Popping The Big Bang

Jim Greenfield wrote:

I will Assume here that Lorentz Contraction uses the velocity of light
in its formula...

Lorentz Contraction
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ntraction.html

Jim Greenfield wrote:

I agree- I reckon that velocity, distance, gravity (either, or, all)
can produce red shift,(+ or -), but red shift does not automatically
indicate universal expansion, or a 'beginning of time'.


Moessbauer Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...uerEffect.html

"CeeBee" wrote in message
. 6.67...
"George Dishman" wrote in sci.astro:


My point is just that if you only respond to those
who are abusive, you get an unbalanced view of the
general tone of respondents. Your statement "all
that you can expect- obfuscation, silence, or
virulent abuse (because they have little else to
offer!)" seems to reflect that.



If I _state_ that the theory of general relativity predicts that time
travel is possible, so it must be false because we never saw people from
the future, and this under the heading "Einstein was wrong" it could well
be that people advised me to do some basic reading about it before
spouting my wisdom.

So maybe the responses could be caused by the derogatory tone of the
messages of this poster himself, who claimed that the big bang theory
stated we're in the center of the physical universe, and asked a.o. what
people at the edge saw when they looked at the edge of the universe.
And that all under the heading "popping the big bang".

Maybe he could simply have asked how the theory worked. But he didn't. And
he doesn't know how the theory works, yet made some pretty derogatory
statements about supposed flaws that were however caused by his own lack
of basic knowledge about it.

Usenet is infested with way too many trolls and kooks who believe they
hold the wisdom that science couldn't find during it's search of hundreds
of years, so some of the responses to him are quite explainable.

CeeBee, I am not criticising you, Jim or anyone else for
the tone of any of the posts I have seen and apologise to
you and anyone else who thinks I did.

However, when Jim said "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!)" when people here are responding in
a polite and informative manner, it does suggest it is a
self-inflicted effect, either by his choice of the posts
to which he replies or as a result of his content as you
say.

I'd like to give him a chance to moderate his style and
argue his case on scientific grounds, but we will have to
see if he takes the hint.

George

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

I will Assume here that Lorentz Contraction uses the velocity of light
in its formula to show length reduction at speed, and that this is a
very importantant fundamental of Relativity Theory.

That is not correct. The effect is a consequence predicted
by the theory and not fundamental in any way.

So in the space provided, show in a billion words or less why a
submarine travelling on the surface is a different length to one below
at same speed. Good Luck!

The one submerged holds fewer people.

George
p.s. 999,999,994 words to spare :-)

George Dishman wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote in message
...

In this case, the globular cluster ages are based *both* on
observation (the main sequence turnoff) and upon theoretical
models of stellar evolution. Neither are based on the Hipparcos
results, nor on the CMBR data. And neither has changed substantially
(to my knowledge) since the 'youthening' of the BB universe,
post-Hipparcos/CMBR. (13.7 +- 0.2)

{We see below that there *is* an unexpected change from Hipparcos.}

So, what happened to those 15 to 18 billion year old globular
clusters? Or are cosmologists just ignoring them?

snip

The theoretical 'concept' is fine. It is simply contradicted by
observation. That's science.

Not quite. Assuming the cluster data is as you say, then
we have two incompatible observations, each of them with
associated uncertainties. Taking the uncertainty into
account, the ranges may overlap removing the problem.
Alternatively one must be wrong but we cannot say which
without further information. The best approach would be
to survey multiple independent values and uncertainties
and combine them appropriately to get the most likely
value. That is science IMHO.

Thanks for the effort!

This looks like the sort of result you might have in mind:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0109526

The value is 15 +/- 4 Gyr but is still easily compatible with
an overal age for the universe of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.

Not globular clusters. Stars within the galaxy. Assumes the BB is correct,
and uses radiogenics.

I also came across this referring to measurements by Cowan in 1997.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...eedman6_2.html

15.2 +/- 3.7 Gyr and 13.8 +/- 3.7 Gyr are also about the range you
mention but these are for halo stars, not clusters. Again these
uncertainties are wide enough to be compatible with a cosmological
age of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.

Also halo stars (not globular clusters) and assume the BB is correct.

This seems more relevant to clusters but the age lower limit is
only 12.07 Gyr. This is from 1995, before Hipparcos corrected
the distance estimates.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9509115

Yes, this one is globular clusters. But it's looking for an absolute 'lower
limit'. Not a most likely age range. Hipparcos does not affect these
estimates, as they result from variations in stellar simulations.

Also note this gives 14.6 +/- 1.7 Gyr for the clusters which they
equate to a lower limit on the age of the cosmos of 12.2 Gyr at 95%
confidence.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099

The above 1996 study is the kind I was looking for, thanks.

After Hipparcos you get:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704150

Excellent! Here the study 'reduces' the ages of the globular clusters by an
average of 2.8 billion years, mentions the 'shrunken' distance scale from
Hipparcos. Gives 11.8 +- 2.1 Gyr.


http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704078

I know of one other method -- the Hubble constant. And it does give
'similar' results. (10-15 BY IIRC the current best guess).

Likely the best of the lot. Explains the correct due to parallax
measurements of "metal-poor stars to re-define the subdwarf main-sequence".
The turnoff point of which is used to estimate the ages of globular
clusters.

Gives history as well. Notes the 1996 standard ages of globular clusters to
be 14-18 Gyrs (I was off by 1 on the lower end), with a formal value of 15.8
+- 2.1 Gyr. Notes the 'mid-term' value for the Hubble constant of 73 +- 10
from the HST key project team "implies an age of only 9 to 12 Gyrs when
interpreted in standard Lambda = 0 cosmological frameworks."

Sounds like a fun paper.

You might find Ned Wright summary useful then

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

Some of these links came from that page.

Good links. Poor descriptons.

.. But both
methods are contradicted by the observation of those 'too old'
globular clusters.

I'm no expert but I think I remember reading a year or so
ago a paper using measurements of white dwarfs that came
up with a lower limit in the 12Gyr range. In fact I think
it was related to globular clusters, I'll have to have a
dig around and see if I can find it again.

This is the one I remembered:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205087

It uses white dwarf cooling to get the age of M4.

Now THAT's a new method!

Now, can you tell me where those 'old globular clusters' went?

The clusters are still there, what current estimates are
for their ages is another matter, and there's no way I
could answer that without knowing which clusters you
mean. Even then, I'm not an astronomer and don't have
access to any of the subscription-based archives.

I think this answers your question

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706128

I'll have to spend more time on this one. "This represents a systematic
shift of over 2 $\sigma$ compared to our earlier estimate, due completely to
the new distance scale---which we emphasize is not just due to the Hipparcos
data." I wonder what else they used? (don't have time just now)

Compare that to their earlier estimates:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099

The simple answer is that the clusters are further away than
they thought, there is no contradiction.

Kinda backwards from my general expectation. As the large-distance scale
(Cepheids) was shortened by Hipparcos. Looks like the metal-poor stars were
affected differently.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote in message
...

Thanks for the effort!

OK. I'll read the papers myself too. That's how I learn
and why I'm here ;-)

This looks like the sort of result you might have in mind:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0109526

The value is 15 +/- 4 Gyr but is still easily compatible with
an overal age for the universe of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.

Not globular clusters. Stars within the galaxy. Assumes the BB is
correct,
and uses radiogenics.

It assumes that our understanding of the r-process is correct
but I'm not sure about the BB, I'll have to read it first. I
notesd it only because of the high age.

I also came across this referring to measurements by Cowan in 1997.

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...eedman6_2.html

15.2 +/- 3.7 Gyr and 13.8 +/- 3.7 Gyr are also about the range you
mention but these are for halo stars, not clusters. Again these
uncertainties are wide enough to be compatible with a cosmological
age of 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr.

Also halo stars (not globular clusters) and assume the BB is correct.

Comments as above.

This seems more relevant to clusters but the age lower limit is
only 12.07 Gyr. This is from 1995, before Hipparcos corrected
the distance estimates.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9509115

Yes, this one is globular clusters. But it's looking for an absolute
'lower
limit'. Not a most likely age range.

"We report the results of a detailed numerical study designed to
estimate both the absolute age and the uncertainty in age (with
confidence limits) of the oldest globular clusters."

In all cases, an actual age for a cluster is only a lower limit
on the BB since the cluster would have started forming some time
after the BB.

Hipparcos does not affect these
estimates, as they result from variations in stellar simulations.

Also note this gives 14.6 +/- 1.7 Gyr for the clusters which they
equate to a lower limit on the age of the cosmos of 12.2 Gyr at 95%
confidence.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099

The above 1996 study is the kind I was looking for, thanks.

After Hipparcos you get:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704150

Excellent! Here the study 'reduces' the ages of the globular clusters by
an
average of 2.8 billion years, mentions the 'shrunken' distance scale from
Hipparcos. Gives 11.8 +- 2.1 Gyr.

See below regarding "shrunken".

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9704078

I know of one other method -- the Hubble constant. And it does give
'similar' results. (10-15 BY IIRC the current best guess).

Likely the best of the lot. Explains the correct due to parallax
measurements of "metal-poor stars to re-define the subdwarf
main-sequence".
The turnoff point of which is used to estimate the ages of globular
clusters.

Gives history as well. Notes the 1996 standard ages of globular clusters
to
be 14-18 Gyrs (I was off by 1 on the lower end), with a formal value of
15.8
+- 2.1 Gyr. Notes the 'mid-term' value for the Hubble constant of 73 +-
10
from the HST key project team "implies an age of only 9 to 12 Gyrs when
interpreted in standard Lambda = 0 cosmological frameworks."

Sounds like a fun paper.

Definitely. Of course "Lambda = 0" is now unlikely which
will also have a significant impact, not just on this but
many of the earlier papers.

This is the one I remembered:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205087

It uses white dwarf cooling to get the age of M4.

Now THAT's a new method!

Now, can you tell me where those 'old globular clusters' went?

The clusters are still there, what current estimates are
for their ages is another matter, and there's no way I
could answer that without knowing which clusters you
mean. Even then, I'm not an astronomer and don't have
access to any of the subscription-based archives.

I think this answers your question

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706128

I'll have to spend more time on this one. "This represents a systematic
shift of over 2 $\sigma$ compared to our earlier estimate, due completely
to
the new distance scale---which we emphasize is not just due to the
Hipparcos
data." I wonder what else they used? (don't have time just now)

I haven't had time yet either but the abstract starts:

"We review five independent techniques which are used to
set the distance scale to globular clusters, .... These
data together all indicate that globular clusters are
farther away than previously believed, implying a
reduction in age estimates."

Note they say all imply the clusters are "farther away
than previously believed" which seems to conflict with
your use if "shrunken" above. I haven't read either
paper yet though.

Compare that to their earlier estimates:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9605099

The simple answer is that the clusters are further away than
they thought, there is no contradiction.

Kinda backwards from my general expectation. As the large-distance scale
(Cepheids) was shortened by Hipparcos. Looks like the metal-poor stars
were
affected differently.

It will take me a few days to get through these, too
much to do at the moment.

Have fun.
George

"George Dishman" wrote in sci.astro:


I'd like to give him a chance to moderate his style and
argue his case on scientific grounds, but we will have to
see if he takes the hint.


Fair enough.

--
CeeBee


Uxbridge: "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
Wellington: "By God, sir, so you have!"


Google CeeBee @ www.geocities.com/ceebee_2

On 20 Sep 2003 05:54:38 GMT, wrote:

In sci.astro Randy Poe wrote:

"Your" pet theory is an old one called "tired light". Google
on that phrase and you'll find lots of sites explaining
why the theory doesn't fit the red-shift data. You'll
also find a couple of sites trumpeting the theory.
- Randy

Randy,
My pet theory is NOT the old one called "tired light".
I propose NO loss of light frequency over distance.

OK, then you're going to have to explain why you believe "the distance
shifts the light" but there's no change in frequency over distance.
How do you get a red shift without a change in frequency?

I do NOT
propose any questionable energy loss mechanisms for photons.
And yes, I did check the trumpeting while working on this. I also
checked the "tired light" debunking sites which I am pretty much
in agreement with. I do not believe photons loose energy (frequency)
while traveling space. In my theory, the red shift occurs
ONLY at the observer position and then only because the the
light is traveling at an angle with repect to our space.

Bottom line: is red-shift purely proportional to distance or is it
possible to get blue shifts in your theory? Real astronomical
observations show the famous Hubble observation of an increasing
trend, but there are blue-shifted objects, and things like mutually
orbiting binary stars are detected because there's a sinusoidal
blue-shift/red-shift imposed on top of the distance-related shift.

If you make the same predictions as tired light, then you don't have
an improved theory.

- Randy

Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Jim Greenfield wrote:

I agree- I reckon that velocity, distance, gravity (either, or, all)
can produce red shift,(+ or -), but red shift does not automatically
indicate universal expansion, or a 'beginning of time'.


Moessbauer Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...uerEffect.html

Thanks for link
Jim G

In sci.astro Randy Poe wrote:
Randy,
My pet theory is NOT the old one called "tired light".
I propose NO loss of light frequency over distance.

OK, then you're going to have to explain why you believe "the distance
shifts the light" but there's no change in frequency over distance.
How do you get a red shift without a change in frequency?

The difference is that "tired light" postulates that light
shifts or loses energy (whichis frequency) as it travels
over astronomical distances. I postulate that the light is
traveling that distance WITHOUT losing energy but in fact
gets shifted ONLY at the obeservation point because of the
angle that is present between the path of the light and the
diminsions within which we exist.

Bottom line: is red-shift purely proportional to distance or is it
possible to get blue shifts in your theory? Real astronomical
observations show the famous Hubble observation of an increasing
trend, but there are blue-shifted objects, and things like mutually
orbiting binary stars are detected because there's a sinusoidal
blue-shift/red-shift imposed on top of the distance-related shift.

It is possible to get blue-shifts in my theory. Two ways. One is
by doppler shifts. My theory does not negate nor deny the existence
of doppler shifts! It only suggests that most of Red shift is due
to the 4th dimensional path of the light and Not due to Doppler.
This implies no big bang and a relatively static universe However,
relative motions withing that static system DO give Doppler shifts.

If you make the same predictions as tired light, then you don't have
an improved theory.

First, off, any new theory MUST predict things that fit observational
data. Otherwise, it probably isn't much good. The difference in mine
over "tired light" is that tired light is based on assumptions
about photon physics which do not seem to be observed in experiment.
Therefore, by implying photonic properties which are not generally
observed, the "tired light" theory is suspect.

Bjacoby

--
SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me!