Popping The Big Bang

(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.

Assumes that I took a first step.

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

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.

Cheers
Jim G

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

From the shadows, the mysterious "Chosp" (if that IS
his real name) conspiratorially whispered:


"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.

Inflation is the natural result of a strong economy. The correct
answer would have been just plain old "capitalism".


--

Ben Sisson

1 flask of holy water: $11
1 modified crossbow: $50
1 pointy wooden stake: $1

7 seasons worth of memories of the best show on TV: priceless

From the shadows, the mysterious (Jim
Greenfield) (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:

db wrote in message ...
Jim Greenfield wrote:

"J. Scott Miller" wrote in message ...
Thanks again for once again demonstrating how a lack of understanding of a
scientific theory allows one to make foolish statements in public. My
suggestion - get some knowledge and stop making stupid statements.



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!

if that is what you 'see', then you have misunderstood the bb theory.

How handy is it that 'space is expanding, taking matter with it'??

How handy is it that the speed of light is finite, so that as we look further
out in the universe we see it how it was longer back in the past.

what we see at 13B ly away is not the edge of the universe, what we see there is
how the universe was 13B years ago; relativly shortly after the BB.

Is that so? Pictures look mighty like the ones just around here- old
and wrinkled, not young at all.

No they don't. You're either uninformed or deliberately lying. Which
is it?


--

Ben Sisson

1 flask of holy water: $11
1 modified crossbow: $50
1 pointy wooden stake: $1

7 seasons worth of memories of the best show on TV: priceless

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. 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. 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). 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. 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.

....or maybe not. :-)


--

Ben Sisson

1 flask of holy water: $11
1 modified crossbow: $50
1 pointy wooden stake: $1

7 seasons worth of memories of the best show on TV: priceless

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..

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.

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

Amen.

David A. Smith

The Ghost In The Machine wrote in message ...
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.

Let's make this -1mile east from 0, and +1mile west from 0
Is this a 2mile gap?
Let the time taken to get the separation be 1hour....
......now see below...

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.

Conflict right here due to "The Barleys Tree (different reference
frames giving different result)
My wife on other side of glass clock sees the +, - reversed, and gets
diametrically opposite result. Now if you insist that both answers are
correct, which I take to be a wholly religious type philosophical
view, this discussion will soon fizzle

[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.)

This is the old chestnut about an event not occuring until we SEE it
occur, and is a factor of the direction and speed of light. I like to
believe that I am able to think, "I know something has happened in the
past (or it may have)- the image just hasn't arrived yet".
If these people were walking through a water medium at 1mph, according
to this arguement above, you would get a different result. Now we have
a situation where time passes at a different rate in water! NO!! Light
travels at a different velocity- universal time remains the same. A
boat above and a swimmer below would travel in unison at 1mph

Cheers
Jim G

"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.

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

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.

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.

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
Are you in support of (most of) Ned's stuff?
He seems to rely on a point (almost) singularity, and straight off I
see an expasion rate many times the velocity of light in the initial
period (problem?)
I'll read over his tutes again, but intuitively feel that point and
'everywhere' expasion are mutually exclusive.
BTW, where is Lorentz Contraction while this is going on? If this
stuff is exceeding light velocity, it should all contract and vanish!
Jim G

PS: To the 'mathematicians' - if I rotate these authorative authors by
90 degrees, will they write the opposite??? (with all respect to
them)

(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!

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

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.

Dale Trynor wrote in message ...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it
might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing
the heavens.
Dale Trynor wrote:
It gets more interesting if one can predict other universes as well.
Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from
which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and
can see its glory in all directions. Not so those poor souls at the
extremities! If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away,
the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see'
as far as us (half of it).
AND this doesn't take into account the fact that the material of
their home has travelled out from "The Big Bang" for 13.7 billion
years (and that's allowing light speed for matter), and then emmitted
light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7 billion years
for the trip = light and mass travelling about the universe for 27.4
by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!!

You might want to review how a theory I have been promoting that gives
some interesting predictions that are related to this, providing you
haven't already done so. After the parts that look at how time
gravitational dilation can be shown to expand space you can then look at
how it examines how a coaleasing neutron star gives an inflation like
appearance for any inside observers. You will note how it predicts that
while the original diameters have gone from a few km diameter to light
years across instantly from the prospective of each individual neutron
they will still only be able to gage the size of their universe
depending on how long light has had to travel.
In one light second they will only observe whatever parts of their
universe that light can travel in that one second and this would not
change the fact that there really is light years of distance still hidden.
This gives the prospective of having started from that single point even
while in some ways this is only an illusion equally shared by every
other point particle.
So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years
away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their
view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they
look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss?
Now aren't we just so privileged to live at the center of it all?
This idea of a center is very peculiar in this special theory because of
how it also postulates the existence of white holes. After you review
the site and have time to think about it you will have seen how and why
it predicts that our universe is a black hole within another universe.
The thing about black holes is they draw matter etc into them and if you
were inside of a larger space within one you would see what looks like
white holes pulling in matter from the older outer universe into ours.

Attempts to model these white holes as they would first appear based on
how a traveler would observe one while entering our universe from the
outside, tends to suggest the possibility that they might appear to
curve into our universe and may even appear in different locations while
in actuality being the one surface. They might in some reverse sort of
way be considered as the center of our universes as easily as its
outside. More studies needed.
Sorry about the site neglect this hobby dose not pay.
http://dalet.9cy.com/

(And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??)
I would like to hear what your opinions might be on this theory after
you give it some thought.

Sorry Dale,
You are obviously a 'thinker' rather than a 'swallower', but I doubt
we'll agree anytime soon.
I don't accept the concept of 'negative' energy (push and pull are
both positive), or 'space-time'; both of which I guess you consider
(that 'curve' word!)

Keep thinkin
Jim G