call wet wipe up nurse close by just in case the weaker ones just
can't handle your extreme abstract convergent deductions.

You forgot to drool about the fake alien sockpuppets in this post,
frootbat.

carry on,
the nightbat

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official Agent of Deception
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005

"An applied ripple action implies time and momentum
reciprocal dependent directed surface tension not
instantaneous field wide reaction."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief