"In Search of the Big Bang" (brief review)

" wrote in message
oups.com...
George Dishman wrote:
snip
Second, when we look at galaxies closer to us, we see
light that was emitted more recently. Measurements of
Type Ia supernovae indicate that expansion in recent
times is actually greater than in the past so the
galaxies are accelerating away from us.

George, ALL the astronomical 'measurements' of galaxy velocities are
based on the assumption that c=c+v ...

Ignoring earlier corpuscular theories, the ballistic
model for light was proposed by Ritz in 1908. It was
sonn pointed out that observations of binary stars
already ruled it out and Sagnac's experiment in 1913
gives direct falsification in the lab. It has never
been used in any serious work.

ie that since a red shift is seen,
the galaxy MUST be moving rel us. I suspect that you think that the
demise of the threads (and privately) which dealt with red shift and
BB, was that
the debunkers (Androcles, Henri etc) had been convinced of this
formula.

No, as always happens, both sides presented their
arguments and neither opposition was convinced.

Henri said "Androcles" had gone off the net for
some unknown reason.

Henri himself spent a lot of time discussing it
and finally realised that the Sagnac question
was more difficult than he had realised. He last
said he was going to try to work it out using
the Basic program he had written so time will
tell if he can return with an answer.

snip
As for the balloon, I was considering it as but a containing membrane-
forget the surface!

The analogy is based on using the surface and
ignoring the volume. As I've suggested before,
you need to get out your dictionary and see
what the limitatins are on an analogy.

snip

c'=c+v explains all!

Then explain how the interferometric fibre-
optic gyro works. I've been challenging you on
that for many months.

Alternatively, you could try to provide a
quantitative explanation of the Sagnac
experiment without the error of "about a
factor of two" which Henri found. The ballistic
light model was ruled out by that 95 years ago.

George

[EL]
And the conclusion IS:
WE ARE AT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE.
The big bang must have started right at the centre of the earth. :-)
Proof:
"away from US" used several times.
Thus US here are at the centre of observation, hence everything is
relative to US here and now.
It is so amazing how a moving earth in a moving solar system in a
moving galaxy is keeping its billions of years long big bang position.
Was Aristotle right all those years!
I wonder if the earth is carried by elephants or turtles too. :-)

EheheL.


Very, very inaccurate conclusion. As I am sure you fully understand the
expansion is everything away from everything. Most references to "us" are
simply there to give the reader a frame of reference.

Basic tenet of physics - we are not at a significant place or time in the
universe.

"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[George Dishman wrote]
What is inside then is "The Past"
which of course is always increasing.
[EL]
That is a very wonderful idea, George.

Not mine, De Sitter's perhaps?

Relativity has a bad effect on you my friend, take a vacation. :-)
Your wedding pictures' album has the past Inside. ;-)
The past is everywhere you look indeed because we can hardly see the
future. ;-)
I present a cube and a sphere to you and ask you what you see, then you
answer "The past".
True, they must be but that would make cubes and spheres identical from
such a perspective.
Now we are trying to be less stoned. :-)
So we put a cube in one hand and a sphere in the other and ask about
the difference.

Easy, if the analogy models time as the radial
distance from the centre, a surface of given
cosmic age is one of given radius, hence it is
a sphere. Your cube may seem a witty ripost but
it is irrelevant.

The universe is technically infinite outside the context of the quantum
model of everything.
That is because only the quantum denies the existence of space.
Einstein (Later, a few years before he died) preferred to think of
matter expanse rather than occupying space.
Time and space were merged hypothetically while hypocritically using
separate dimensions for time and space.
I never saw any proposed unified dimension for space and time.

You should get out more ;-)

snip
Where is the centre of the Balloon Universe?

13.7 billion years in the past ;-)
[EL]
Are you now confusing the where with the when, shame on all those
Minkowski charts you drew. ;-)

I am confusing nothing, I gave the right answer,
you just asked the wrong question. (Spot the wink)
[EL]
Yes you wink indeed. :-)
But make no habit of protesting questions when you have no correct
answer. ;-)

I guess looking down another few lines was
too tricky for you. See below, "The answer
of course is ... 'everywhere'".

The only logical concept that can have a geometrical centre anywhere is
infinity.

Any point on the surface of a sphere can also
be considered equally central with any other
point yet it is finite ;-)

snip
I do know that you are just being clever to avoid admitting that there
is no answer to such a question.

Since the centre is in the past, you have to run
time back and see which point in space was at the
centre at t=0. Since cosmological age is represented
by the radius of the balloon, your question becomes
which point on the surface is at the centre when the
radius is zero. The answer of course is all of them
or "everywhere".
[EL]
True but silly when we seek the centre of today's universe.

You might be, I'm not. Why would we be so silly
as to look for something that doesn't exist?

We cannot test an assumption's validity if you follow the consequences
of the assumption assuming its validity.
My question is that assuming that the Big Bang model was correct then
that past starting point is logically evolving as a reference to
whatever is accelerating away from that point ALL THE TIME and not just
at the instant of the bang. This implies that if there is any proposed
assumption that the universe is STILL expanding, then it must be still
expanding away from that still existing centre, WHICH IS ANY OBSERVER
ON EARTH.
Does that make sense!

Not if you are talking of the Big Bang model that
everyone else discusses. It is homogenous and
isotropic so has no cent

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


The main thread had the subject line "Red shift
and homogeneity", Nov 2003. I think there were
other threads around that time on the same lines
but that one had 165 messages:

http://tinyurl.com/7vax8
[EL]
I consider myself to be an authentic debunker of the BB model, sorry.

Then you had better find out what it says because
you are tilting at a windmill at the moment.

Witty remarks about cubes instead of spheres won't
debunk anything either.

I see no physical essence in assuming all matter to originate from a
single point.

I wouldn't rule it out, but I consider the Big Bang
model far more reasonable.

I see no physical essence in illogical contradictions of unjustified
"keeping" then "releasing" all matter from a point.

I agree. Perhaps you should read about the Big Bang
model instead.

George

"T Wake" wrote in message
...
[EL]
And the conclusion IS:
WE ARE AT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE.
The big bang must have started right at the centre of the earth. :-)
Proof:
"away from US" used several times.
Thus US here are at the centre of observation, hence everything is
relative to US here and now.
It is so amazing how a moving earth in a moving solar system in a
moving galaxy is keeping its billions of years long big bang position.
Was Aristotle right all those years!
I wonder if the earth is carried by elephants or turtles too. :-)

EheheL.


Very, very inaccurate conclusion. As I am sure you fully understand the
expansion is everything away from everything.

I'm not so sure he does.

George

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) skrev:


We have NOT observed hubble expansion between the Earth and the
Moon. We have observed an apparent anomalous increase in the
distance between the Earth and the Moon, over and above the
tidally driven increase. The magnitude of this anomalous
increase is on the order of the "hubble flow".


But why must the increased distance be anomalous? A different interpretation
is that the Earth's rotation isn't slowing as much as expected from the
tidally driven increase in the Earth-Moon distance. Therefore, the
discrepancy may also be explained by any effects which would on their own
increase Earth's rotational rate.

--
Øystein Olsen, oystein.olsen_at_astro.uio.no, http://folk.uio.no/oeysteio
Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, http://www.astro.uio.no
University of Oslo, Norway

T Wake wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
oups.com...
Wrong Twake. Einstein says energy curves space.
That is his GR.

Show me where I am wrong


It says gravity curves spacetime.

Now its your turn Nick.

So. Energy curves space-time.
Is that all you can say moron?
Time curves too.
Curved time is slower time.
Einstein says the overall curvature of energy is half
space and the other half time.
Show me where I am wrong.

Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in
message ...
In article D5Rme.1537$Pp.1442@fed1read01,
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote:
....
Pardon me, but wasn't the *difference* between
tidally driven increase (evident in the period) and
a *possible* "hubble flow" increase
distinguishing enough?

No, since there is no way to distinguish between them.

Greg, you and David both seem to be discussing
the discrepancy in the change of radius of the
orbit as a possible direct consequence of the
Hubble flow. I don't quite follow that. If there
was a slight radial expansion, surely it wouldn't
be progressive.

I don't understand the choice of word "progressive" here George?

Imagine the Moon is moving perpendicularly to the
Earth-Moon line but at a speed which is marginally
too slow to maintain the orbit. In a short time,
it would move closer to the Earth. If you then add
expansion, that could just balance the inwards
motion thus what we would see would be a stable
circular orbit but at a speed fractionally slower
than would be expected for the radius.

I would think that this would obtain an elliptical orbit over the
two+ billions of years that we have records for the orbit of the
Moon. The "necessary deficit" would be variable over the entire
range of orbits...

In reality, the discrepancy would probably be less
than the accuracy of the measurement of GM for the
Earth but in principle, I don't see why you both
think there would be a resulting secular increase
of the radius.

I don't think he was trying to defend this. I think he was
simply trying ot have a modifier added to my claim that
"expansion was observed"... something like "perhaps", or "it
would appear that". (Sorry if I've caused you grief, Greg.)

I had a look at the paper David mentioned and it is
only cited by one other:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306091

Although much of it is beyond me, equation (63)
seems to be relevant to the discussion.

Hoping you can clue me in ...

I wondered if the local parameters might not be a function of our
position wrt the center of the Milky Way, and the "dynamo" that
powers it. I see the same issues with my fantasy, as I do with
his third paragraph after this formula, starting "We want to
suggest that each scale of this hierarchy of structures could
have its own Cosmology, so to speak,". Namely, "how do it know
how to behave"? The parameters very much "define the metric", so
how can the metric be relied upon to convey the "local" values of
these parameters?

I was simply believing that H0 was the same everywhere, as the
least "ad hoc" solution.

David A. Smith

[George Dishman wrote]
What is inside then is "The Past"
which of course is always increasing.
[EL]
That is a very wonderful idea, George.

Not mine, De Sitter's perhaps?

[EL]
It was and it still is the fashion.
Now we have a complete century full of sophistry pretending to be a
fantabulous vision.
While the past was said to be inside, the future outside and now is at
the door, your height is yesterday, your volume is now and your shoe
size is tomorrow. :-)
The 4D spacetime misconception has devastated a whole century and
turned us into celebrity clowns rather science professors. Since when
was "time" perpendicular to any preferred tangent to a surface!
I know the business very well, concerning the progression of motion
where each spatial coordinate checked corresponds to an event
associated with a temporal coordination within any arbitrated system,
and de Sitter, respectfully, explained that the surface of an expanding
sphere marks a temporal incident, thus the radius may represent a time
line as well. But what you are missing is that motion is not a time
concept exclusively and we should include the spatial concept unless we
were begging for laughter and applause from our circus audience.

Easy, if the analogy models time as the radial
distance from the centre,
[EL]
Indeed, and I apologise for my mockery, which I could not resist.
Yet that model would be nonsense if that time was not associated with
motion (expansion).
Here expansion is also nonsense when it is meant to be the expansion of
time alone.

a surface of given cosmic age is one of given radius,
hence it is a sphere.
Your cube may seem a witty riposte but it is irrelevant.
[EL]
I am not witty at all, and it was accidental.
I hate taking credit when I do not deserve one.
What I am saying is that the analogy is "lobotomised".
I accept integrating space and time into spacetime but I strongly
refuse replacing a spatial distance by the time representation LESS the
concept of associated motion that drags the identity of space along.
When motion takes the relative value of a zero (arbitrated
significance), time keeps increasing but is nonsensical without the
coordinates of the identity that marked the stationary state of motion.
Therefore, THAT radius does not ONLY represent time but ALSO represents
space, which the analogy severs without any logical justification.
How can we calculate the curvature of the surface of the expanding
universe? ;-)
*Warning: This is a very tricky question, so be careful when you answer
it.*
I am trying to be a "nice" person for a change. :-)

I never saw any proposed unified dimension for space and time.

You should get out more ;-)
[EL]
Could you recommend the entertainment facility in which I could find
what I seek? :-)


The only logical concept that can have a geometrical
centre anywhere is infinity.

Any point on the surface of a sphere can also
be considered equally central with any other
point yet it is finite ;-)
[EL]
The surface Area is finite, and the curvature at any event is finite,
and the radius must consequently be spatially finite. Therefore we are
inquiring about the centre from which that radius is being measured and
not a centre on the surface because that would be clownish. And it is
clownish sophistry to befuddle the laymen only.
I insist to inquire about the centre from which the "time-radius" is
being measured and not a point on the surface at all.

Since the centre is in the past, you have to run
time back and see which point in space was at the
centre at t=0. Since cosmological age is represented
by the radius of the balloon, your question becomes
which point on the surface is at the centre when the
radius is zero. The answer of course is all of them
or "everywhere".
[EL]
True but silly when we seek the centre of today's universe.

You might be, I'm not. Why would we be so silly
as to look for something that doesn't exist?
[EL]
I did not say that you were silly; seeking a centre of infinity is
silly.
It is silly because we already know that there is no preferred
coordinate that can be the centre of infinity.
However, I am disputing the model that projects a finite and unbounded
universe, which never admitted that the universe was infinite, which I
am certain to be infinite, hence the silliness.
Now, with a finite and unbounded universe, which expands like a
balloon's contiguous surface, one expects consistency of the model, and
expects a Gaussian curvature of such a finite surface of that finite
universe.
The curvature demands a spatial radius and not a temporal one. If that
surface of the universe was physical rather than simple clownish
sophistry, then constructing a normal line to the surface at multiple
points of tangency, the lines should intersect at that hypothetical
centre. However, I already know that the analogy and the whole model is
nothing more than clownish sophistry and I am not expecting any
conclusive answers to my sarcastic inquiery.


We cannot test an assumption's validity if you follow the consequences
of the assumption assuming its validity.
My question is that assuming that the Big Bang model was correct then
that past starting point is logically evolving as a reference to
whatever is accelerating away from that point ALL THE TIME and not just
at the instant of the bang. This implies that if there is any proposed
assumption that the universe is STILL expanding, then it must be still
expanding away from that still existing centre, WHICH IS ANY OBSERVER
ON EARTH.
Does that make sense!

Not if you are talking of the Big Bang model that
everyone else discusses. It is homogenous and
isotropic so has no cent
[EL]
I dispute the lack of consistency, when the universe is modelled as
finite as I explained above.
The logical consequences of a finite surface is a finite volume and a
finite radius and a finite centre for the topology of expansion
mediating the volume and not the surface area.
Did Einstein admit that the universe, in his model, had a finite
surface and an infinite volume!
He did NOT.
Therefore, the model is inconsistent with basic topological concepts.
I have no problem with 4D hyper-models of temporally evolving
geometries.
The fact that you were a child one day in the past and the fact that
that child does not exist anymore as he was defined back then, does not
exclude the fact that you are that child who evolved into an adult and
that you do have coordinates NOW. My sarcastic inquiry is meant to
expose the inconsistency of the model because I demand to know the
whereabouts of that point in the past after it had evolved into an
"adult" coordinate NOW by means of surface topological identities. The
failure to complete the analogy and truncating the logical
consequences, is enough proof of the fallacy and the poverty of the
model.


Witty remarks about cubes instead of spheres won't
debunk anything either.
[EL]
How about a dumbbell? ;-)
How about a double shelled double vortex, spiralling and compounding
magnanimous-periods of time.


I agree. Perhaps you should read about the
Big Bang model instead.
George
[EL]
Implying that I need to read about the BB, implies that you accuse me
of ignorance.
Well, I certainly hope to be found ignorant rather than not, when I am
confronted by loads of ridiculous assertions and inconsistent
analogies.

Kindest regards.

EL

Unky Alby inscribeth:
Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel wrote:

Aren't we all!

Look in any direction - all 4(pi) steradians. Direct exactly in-line
at the end of your gaze is the Big Bang. Idiot.

Methinks you missed the subtlety, Groucho.

[Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel wrote]:
Unky Alby inscribeth:
Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel wrote:

Aren't we all!

Look in any direction - all 4(pi) steradians. Direct exactly in-line
at the end of your gaze is the Big Bang. Idiot.

Methinks you missed the subtlety, Groucho.
[EL]
AL is a genius, of course, because when the probability is infinite
then anywhere should do.
The problem is in the cause that for no reason decided to be once and
for all!
As if a God is making an experiment in her own pace.
Let there be ****.
Let **** burn and emit light.
Or perhaps:
"Let there be all, but where is there if there is nowhere for all to
be."
And God said: "What the heck, let a bang decide for itself to be
anywhere".
And so it was, and God found that the Bang was Big, and God found that
Big is good. :-)
And God said, "Let us make mankind as small as us to see that the bang
was big."
Then God said, "Lat mankind fornicate and produce physicists with very
tiny brains to discover our Bang that was Big and argue not the
ridiculousness of idea."
And so it was, as God said, and earth was filled with clowns.
Then God said, "Let there be an internet and Usenet news-groups to
debate and make fun of us so that we are never bored again." :-)

Hahahahaha

EheheL