Re: Postulates of Relativity and The Cosmic Background - Question
- From: "Spoonfed" <jonathan.doolin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 May 2005 01:18:05 -0700
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
> Spoonfed wrote:
> > The gas from which the CMBR emanates is moving around
0.999999976238c.
> > (Calculation below)
>
> I should say first that I like your web site and your Flash tutorials
a lot;
> I think they're well above the norm for educational web sites. But
nearly
> everything you say in this post, starting with the above, is totally
> incorrect. You are trying to use SR way outside its domain of
applicability.
> You really need to learn GR before you can talk sensibly about
cosmology.
>
> > First realize that an equipartition of energy over the momentum of
all
> > the mass in the universe should result in a Lobachevskian pattern
(if
> > you neglect all acceleration due to collisions and gravity).
>
> There is a simple SR cosmological model in which this is in some
sense true,
> but it is not true of big bang cosmologies. The natural symmetry of
big bang
> cosmologies is much more Newtonian than Lorentzian in character. If
you want
> to get an intuition for it without actually learning GR, you're
better off
> thinking in Newtonian terms (no speed limit; no time dilation; the
"outer
> shell" expands at infinite speed).
>
> > The outer edges of this pattern are gasses from very early in the
big
> > bang.
>
> True in that SR cosmology, but not in big bang models.
>
> > There are two reasons that they appear so young.
> > One, it has taken many billions of light years to reach us from the
gas
> > (but this is not the main reason) The main reason is that in our
> > reference frame, they have been traveling away from us at so close
to
> > the speed of light that they have not aged.
>
> Only the first reason is correct.
>
> > Although our local universe is approximately 13.7 billion years
old,
> > every particle in it underwent many relativistic accelerations in
the
> > first few years. With each (noninertial) bump, the dense,
primordial
> > local supercluster would have found itself in an older universe,
while
> > the edges (inertial) receded away. Just as the moving twin in the
> > infamous Twin Paradox finds himself still young, while the world
has
> > aged, our galaxy, finds itself only 13.7 billion years old in a
much
> > more ancient universe.
>
> None of this is correct. The 13.7 billion year figure is given in
terms of
> the preferred coordinate time which exists in big bang geometries.
>
> -- Ben
I really appreciate your comments on my website. That makes two people
outside my family who I know have looked at it.
I believe my theory is in conflict with the Friedman Metric, but I
don't think it is in conflict with Schwarzchild Metric. However, I
regard the Friedman Metric as a theory which came about because of a
false assumption--that the matter in the universe is distributed
homogeneously.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Absolute Motion Of Earth Relative To CB
- Next by Date: Re: How do you know that acceleration is absolute? <eom>
- Previous by thread: Re: Postulates of Relativity and The Cosmic Background - Question
- Next by thread: Re: Postulates of Relativity and The Cosmic Background - Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
