Big Bang - formal name?

On Nov 29, 4:09*am, aquachimp
wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:26*am, abzorba wrote:





In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang, was originally
coined as a *joke, and compared that joke with the earlier one by
Copernicus, who thought HIS conception of how the Universe (actually
the Solar System) was constructed, would incite "explodendum", meaning
something like "being booed off the stage".http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u..._thread/thread...

Recently, *I looked up "Big Bang" in Wikipedia, looking for the
SERIOUS *term *for this, by definition, most pivotal of all concepts.
When I saw NO synonym at all for "Big Bang" I was surprised. In fact,
my eyebrows were almost launched into space like two hairy
boomerangs. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The most erudite scholarship *of several thousand years, both of East
and West, has bequeathed us with thousands of terms to do with every
aspect of our existence. All such terms are contingent on the
existence of that substrate of time and space in which all else
inheres. *And the creation of THIS substrate is the "Big Bang"! This
is in a world where quite often the term "vehicular pumping appliance"
is preferred to the colloquial-sounding "fire engine". Where
pedagogues have complex multi-morphemed terms for "homework", because
the last sounds a bit simple. *Really, this is good enough for
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"!

So, I went to the Wikipedia article on Fred Hoyle, who coined "Big
Bang". I had long thought that this neologism on his part was
initially pejorative, as Hoyle was the leading advocate of the Big
Bang's rival, the Steady State Theory. (Once again, note the delicious
irony: the DISCREDITED theory is the one with the proper-sounding posh
name.) *Then I re-read the Hoyle article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

I felt quite satisfied when I read on the first page, apropos "Big
Bang" , that it was " a term originally coined by him [Hoyle] *as a
jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main
rival to his own". *The words sounded so apposite, so fitting, so well-
put. Then I remembered that I MYSELF *had written them some years ago,
wearing my Wikipedia editor's hat, (the lime-green one with a
propeller on top.) *What would you call this: something like "Self-
vindicating Assertion"? *But I digress.

So, it seems there is no OTHER scientific *name for the creation of
the Universe apart from Big Bang! I believe that a new translation of
the Bible has "Big Bang" *in the first chapter of Genesis, coz that
will make the Bible really cool to the hip hop generation. *Btw,
awaotnwpi, to stem the flow of posters who will aver that
"Singularity" is that missing "proppa" name, let me pre-empt that by
noting that "Singularity" is also predicated of other such phenomena
where time and space fuse with each other, in Black Holes, for
example. What do they say for Big Bang in other languages? I suppose
we COULD refer to it as the Prime Singularity. We could, but then, it
appears we don't. How odd.

Myles (It's like calling the Library the "Big Book Dump") Paulsen

(also in that other group, mostly)

I understand that the latest hip theory is the Big Bounce and no
longer the Big Bang.

The idea, from the little I've seen on telly, is that a star died,
leading to a black hole, leading to all sorts of stuff getting sucked
into it, consumed by it, becoming it, perhaps influencing it, being
released in the creation of a new universe.

It gets me thinking. Is there a correlation with life on earth. Here,
there is much inequality, but surely being a gas in outer space, being
forced into a black hole reflects such inequalities. Does the new
universe that was (allegedly) spewed forth from said black hole merely
repeat the cycle of the politics that dominated, yielded or exercised
as it evolved within blackness?

The problem with this model is it doesn't look like our universe will
contract, the expansion is accelerating.

Is pre-The Big Bounce the architect of our existence; the reason we
have birth to decay and so many other things we ordinarily don't even
question, and things we do, such as altruism?

Biblically *speaking, what if, the whole process is not about Good or
Evil, but about Chance and Fate which are not opposites in the sense
of against one another, but are in fact in a relationship with each
other.

What if, we could find out enough about this cycle, could we then
tweak it a bit to, in effect, re-negotiate our lot, our existence?

Knowledge tends to enable that but I doubt we'll be getting back into
the Garden of Eden.

On Nov 29, 2:26*am, abzorba wrote:
In an earlier post, I noted that the name of that event which
theoretically created our Universe: The Big Bang, was originally
coined as a *joke, and compared that joke with the earlier one by
Copernicus, who thought HIS conception of how the Universe (actually
the Solar System) was constructed, would incite "explodendum", meaning
something like "being booed off the stage".http://groups.google.com/group/alt.u..._thread/thread...

Recently, *I looked up "Big Bang" in Wikipedia, looking for the
SERIOUS *term *for this, by definition, most pivotal of all concepts.
When I saw NO synonym at all for "Big Bang" I was surprised. In fact,
my eyebrows were almost launched into space like two hairy
boomerangs. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The most erudite scholarship *of several thousand years, both of East
and West, has bequeathed us with thousands of terms to do with every
aspect of our existence. All such terms are contingent on the
existence of that substrate of time and space in which all else
inheres. *And the creation of THIS substrate is the "Big Bang"! This
is in a world where quite often the term "vehicular pumping appliance"
is preferred to the colloquial-sounding "fire engine". Where
pedagogues have complex multi-morphemed terms for "homework", because
the last sounds a bit simple. *Really, this is good enough for
"Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"!

So, I went to the Wikipedia article on Fred Hoyle, who coined "Big
Bang". I had long thought that this neologism on his part was
initially pejorative, as Hoyle was the leading advocate of the Big
Bang's rival, the Steady State Theory. (Once again, note the delicious
irony: the DISCREDITED theory is the one with the proper-sounding posh
name.) *Then I re-read the Hoyle article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

I felt quite satisfied when I read on the first page, apropos "Big
Bang" , that it was " a term originally coined by him [Hoyle] *as a
jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main
rival to his own". *The words sounded so apposite, so fitting, so well-
put. Then I remembered that I MYSELF *had written them some years ago,
wearing my Wikipedia editor's hat, (the lime-green one with a
propeller on top.) *What would you call this: something like "Self-
vindicating Assertion"? *But I digress.

So, it seems there is no OTHER scientific *name for the creation of
the Universe apart from Big Bang! I believe that a new translation of
the Bible has "Big Bang" *in the first chapter of Genesis, coz that
will make the Bible really cool to the hip hop generation. *Btw,
awaotnwpi, to stem the flow of posters who will aver that
"Singularity" is that missing "proppa" name, let me pre-empt that by
noting that "Singularity" is also predicated of other such phenomena
where time and space fuse with each other, in Black Holes, for
example. What do they say for Big Bang in other languages? I suppose
we COULD refer to it as the Prime Singularity. We could, but then, it
appears we don't. How odd.

Myles (It's like calling the Library the "Big Book Dump") Paulsen

The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet
stream.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...10/10-023.html

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is, a jet stream. Analogous to the jet
stream of a black hole.

The following is an image analogous of a jet stream:

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual
emission of aether into the Universal jet stream. Three
dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not
expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with
the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet stream
emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where the
conditions enable aether to be compressed into matter.

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local
Universe, we exist in:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetariu.../BlackHole.jpg

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.

Peter Moylan wrote:
You appear to be saying that, in the theoretical model that you believe
in, those two assertions contradict each other. I'm trying to think of a
model where doublethink would be required to reconcile the two statements.

Are you, perhaps, asserting that the speed of light is negative?

..sneppah taht nehw ETAH i

evaD
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeableBLINK
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

On Nov 29, 11:11*am, "Dr. HotSalt" wrote:

A person of reasonable intelligence is asked to believe that the
furthest galaxies *from our own represent the oldest and at a time the
Universe was at its smallest while simultaneously being asked to
believe that these are the youngest galaxies in an extremely large
Universe hence doublethink,the affliction of being able to hold two
contradictory views as valid.

* There are not two contradictory views; you are misparsing things.

* The Big Bang theory rests on observation *and a couple of
assumptions*. One of the assumptions is the universal constancy of the
speed of light.

* Do you agree with that assumption?

Thanks for intervening,I knew a big banger would be around soon enough
and this time you are more or less the center of discussion rather
than the ideology itself,I wouldn't condescend to anyone,I am neither
mocking you or praising you but I have seen this long enough to know
that everyone else is getting mocked and they probably deserve it
too.Those who approach big bang in a casual way apply enough sense to
what is being proposed to conclude that it makes no sense and
thereafter frees themselves from having to beg questions however the
idea is not to walk away but to consider how men arrived at this no
center/no circumference ideology nonsense in the first place.

The idea that an observer sees a young galaxy in an old Universe or
simultaneously an old galaxy in a young Universe or some other
combination deserves to be mocked as big bangers don't rely on the
reader walking away or begging questions,in fact the more questions
asked the more padding can be introduced to make the reader feel
deficient in some way however the one question the empiricist doesn't
want to hear is how could men possibly engage in doublethink.

You are not asking me if I agree,you are announcing that big bang
relies on questioning begging,as it is a conclusion that exists only
in the imagination,for no person can hold contradictory views
simultaneously,the idea is not to bury an inquirer but to make them
uncomfortable.Go ahead and ask them,they don't want to know and it is
that which supplies the billions to big bang research.


* If so, then when you look up at the sun, the light that enters your
eyes is ~eight minutes old. When you look at the moon, its light is
about a minute and a half old.


I assure readers that the following outlines a very simple and easily
understood by the curios.

In a case like the big bang,you start at the end,if a person can say
this is the entire history of the Universe where the observed furthest
galaxies can be both the oldest and youngest representing the Universe
at both its largest and its smallest,the reader is already mangled by
virtue that you have already fixed an imaginative conclusion and all
reasoning now goes to serve the imagination instead of the imagination
being merely a tool to put observations into context.

In that sentence you tried to misuse the insight of Ole Roemer known
as the Equation of Light,this insight determines that the anomalous
motion of Io was due to the variations in distance between the Earth
and Jupiter as they orbit the Sun,the positional displacement of Io
was accounted for by finite light speed -

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1350/0...es/jupiter.gif

The problem you have is that empiricists refuse to accept planetary
orbital comparisons and especially the main argument Copernicus used
to affirm that the Earth is in motion around the Sun -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

In short,the apparent retrogrades of the planets are an illusion
caused by the Earth's motion as we move in our respective orbits
around the Sun hence Roemer could make orbital comparisons between
Jupiter and Earth as we closed and opened the distances in our
orbits.Empiricists refuse to accept the resolution for retrogrades and
believe that only a hypothetical observer resolves their apparent
motion -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

A reasonably intelligent reader can tell you that retrogrades are
simply an illusion caused by the Earth's own motion,nothing more and
nothing less but you will immediately go from promoting big bang to
defending Newton's false hypothetical perception of the
resolution.The thing you will count on is the disinterest of the other
readers rather than addressing the issue of the original Copernican
discovery before moving on to Roemer's insight on finite light speed.


* You do agree that the sun is much farther from us than is the moon,
right? Proportionate to the ratio of its distance to your eye to the
moon's distance from your eye, right?

* So, the farther an object is from you, the older its light is by the
time it gets to you, right?

* So, if galaxies at the edge of observability are very very far away,
that means the light from them is very, very old, right?

* How do we know a given galaxy's distance?

* The light from very very distant objects is spectrally redshifted.
It is empirically measured (radar) that receding objects' light gets
redshifted. *Assuming* that relationship holds true for astronomical
objects, at some distance their recessional speed will approach light
speed asymptotically. That distance is the observational limit.

* Also, since the (approximately) uniform recessional velocity of
everything in the Universe suggests it is expanding. Extrapolating
backwards from it current (observable) size, and its current expansion
rate, eventually it all had to originate at a point.

* The distances predicted above are pretty close to the same.
*Assuming* this is not mere coincidence, they support each other, not
contradict.

* There are not two views. There are observations, assumptions, and
conclusions.


You assume the oldest galaxy is the one furthest away while holding
that it is also the youngest galaxy when the Universe was smaller and
all this questioning begging is merely an attempt to force the
reasoning faculties of readers into making sense of something that
doesn't ,it is not mocking your or your attempt as many like you make
tons of money , get celebrity from these things or at the very least
'genius' by association but a person who genuinely finds the idea
nonsense is free to pursue the amazing story behind the temporary
collapse of astronomy and much of science.




* If you do not argue with the raw observational data, or the
assumptions I've mentioned, what is your problem with the conclusion?

* If you do disagree with the observed data, how so exactly?

* If you disagree with one or more *assumptions*, which ones, and how?

contradictory views as valid.It is not a distraction but something
horrifying as the wider population got a hint of last year when
scientists managed to get all the world's civil leaders in one spot on
the belief that carbon dioxide is a global temperature dial and humans
have control over global temperatures.I would say that is real power.

* Rhetoric is not a new concept.

You may not have to intelligence to discern this as it is not a case
of people who know or don' t know or indeed people who don't want to
know and people who know,it is a case of people who don't want to know
on one side and people who imagine every possibility without *physical
considerations hence there is no idea with the greater or lesser
probability of being right.All there is is doublethink,the ability to
say anything without fear of objection.

Welcome to the nightmare era of empiricism.

* Empiricism claims to be predictive.

* If you have another approach that makes testable predictions (not
interpretations, that's mere math) not in accord with the BB model,
what are they?

* Mark L. Fergerson

This is pure empirical mantra chanting and it is fine and I do not
mock you,don't praise you either but then again I have already stated
that anyone who is weak minded enough to go along with doublethink
lacks common sense to figure out what the interesting side to all this
is.

On Nov 29, 11:57*am, Peter Moylan
wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

You appear to be saying that, in the theoretical model that you believe
in, those two assertions contradict each other. I'm trying to think of a
model where doublethink would be required to reconcile the two statements..

Are you, perhaps, asserting that the speed of light is negative?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. * * *http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Simple stuff that anyone could deal with in a minute it takes to think
the thing through,you want the oldest galaxies to represent the
distance scale of the Universe but also believe that they are the
youngest galaxies at a time when the Universe was smaller,in the 5
seconds it takes to discover that it does not makes sense and is
possibly an affliction of the mind for those who genuinely believe
it,the person may discover the actual process of doublethink,not as a
narrative in a novel,but something where the readers in a forum like
this can have immediate contact with,in short ,doublethink is very
much alive and thriving.

On Nov 29, 5:46*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:57*am, Peter Moylan
wrote:





oriel36 wrote:

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

You appear to be saying that, in the theoretical model that you believe
in, those two assertions contradict each other. I'm trying to think of a
model where doublethink would be required to reconcile the two statements.

Are you, perhaps, asserting that the speed of light is negative?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. * * *http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Simple stuff that anyone could deal with in a minute it takes to think
the thing through,you want the oldest galaxies to represent the
distance scale of the Universe but also believe that they are the
youngest galaxies at a time when the Universe was smaller,in the 5
seconds it takes to discover that it does not makes sense and is
possibly an affliction of the mind for those who genuinely believe
it,the person may discover the actual process of doublethink,not as a
narrative in a novel,but something where the readers in a forum like
this can have immediate contact with,in short ,doublethink is very
much alive and thriving.

I suppose you have trouble relating the sound of a gunshot to a
distant puff of smoke as well.

Peter Moylan wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as
valid so when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in
time to the first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he
will also tell you that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest
in a very large Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

You appear to be saying that, in the theoretical model that you
believe in, those two assertions contradict each other. I'm trying
to think of a model where doublethink would be required to
reconcile the two statements.

Are you, perhaps, asserting that the speed of light is negative?

Even I can get this one. I think. He's confusing the age of those
distant stars with the age of the stage that we can see them at. He's
objecting to his own interpretation: not to what
is in the theory, but to what he has found in himself and imagines to
be there.

On Nov 29, 1:55*pm, M Purcell wrote:
On Nov 29, 5:46*am, oriel36 wrote:









On Nov 29, 11:57*am, Peter Moylan
wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

You appear to be saying that, in the theoretical model that you believe
in, those two assertions contradict each other. I'm trying to think of a
model where doublethink would be required to reconcile the two statements.

Are you, perhaps, asserting that the speed of light is negative?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. * * *http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Simple stuff that anyone could deal with in a minute it takes to think
the thing through,you want the oldest galaxies to represent the
distance scale of the Universe but also believe that they are the
youngest galaxies at a time when the Universe was smaller,in the 5
seconds it takes to discover that it does not makes sense and is
possibly an affliction of the mind for those who genuinely believe
it,the person may discover the actual process of doublethink,not as a
narrative in a novel,but something where the readers in a forum like
this can have immediate contact with,in short ,doublethink is very
much alive and thriving.

I suppose you have trouble relating the sound of a gunshot to a
distant puff of smoke as well.

An elevator voice announcing a floor level sounds profound in
comparison to that and I took the time out to look through your
posting history to see if it was a once-off but unfortunately not,so,
the guys promoting big bang have nothing to worry about,their target
audience is more or less at your level who would run a million miles
than apply common sense to an ideology that doesn't have any,at least
to call it nonsense within two minutes of seeing it.

It is not that you wouldn't understand,there is nothing there in you
to appeal to one way or the other,that is why empiricism is so
dominant and that is why a no center/no circumference ideology (the
joke of it goes over your head) like big bang exists.

On Nov 29, 7:48*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:55*pm, M Purcell wrote:





On Nov 29, 5:46*am, oriel36 wrote:

On Nov 29, 11:57*am, Peter Moylan
wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

Doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory views as valid so
when an empiricist tells you that he is looking back in time to the
first galaxies when the Universe was very small,he will also tell you
that the furthest galaxies away are the oldest in a very large
Universe so big bang is a triumph of doublethink -

You appear to be saying that, in the theoretical model that you believe
in, those two assertions contradict each other. I'm trying to think of a
model where doublethink would be required to reconcile the two statements.

Are you, perhaps, asserting that the speed of light is negative?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. * * *http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Simple stuff that anyone could deal with in a minute it takes to think
the thing through,you want the oldest galaxies to represent the
distance scale of the Universe but also believe that they are the
youngest galaxies at a time when the Universe was smaller,in the 5
seconds it takes to discover that it does not makes sense and is
possibly an affliction of the mind for those who genuinely believe
it,the person may discover the actual process of doublethink,not as a
narrative in a novel,but something where the readers in a forum like
this can have immediate contact with,in short ,doublethink is very
much alive and thriving.

I suppose you have trouble relating the sound of a gunshot to a
distant puff of smoke as well.

An elevator voice announcing a floor level sounds profound in
comparison to that and I took the time out to look through your
posting history to see if it was a once-off but unfortunately not,so,
the guys promoting big bang have nothing to worry about,their target
audience is more or less at your level who would run a million miles
than apply common sense to an ideology that doesn't have any,at least
to call it nonsense within two minutes of seeing it.

It is not that you wouldn't understand,there is nothing there in you
to appeal to one way or the other,that is why empiricism is so
dominant and that is why a no center/no circumference ideology (the
joke of it goes over your head) like big bang exists.

The only joke is that you are using the results of physics to refute
something you are unable to understand.

On 2010-11-29, Peter Moylan wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:
Urs Beeli wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:26:04 -0800 (PST) abzorba wrote:

So, it seems there is no OTHER scientific name for the creation of
the Universe apart from Big Bang!
[snip]

What do they say for Big Bang in other languages? I suppose we COULD
refer to it as the Prime Singularity. We could, but then, it appears we
don't. How odd.

The German word is "Urknall" which would translate to "primordial bang".

It doesn't look like German will help you find a more dignified word for
"bang" :-)

A more dignified name is '(the) initial singularity',

More dignified, perhaps, but is it used in any language? A writer using
it in English would have to explain "by that, I mean the Big Bang". The
phrase "the initial singularity" does make sense in English, but it's
not the standard name for the phenomenon.


I know physicists use the term "Big Bang" when addressing
non-physicists, but what do they call it when talking to each other?


--
No sport is less organized than Calvinball!