big bang question

I have heard it said that one piece of evidence of the big bang is that it
is dark at night. I for the life of me can't figure out why that would be,
although if I recall it made sense when I fgirst read it. I may be confusing
a couple things I read also

"Dan Moos" wrote in message news:n89fe.1109$Fn1.203@trnddc03...
I have heard it said that one piece of evidence of the big bang is that it
is dark at night. I for the life of me can't figure out why that would be,
although if I recall it made sense when I fgirst read it. I may be confusing
a couple things I read also

Look up Olbers' Paradox.

If the Universe were static and eternal then no matter in what
direction one looked one's line of site should intersect the
surface of a star, the result being that the sky should be
uniformly bright, and in fact the same brightness as the surface
of the average star (ouch!).

The resolution of the paradox (which thus renders it non paradoxical)
involves assuming a limited lifetime for the universe.

In message , Greg Neill
writes
"Dan Moos" wrote in message
news:n89fe.1109$Fn1.203@trnddc03...
I have heard it said that one piece of evidence of the big bang is that it
is dark at night. I for the life of me can't figure out why that would be,
although if I recall it made sense when I fgirst read it. I may be confusing
a couple things I read also

Look up Olbers' Paradox.


The resolution of the paradox (which thus renders it non paradoxical)
involves assuming a limited lifetime for the universe.



Strictly speaking, "one resolution", not "the resolution". There are
others, but they don't seem to apply because that one seems to work :-)
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Dan Moos wrote:
I have heard it said that one piece of evidence of the big bang is that it
is dark at night. I for the life of me can't figure out why that would be,
although if I recall it made sense when I fgirst read it. I may be confusing
a couple things I read also


To elaborate on what the other two posters state, the paradox is rendered non
paradoxical because of the finite age of the universe and the finite speed of
light. Only those objects that lie roughly inside a sphere whose radius is the
distance light can travel in the age of the universe have had sufficient time to
send us light that we can even see. Objects outside this sphere simply have not
had such time, but as the universe ages, in principle they two will come into view.

In addition, a secondary solution is that as the universe has expanded, it has
redshifted light produced initially in the visible part of the spectrum to
wavelengths we cannot see (the ultimate example of this is the light of last
scatter released into a matter-neutral universe some 300,000 to half million
years after the initial expansion we today call the big bang. That radiation
has been redshifted by a factor of about 1000, putting it in the microwave part
of the spectrum after starting off in the red end of the visible spectrum.

Dan Having a night sky tells us the universe is finite. Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Dan Having a night sky tells us the universe is finite. Bert

finite in age, but not finite in size. I mean, other things seam to point
out that it is finite in size, but not the night sky, right?

Also, how do we use redshift to judge distance? I always thought that it
only told us the speed at which something is moving towards or away from us.
And since we don't know where the big bang originated, how can we use
redshift to judge distance? Or am I misundertanding something?

I am a creationist who is realistic about science. In other words, I believe
"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" sums up about 12
billion (or whatever the current estimate is) years of universal history.

"Dan ~ Having a night sky
Tells us the universe is finite."
~ Bert

"Finite in age,
But not finite in size. I mean, o
Other things, too, seam to point out
That size is finite in size,
But not the night sky, right?"
~ Dan Moos

"Dan ~ Know!
No moo or doggie DNA for you."
~ Folly

HiDan The age and size of the universe would be much the same. If its
size is 13.5 billion Light years than it is 13,5 billion years old.
However Guth had it inflating out some 2 billion LY in the BB first part
of a second,and that means its size should be that much bigger than its
age. The end result on universe's age and size will be my 22 billion LY
It is hard to imagine in 1905 the Milky Way was what was considered the
universe. Powerful telescopes made it bigger and bigger Gravity lens
made it bigger and bigger,and now with giant radio telescopes my 22
billion LY size is just over the horizon. Bert

nightbat wrote

Dan Moos wrote:

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Dan Having a night sky tells us the universe is finite. Bert

nightbat

Yes, the disturbed portion we can observe is finite, Bert, but
not to energies potential for further enlargement or total
renormalization. The absence of space night light background indicates
limited amount of total Universe non uniform momentum restricted to
condensed energy particles and bodies under gravitational stress.


Dan
finite in age, but not finite in size. I mean, other things seam to point
out that it is finite in size, but not the night sky, right?

nightbat

Not exactly, because energy has no limiting beginning time
because it is eternal. Non uniform momentum without designer also could
not have an beginning because you need an action to cause reaction or
non uniformity.

Dan
Also, how do we use redshift to judge distance? I always thought that it
only told us the speed at which something is moving towards or away from us.

nightbat

The observed red shift of cosmic body(ies) provide a present
basis for their presumed shift away or distant estimation from
observer's frame. If theoretically the base quantum energy space field
is expanding faster in observed Universe perimeters while
non-quantifibly condensing in strong gravity field factor, the expansion
or red shift of the embedded space bodies is not conclusive to
affirmative Universe expansion but affirmation simply to its constant
renormalization attempt dynamics. The physical observed Universe is not
static but in a constant flux state of attempted uniform momentum
reality.

Dan
And since we don't know where the big bang originated, how can we use
redshift to judge distance? Or am I misundertanding something?

nightbat

There can be no beginning Big Bang due to energy's non creation
or its destructibility, I explained mathematical proof implication of
this to the net science groups many years ago. Even Hawking has finally
just recently understood this and reversed himself because he too after
30 years finally got it.


Dan
I am a creationist who is realistic about science. In other words, I believe
"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" sums up about 12
billion (or whatever the current estimate is) years of universal history.

nightbat

If you claim you are a religious based creationist and mix
disciplines you cannot be realistic about science for both theologies or
subjects are not presently the same. Religion is faith based while
science is empirical evidence, observation, or anchored postulate and
mathematical proof based. Your religious beliefs have no barring in
science, not even philosophy meritorious, further your belief in deity
and creation premise is outside the purview of present science. The
reference to your Creation Biblical reference is, In the beginning God
purportedly said " Let there be light " and the waters of the dark
firmament were separated not created, get it right. Energy cannot be
created or destroyed, just transformed. You can't create something that
has no origination, just designer effect transform its initial or
natural property base state. Without religious designer input premise
then non uniform momentum always was because for every action there is a
reaction. Designer non BB but purely physical separation of waters
creation or non-uniform momentum continuum, take your choice, but you
can't have your cake and eat it too.


ponder on,
the nightbat

Dan Moos wrote:

snip

Also, how do we use redshift to judge distance? I always thought that it
only told us the speed at which something is moving towards or away from us.
And since we don't know where the big bang originated, how can we use
redshift to judge distance? Or am I misundertanding something?


Years of observation of very distant objects (say, ten Mpc or more)
have shown that in general the farther away they are, the faster they
appear to be receding. (Hence the notion that the universe is
expanding.) It is this known trend that allows distances to be
estimated from redshifts; the 'conversion factor' relating them is
called the Hubble constant.

As for where the big bang occurred, current theory certainly does
have an answer: right here -- and everywhere else in the universe as
well.

--
Odysseus