Re: Localized Big Bang

Dear gandalf:

<gandalf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1179611690.799739.295090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Greetings and Salutations:

On May 19, 9:55 am, "George Dishman" <geo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Since everything is moving away from a central point,
another universe colliding with ours would (by
definition) have objects moving from *that* central
expansion point.

No! There is no "central point" in current cosmological
models, our universe is probably infinite in size and by
measurement the section we can observe appears
homogenous and isotropic, the same (on average)
everywhere.

WRT Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), correct?

Even comparing galaxies at similar distances, yields similar
aging, and similar physics.

And homogeneous "in general", as when you look at
the COBE map some areas are "darker" and some
"lighter". This would be expected because there are
clusters that show up as lighter.

Before thinking you understand these ideas, please look
at Ned Wight's tutorial:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

I hadn't fully grasped what significance that source had.

He was one of the team that ran the COBE mission
whose members recently received the Nobel prize.

Yes it did. Thank you.

But from reading that paper, the "big bang" is not
disputed, correct?

Does it matter? Every scientist is supposed to test his
theories, to try and find where they fail. Unfortunately, the
Big Bang is a one-shot deal. So all we can do is look back and
see where the roads behind came from. See if they are "paved" in
ways that are consistent with a Big Bang.

If your job is to try and disprove your own theory, then how can
you tell the difference between a proponent and a "disputor"?
Which one is actually doing work?

It is just that the universe has a homogeneous 2.725 K
background radiation.

With some anisotropies, but yes.

I may have missed something in the above reference, but
as far as I understand with the "big bang" space continues
to expand along with matter.

The "Big Bang" is just a name. There was no explosion of matter
into a preexisting space. The relationship between bits of
matter and energy that we call space (or spacetime) is the thing
that is "expanding" and "accelerating".

So how can the Universe be infinite if space continues to
expand?

Because you can never make it back to your starting point at the
fastest possible speed, ever. And you never hit any walls.

Or is Universe != Space?

Correct. Universe == (matter U energy)... and space and time are
the smoke and shadows of their dance.

David A. Smith


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Size of the universe question ?
    ... The matter was already there, the Big Bang just caused it to expand. ... The facts just have to catch up later. ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Size of the universe question ?
    ... the Big Bang just caused it to expand. ... What gets me going, is if the universe *is* a universe, by definition it ... I would be interested to know where the 'matter' came from in the first place. ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Size of the universe question ?
    ... The matter was already there, the Big Bang just caused it to expand. ... What gets me going, is if the universe *is* a universe, by definition it ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Origins and Mental Activity
    ... activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence. ... elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen ... actually a plasma is made of charged matter that is the forth state of matter. ... the vaious clouds of H and He formed the first stars. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Origins and Mental Activity
    ... activity before continuing to chew on the laws of intelligence. ... elements formed after the big bang -- except maybe helium and hydrogen ... throughout the universe, and in great quantity. ... will get the furthest in tracking the formation of matter, ...
    (talk.origins)