|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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: $1 7 seasons worth of memories of the best show on TV: priceless |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
Dear Randy:
"Randy" wrote in message news:b8_9b.50$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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"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$cj1.1895@fed1read06... snip Clearly nowhere near as "persuive" as yourself. What caused "inflation"? Poor economics. LOL...c'mon, man...that was a serious question. I'm just trying to understand this stuff....iow, I'm *not* a kook with a pet alternate theory of the nature of the universe. Me either Randy. I'm with you. But ask the hard questions of the BBs and DHR's and this is about all that you can expect- obfuscation, silence, or virulent abuse (because they have little else to offer!) Jim G |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
Bill Vajk wrote in message news:rT2ab.486044$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) |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
(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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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 |
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 |