|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"Randy" wrote in message news:lWk9b.43$Qy4.2964@typhoon01...
"Catherine Hampton" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 03:46:33 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote: Are you trolling Greenfield? There is no edge--everywhere is the center. I doubt he's trolling. This is a misunderstanding I've bumped into among non-science people time and again when they're trying to understand space-time. My experience is that the "mental map" most people have of space-time isn't too different from what Newton held, although (of course) nowhere near as sophisticated. Most people are slaves to their mental images of reality; they might know, but don't really accept, that space-time as a whole can't be painted and doesn't "look" like any picture their minds can build. It takes a non-trivial grasp of mathematics (well past the standard high school two years of Algebra, one year of Geometry, and perhaps one of Trigonometry) before a person has the mental tools to begin to understand just how strange the universe is. Isn't it wonderful? Not that so few people have those tools, but that at least some do? It's wonderful if you have the tools, but it's *damned* frustrating when you don't. I *hate* not being able to understand stuff and I have to admit I just don't get some (or maybe even most LOL) of modern cosmology. Many questions, but no desire for ridicule. ;-) Observe, Randy, that the ridicule is directly proportional to the contradictions in the opposing arguement. Here we have Catherine, her tools in hand, come to insult and belittle. But take a closer look at her arsenal! (-1 x (-1) = +1 (to her) AND she reserves the right to use the square root of (-1) to 'prove' something with her magic and imaginary formula. Why not just use her hair brush? That is just as convincing to those who refuse to swallow this R and BB crap!! Jim G -- -Randy (OF+) 'Up the stairs. Into the fire.' |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
roy wrote in message news:2175542.99oyr7YbeT@localhost...
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. 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. We are not at the centre of the universe (as far as I know) but at the centre of cosmological expansion. Each and every point in space is by BB a place where expansion begins and thus at a centre of cosmological expansion. Given enough time (i believe about 15bly) then we (Earth) would indeed become a centre of our *observable* universe since expansion velocity at 14-15 billion light years would be greater than C and light from those distant objects could never reach us. Not so those poor souls at the extremities! Our observable universe may only be analogous in size to the whole universe as a speck is to our own observable universe. An object at 15 billion light years distant to us is in this way not really at the edge of the universe but only at the edge of our visible universe. What's at the true extremities of the universe which may be much larger than our visible universe? Nothing. It's theoretically just empty expanded spacetime. Thus there are no observers sitting out on the true edge looking into the inky abyss (false vacuum if it still exists at this time). If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away, That is estimated age of the universe. Who said it represented the distance to the edge? It may turn out that at an age of 13.7bly we are indeed at the centre of our observable universe by now. That is not the same thing as being at the centre of the universe at large. 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!! Anyone living at the edge of our observable universe has their own observable universe of 13.7 billion years age and visible horizon just like ours but of course they will see another vista. 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? No, they may be looking at a rareified region of the universe. Roy, about now the Big Bang Theory arguement has changed so much from the concept of an expansion coming from a singularity, producing a universe of a particular age, dimension and history, that the term should be altogether scrapped! You'll notice that supporting posters even talk in terms of infinity (an oxymoron to BB), and their squirms to explain isotropy and homogeneity in an expanding universe are breathtaking in the leaps of logic. Mind you, "logic" in the eyes of a Big Banger is the ability to jump at will from one 'frame of reference' to another- as it is with the DHRs A while ago, it would have been unusual to get even a shrug from a BB about the view out from the edge of the universe (or most likely, screaming and supercillious abuse); now the possibility of the view being the same as ours (thus taking the universe to infinity) is accepted by many as a given. (The guy in "Lord of the Ring" fought on like that with an arrow in his heart, but he still died-- bring on a similar fate for the the Original Theory) Jim G |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Second, and importantly, to maintain isotropy and homogeneity in an expanding universe endows the closer to center galxies with some form of telepathy! An expanding smoke cloud does not maintain homogeneity- neither would an expanding universe! Simple geometry shows the outer galaxies spreading faster, so the inner ones need a mechanism to maintain an equal separation..... ("POP") I don't see how you justify that. As far as I know BB argument states that recessional effects on mass distribution will be the same for both the observer and the observed. When we see galaxies speeding away and "rareifying" as groups in their region the same is happenning here to our groups. Neither place theirs or ours is special or different in terms of recession. Expansion is, roughly speaking, a product of hubble and distance. East or West makes no difference. roy Jim G |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
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? {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. It's only popular 'theory' that converts the observation into an 'age of the universe.' It's not 'revealed truth.' greywolf42 ubi dubium ibi libertas |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"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. {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. 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. George |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message om... "George Dishman" wrote in message ... "Jim Greenfield" wrote in message om... 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_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html Lets assume 13.701 for the sake of this discussion. Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east? (I assume "west" means in some arbitrary direction and "east" means in the opposite direction. A being 13.7 billion light years away is unlikely to share our definitions of east and west.) If we look 13.7 bly west, we might see a clump of hydrogen and helium gas as it was 1 million years after the 'bang' that would later become a galaxy. A being living there then could only see 100 million light years in any direction where they would see the CMBR that we measure, and within that region they would see little more than clumps of gas that would later become galaxies. Yes! That IS what we Should see, but photos of very distant galaxies Don't show that. We Don't see 'clumps of gas', but galaxies which may be similar to our own. If they were 13 b years younger, one would expect them to look different. They do. As several people have said, you should read up on the subject or you will embarras yourself. A being (called Jim) living in that galaxy 13.7 billion years later could look east and see a clump of hydrogen and helium gas as it was 1 million years after the 'bang' that would later become our galaxy. What do they observe when they 'look beyond'? Jim would see the same as us, galaxies distributed evenly throughout the whole region he could observe. If he looked west he could see a patch of hydrogen and helium gas 13.7 bly away, as it was 1 million years after the 'bang', that would later become a galaxy. That galaxy's light has not yet reached us. A being (called Sheila) living in that galaxy 13.7 billion years later would see the same as Jim and us, galaxies distributed evenly throughout the whole region she could observe. If she looked east, she would see the patch of gas destined to become Jim's galaxy as it was 1 million years after the 'bang', and if she looked west, ... STOP RIGHT HERE! Why didn't you elaborate? The ellipsis indicates that you should continue the sequence. I have written almost identical text three times. You should be able to see the pattern and repeat it as often as you like for yourself. What are the dimensions of the universe? Very much bigger than the patch we can see, possibly infinite. Imagine repeating the above series of beings seeing clumps of gas that would become galaxies containing other beings at least billions of times. This is Exactly My Point! I to believe the universe to be infinite-- not constricted by the boundaries and limitations of some sudden past singular event. Until a couple of years ago, "Big Bang" theory also said the same. Space and time are related in GR and unless the universe was going to collapse in a "Big Crunch", it had to be infinite, and there wasn't enough matter to do that. The acceleration of the expansion detected a few years ago came as a bit of a surprise and a recent paper suggests that it is possible for the universe to be finite without ending in a crunch so infinite size is less certain but still quite likely. Has light from one side of the universe reached the other? The universe doesn't have sides. Sooner or later some Big Banger will go on about living on an expanding 'membrane' similar to a balloon. That would represent the sides I refer to here. I agree; there are no sides because the dimensions are infinite. George, the concepts of infinity and BB are oxymoronic and incompatible. With just the observed density of matter, space in BB theory could only be infinite in BB theory, and that has been known since long before I joined this group many years ago. You really should find out more about it before embarrassing yourself with remarks like that. George |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
Bill Vajk wrote in message news:LUc9b.352142$Oz4.132093@rwcrnsc54...
Jim Greenfield wrote: snip Any way- answer the post or shut up! Can a being at position 13.7 bly west of here, see one 13.7 east? snip Jim, You are not seeing the universe as it is, but rather as it was, with distance concurrently representing time slices. Each successively more distant sphere you look at represents how the universe looked in successively more distant pasts. I understand that entirely. That is what what makes the age and size of the universe contradictary in BBT- in one breath they claim the age as 13.7by , which is oxymoronic to that light having left that position at that time. The age would need to be more than double, even allowing for an expansion at light speed. Consider that when that when some of the most distant light was made this earth didn't yet exist. We are seeing snapshots of many different pasts, none of which exists any longer. And in fact, when light left the most distant, and many even closer places, this earth didn't even exist yet, but we have come along to intercept some of that light. Yes Considering a universe which folds over on itself, 13.7 bly east and 13.7 bly west of here might be closer neighbors than you realize. Just when I thought that you were making sense, you come up with this clanger!!...that the edges might be closer than the half way point! The universe doesn't have to make sense to you. It is up to you to make sense of the universe that is, and it is a universe which is proving to be difficult to understand. Yes, but it's time to try other than BB tweaking. PS Have you seen evidence of galaxies previously calculated at, say, 1by distance, passing in front of another at 500 million? I wont be surprised Cheers Jim G |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
CeeBee wrote in message .6.67...
(Jim Greenfield) wrote in sci.astro: It is clear that _I_ am the center of the universe, as everything that happens only seems to happen when I observe it. Until that moment it isn't existent. This is very clear, as the Bing Bang theory was created because the Earth seemed near the center of the universe, as you - obviously being an expert on these matters - state, and I'm the center of my universe, thus is my center the center of the universe. Now answer _my_ questions: what is happening to all those objects and people when I'm not observing them? Are they standing still, freezed, or do they simply cease to exist until the next time I observe them? In that case, how come some things get created exactly the same when I change my position and observe them again? And what about people stating that I lack some very basic knowledge about the structure of reality, making my above questions utter nonsense, like yours? What about people suggesting you go troll somewhere else? Your arrogance cable must have a kink in it! If you think that nothing exists without YOU to observe it, the motor is screaming, and you are headed for a cliff! PS There were 2 rocks on a hillside before man saw them; pity you can't stand not being the center of attention. 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 |