Re: viewing light from the earliest stages of universe

From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) (net_at_nospam.com)
Date: 02/13/05 

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:06:46 -0700

Dear dougby:

"dougby" <sddg536@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95FC8F08CAD5Dnomailmsncom@216.148.227.77...
>
> Okay, so you mention the piece of taffy stretching to describe the
> expansion, and I understand how this conveys the growth of space around
> every area of the universe.
>
> But back to analogies. Let's pretend we have a "god's" eyeview of all
> this, external from the matter in the singularity.

Don't worry about "singularity". How God would see it would likely NOT be
"an incomprehensibly small point".

> You mention that the
> "singularty" is actually a finite mass (so to speak) millions of light
> years across.

That is how it appears, yes.

> Something occurs which causes expansion to begin. Now I am
> assuming that the expansion is caused by a force upon every bit of matter
> in the "singularity."

Doesn't have to be. Analysis of the CMBR (the earliest light, and still
post-Big Bang), had no evidence of either Dark Energy, or Dark Matter.

> So the matter in one part of the singularity, part
> "A," was propelled outward with essentially the same force as another
> part
> of the singularity, part "B." Yet parts A and B can be millions of light
> years apart already before the expansion even begins. As the universe
> begins to expands, you could say that the area identified as part A is
> expanding, just as is every part of the universe. Again, it seems to me
> there is a propolsion that is behind all this which from our "god's
> eyeview" is easier to understand. But this is also where I think I could
> be having difficulty. A big band denotes some kind of force propelling
> matter outward. Maybe it really isn't propulsion, but for now, I'll
> assume
> it is.

It isn't, although a lot of people have this in their minds.

Imagine a spread*** (time for another analogy). Cell A1 has a value of
7. Cell A2 has a value of A2+1. Cell A3 has a value of A1 + A2. If
iteration is allowed in the spread*** (a mechanics issue), and we don't
supply the silly "2 columns" answer, what is the "distance" between A1 and
A3? The answer is "it depends on when you make the measurement". Distance
(in the sense of General Relativity) and time is simply a relationship
between all the mass and energy in the Universe. No "propulsion" required
for expansion.

> Eventually a portion of matter within part A coalesces into a light
> producing entity. Every bit of matter within part A is still under the
> force of propolsion from the original big bang. The light producing
> entity
> is no exception. Yet the light producing entity spits out some light
> which
> , like a kid that can walk down the aisle of a moving bus, has no problem
> of moving amongst all the matter of part A that is itself moving, and in
> fact continue moving even beyond the just the scope of part A that we
> have
> been focusing on. It heads out into other regions of the universe that
> is
> expanding under the same principles. Billions of years pass. Parts A
> and
> B continue under expanding, still propelled by the force of the big bang,
> until finally, a small portion of matter from the original part B, which
> is
> itself of course covering a much more vast amount of space, has now
> coalesced into a little solar system which contains planet Earth. Also,
> in
> the meantime as the years have passed the light from Part A previously
> mentioned is just now catching up to Part A and the little planet, just
> like the olympian catching up to me in my first analogy.
>
> Okay, so does is the understanding I am trying to convey in the above
> paragraph ring true?

No. There was no discrete center from which the Universe sprang:
URL:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

If there is a "propulsion", it was not present at the "beginning". Try not
to think of Newton, rather think a little less Euclidian...

Propulsion exists at the quantum level. Space and time do not. Propulsion
(the transfer or addition of energy) is understood and described by quantum
mechanics. Expansion is simply the alteration of a "statistical" value,
spacetime, to suit the second law of thermodynamics.

Don't spend time asking me. Read the links I provided you, there is a lot
of answers there that are more clear.

David A. Smith

Loading