A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 29th 05, 12:10 PM
EL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[George Dishman wrote]
" wrote in message
oups.com...


George Dishman wrote:
" wrote in message
ups.com...
So "The Big Bang" in is infinite directions?????????
What a handy hiding place! The chances of tracing the
origin being infinite also.................

Hi Jim,

Come on, you know better than that. The theory
also says the universe was homogenous at large
scales so conditions here were the same as
everywhere else. The hydrogen atoms in your body
were made in the bang.


G'day George
I think it much more likely that the H in my system has been
in the form of emr particles (of whatever denomination- and including
nutrinos etal), and higher on the nuclear table
an INFINITE number of times. I just happen to be a combination of those
in the H mode at this period.


That would be an alternative view but I
was addressing the apparent error in your
understanding of the Big Bang model. In
that, the hot, dense phase occurred
everywhere, not at a single location.

As for the homogoneity, pop the balloon (in vacuum), and the air LOOSES
its homogeneity.


In the balloon analogy, it is the (2D)
rubber that represents our (3D) space.

[EL]
I was under the impression that balloons have centres.
Where is the centre of the Balloon Universe?

The rubber is homogenous but gets
thinner as the balloon swells.

I realise that BB purports that an "external"
expansion carries matter with it,


Nope, we discussed this at length many
months ago. The expansion is of the
three dimensions of space. Go back to
our lengthy thread with Sean.

[EL]
Like a virtual expansion or something!
The Big Bang model is standing on two empirical readings:
The CMBR and the Red Shift.
This model in contrast to a steady state (in which Einstein first
believed) is only good enough if the steady state model was as clumsy
as was proposed back then.
If there was a steady state model that explains both of the Red Shift
and the CMBR, you should agree that it would be superior to a clumsy
non-causal trigger of a bang, that was big when size had no meaning at
all.
I do have such a model in my TKTODO that I shall publish back soon.
Stay tuned, my friend. :-)


in order to bring about the increase
in volume of the universe, but it doesn't wash!
The air molecules on one side have a gravitational attraction towards
the other side (on average) which discount the homogenous expansion of
the universe--- or is that why anti-gravity is required??


That is what creates galaxies. Over
short ranges matter is drawn together
by gravity while it is too weak at
longer ranges and the universe
continues to expand.

The cosmological term is required only
because the expansion appears to be
speeding up when it was expected to
be slowing down.

George


  #12  
Old May 29th 05, 01:11 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[George Dishman wrote]
" wrote in message
oups.com...


George Dishman wrote:
" wrote in message
ups.com...
So "The Big Bang" in is infinite directions?????????
What a handy hiding place! The chances of tracing the
origin being infinite also.................

Hi Jim,

Come on, you know better than that. The theory
also says the universe was homogenous at large
scales so conditions here were the same as
everywhere else. The hydrogen atoms in your body
were made in the bang.

G'day George
I think it much more likely that the H in my system has been
in the form of emr particles (of whatever denomination- and including
nutrinos etal), and higher on the nuclear table
an INFINITE number of times. I just happen to be a combination of those
in the H mode at this period.


That would be an alternative view but I
was addressing the apparent error in your
understanding of the Big Bang model. In
that, the hot, dense phase occurred
everywhere, not at a single location.

As for the homogoneity, pop the balloon (in vacuum), and the air LOOSES
its homogeneity.


In the balloon analogy, it is the (2D)
rubber that represents our (3D) space.

[EL]
I was under the impression that balloons have centres.


The 3D volume of the sphere has a centre.
The 2D surface does not.

Where is the centre of the Balloon Universe?


13.7 billion years in the past ;-)

The rubber is homogenous but gets
thinner as the balloon swells.

I realise that BB purports that an "external"
expansion carries matter with it,


Nope, we discussed this at length many
months ago. The expansion is of the
three dimensions of space. Go back to
our lengthy thread with Sean.

[EL]
Like a virtual expansion or something!


No, I'm just trying to explain the conventional
model to Jim. The thread in question ran for
months and included hundreds of posts. You
would need to catch up a lot to follow this.
I'll try to find the subject line later if
you want to.

The Big Bang model is standing on two empirical readings:
The CMBR and the Red Shift.
This model in contrast to a steady state (in which Einstein first
believed) is only good enough if the steady state model was as clumsy
as was proposed back then.
If there was a steady state model that explains both of the Red Shift
and the CMBR, you should agree that it would be superior to a clumsy
non-causal trigger of a bang, that was big when size had no meaning at
all.


My only criteria for superiority are fit to
experimental data followed by Occam's Razor.
If you could develop a steady-state model that
gives accurate predictions for the shape of
the frequency spectrum, the intensity and the
angular power spectrum of the CMBR, I would be
most impressed. Check the WMAP results if you
aren't familiar with these tests.

I do have such a model in my TKTODO that I shall publish back soon.
Stay tuned, my friend. :-)


I'll be here. So will many others.

George


  #13  
Old May 29th 05, 05:29 PM
EL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[George Dishman wrote]
In the balloon analogy, it is the (2D)
rubber that represents our (3D) space.

[EL]
I was under the impression that balloons have centres.


The 3D volume of the sphere has a centre.
The 2D surface does not.

[EL]
Are you in any way conveying the nincompoop about a spherical shell 2D
surface (rubber of a balloon) that has no 3D sphere being contained
inside that surface! Well, there is a way out called "Hyperbola", but
believe me when I tell you that every mass MUST have a virtual centre,
which is not a virtual geometric coordinate.
The Big Bangers failed to realise that the cross section of the
universe must be hyperbolic to explain all their contradictions that
they did not explain. Einstein did know it but he either had not the
time or was just reluctant to argue with imbeciles shoving CMBR
empirical data in his face, so he gave up.


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 do know that you are just being clever to avoid admitting that there
is no answer to such a question.
Not because the universe is a 2D surface that as no volume but because
the universe is bounded and infinite rather than finite and unbounded.
Topologically speaking, only infinity can have a centre anywhere, but
where is that brave- heart who can stand tall and say that Einstein was
wrong on things and very correct on other things?


The rubber is homogenous but gets
thinner as the balloon swells.

I realise that BB purports that an "external"
expansion carries matter with it,

Nope, we discussed this at length many
months ago. The expansion is of the
three dimensions of space. Go back to
our lengthy thread with Sean.

[EL]
Like a virtual expansion or something!


No, I'm just trying to explain the conventional
model to Jim.

[EL]
Correct you are. :-)

The thread in question ran for
months and included hundreds of posts. You
would need to catch up a lot to follow this.
I'll try to find the subject line later if
you want to.

[EL]
No need for that, as I believe me to be the 1994 fire- starter. :-)


The Big Bang model is standing on two empirical readings:
The CMBR and the Red Shift.
This model in contrast to a steady state (in which Einstein first
believed) is only good enough if the steady state model was as clumsy
as was proposed back then.
If there was a steady state model that explains both of the Red Shift
and the CMBR, you should agree that it would be superior to a clumsy
non-causal trigger of a bang, that was big when size had no meaning at
all.


My only criteria for superiority are fit to
experimental data followed by Occam's Razor.
If you could develop a steady-state model that
gives accurate predictions for the shape of
the frequency spectrum, the intensity and the
angular power spectrum of the CMBR, I would be
most impressed. Check the WMAP results if you
aren't familiar with these tests.

[EL]
Thank you George, I am humbly doing my best.
I believe in my work as the meaning of my life.
I hardly care to impress anyone, and I certainly do not believe in
vanity affairs.
Naturally, I must verify the consistency of my model and explain the
readings accordingly.
The big difference between the classical steady state and mine is that
there is absolutely nothing steady in my model other than the topology,
which encapsulates the dynamic structure. That is how the topologically
peripheral galaxies are always slower than any inner ones, which
renders light emitted by the said outer ones Red Shifted as received by
any inner ones as the distance increases over time. The background
microwaves are significantly constant but insignificantly variant
because of the extreme relation between the micro-scale and the
macro-scale. No significant changes can be expected within a time
window of 100,000 years.


I do have such a model in my TKTODO that I shall publish back soon.
Stay tuned, my friend. :-)


I'll be here. So will many others.

George

[EL]
That is the spirit, but not to the extent of holding your breath.
You know, because of time dilation and all. :-)

EL

  #14  
Old May 29th 05, 05:53 PM
T Wake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[EL]

Are you in any way conveying the nincompoop about a spherical shell 2D
surface (rubber of a balloon) that has no 3D sphere being contained
inside that surface! Well, there is a way out called "Hyperbola", but
believe me when I tell you that every mass MUST have a virtual centre,
which is not a virtual geometric coordinate.
The Big Bangers failed to realise that the cross section of the
universe must be hyperbolic to explain all their contradictions that
they did not explain. Einstein did know it but he either had not the
time or was just reluctant to argue with imbeciles shoving CMBR
empirical data in his face, so he gave up.


I am sorry, I seem to have missed the start of this and for some reason my
news server hasn't got them available for me to look at. For this reason I
am sorry if I am mis-apointing comments or opinions.

However, am I right in thinking that some one is getting confused over the
balloon analogy for the expansion of the universe. The analogy is based on
the surface of the balloon showing a two dimensional representation of three
dimensional space. There is no centre to the balloon unless you add in a
third dimension which renders the analogy obsolete.

The balloon is not a proper model of the universe, it is simply a method for
clarifying the way space expands without large scale structures needing to
move - and it indicates that the expansion of space is in all directions
simultaneously.

Once again, I am sorry if I have totally got the wrong end of the stick
here.


  #15  
Old May 29th 05, 09:38 PM
EL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

T Wake wrote:
"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
[EL]

Are you in any way conveying the nincompoop about a spherical shell 2D
surface (rubber of a balloon) that has no 3D sphere being contained
inside that surface! Well, there is a way out called "Hyperbola", but
believe me when I tell you that every mass MUST have a virtual centre,
which is not a virtual geometric coordinate.
The Big Bangers failed to realise that the cross section of the
universe must be hyperbolic to explain all their contradictions that
they did not explain. Einstein did know it but he either had not the
time or was just reluctant to argue with imbeciles shoving CMBR
empirical data in his face, so he gave up.


I am sorry, I seem to have missed the start of this and for some reason my
news server hasn't got them available for me to look at. For this reason I
am sorry if I am mis-apointing comments or opinions.

However, am I right in thinking that some one is getting confused over the
balloon analogy for the expansion of the universe. The analogy is based on
the surface of the balloon showing a two dimensional representation of three
dimensional space. There is no centre to the balloon unless you add in a
third dimension which renders the analogy obsolete.

The balloon is not a proper model of the universe, it is simply a method for
clarifying the way space expands without large scale structures needing to
move - and it indicates that the expansion of space is in all directions
simultaneously.

Once again, I am sorry if I have totally got the wrong end of the stick
here.

[EL]
Not at all, you are absolutely correct with your explanation.
The issue is whether such an explanation is anywhere realistically
satisfactory or can be regarded as sophisticated nincompoop that has no
physical relevance whatsoever.
I am quite certain that you are conveying the textbook's nincompoop
quite honestly, and you get the credits of being knowledgeable and
honest, but no one can blame you for conveying what was authentically
fabricated as the most ridiculous model that has no resemblance to any
logical scenario.
Those who authored that model deny space to exist without matter, while
severely falling into a contradiction assuming that that nonexistent
space is centre-less and expanding, thus pushing the 2D membrane
outwards.

We always look at compounded histories of light, and nothing is where
it seems to be now. Thus, the most outer is not expanding in the sense
of going away from us now, but rather WAS going away very long time ago
from where we came to be before we ever come to be. If what we see now
to have been going away then was coming closer later, much later that
we need a long time to realise that it is contracting, then why does
anyone persist to claim that the universe must be expanding now if we
do not even what light looks like now if it needed billions of years to
arrive to smash our numb senses?

EL

  #16  
Old May 29th 05, 10:23 PM
T Wake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"EL" wrote in message
ups.com...
[EL]
Not at all, you are absolutely correct with your explanation.
The issue is whether such an explanation is anywhere realistically
satisfactory or can be regarded as sophisticated nincompoop that has no
physical relevance whatsoever.


I agree with you here. The use of the balloon is simply an aid to explain
what can often be a difficult concept to beginners.

I am quite certain that you are conveying the textbook's nincompoop
quite honestly, and you get the credits of being knowledgeable and
honest, but no one can blame you for conveying what was authentically
fabricated as the most ridiculous model that has no resemblance to any
logical scenario.


Yes. There are issues with how realistic a model it is. However, for its
role it is suitable. If you need to explain the concept of a universe
expanding without anything needing to move it can be helpful. I am not sure
what would prove to be a better analogy.

Those who authored that model deny space to exist without matter, while
severely falling into a contradiction assuming that that nonexistent
space is centre-less and expanding, thus pushing the 2D membrane
outwards.


Interesting concepts.

The model is a teaching aid and shouldn't be attributed with any scientific
credibility for anything else. The model really shouldn't be used to attempt
to predict any thing or create new theories. I don't think its fair to state
the "authors" of the analogy (if anyone ever knows who first came up with
the idea!) are attempting to deny anything. If, you must it become obvious
the model denies the existence of a third spatial dimension let alone
anything else.

Its an important part of cosmology to assume the universe is centre-less.
This doesn't imply that everything within the universe is centre-less. For
example, my car has a "centre."

We always look at compounded histories of light, and nothing is where
it seems to be now. Thus, the most outer is not expanding in the sense
of going away from us now, but rather WAS going away very long time ago
from where we came to be before we ever come to be. If what we see now
to have been going away then was coming closer later, much later that
we need a long time to realise that it is contracting, then why does
anyone persist to claim that the universe must be expanding now if we
do not even what light looks like now if it needed billions of years to
arrive to smash our numb senses?

EL


The problem with cosmological studies, is by the very nature of it you are
looking at things that happened in the distant past. Claims about the
expansion, contraction (or both) of the universe are based on the principle
that we do not occupy a significantly important point in time. It is
entirely possible that the cosmological expansion we see 1x10^9 ly away is
simply an ancient remnant, and "now" the "edge" of the universe is rushing
back towards us. However, there is no way to ever test this theory so it
must remain outside the realms of science for the time being.

One important point in favour of continuing expansion is that large scale
structures we see close to our local group are also expanding, in line with
the rate we see at the edge of the visible universe. This implies that the
expansion that occurred 13 billion years ago was still occurring a mere few
hundred years ago.

Still, as I said it is an interesting theory.


  #17  
Old May 29th 05, 10:41 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There always is gravity Twake. But it is nonsigular. It is spread out.
The original energy must be spread out so that its gravity won't
be so strong as to prevent the big bang expansion.
Light/energy has gravity in General Relativity.

Began as light?
The original energy couldn't be light. It would produce matter/anti
matter in
equal amounts. Matter/anti matter would be alltogether in one place
without any possibility of seperating out.

Not possible.

  #19  
Old May 30th 05, 01:22 AM
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dear EL:

"EL" wrote in message
ups.com...
T Wake wrote:

....
We always look at compounded histories of light,
and nothing is where it seems to be now. Thus,
the most outer is not expanding in the sense of
going away from us now, but rather WAS going
away very long time ago from where we came to
be before we ever come to be.


Hubble expansion has been observed to be occurring between the
Earth and the Moon. Over the last few tens of years. Over and
above the tidally driven "angular momentum transfer"

If what we see now
to have been going away then was coming
closer later, much later that we need a long
time to realise that it is contracting, then why
does anyone persist to claim that the
universe must be expanding now


What forces come into play to cause the contraction? Someone had
to fabricate Dark Energy to describe the acceleration. What will
you use to reverse expansion? ELectricity?

if we
do not even what light looks like now if it
needed billions of years to arrive to smash
our numb senses?


Don't worry. Contraction would kill all life on this planet,
when visible light was blue shifted with z = 5.

David A. Smith


  #20  
Old May 30th 05, 04:07 AM
Greg Hennessy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article P1tme.1330$Pp.864@fed1read01,
N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:
Hubble expansion has been observed to be occurring between the
Earth and the Moon. Over the last few tens of years. Over and
above the tidally driven "angular momentum transfer"


Says who?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NOMINATION: digest, volume 2453397 Ross Astronomy Misc 233 October 23rd 05 04:24 AM
The Big Bang and the Search for Dark Matter (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 November 1st 04 06:30 PM
Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? Yoda Misc 102 August 2nd 04 02:33 AM
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 September 10th 03 04:39 PM
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report Ron Baalke Misc 0 September 10th 03 04:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.