Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang


Androcles wrote:
> "Brian Weatherley" <brian.weatherley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Xns9707EB6264591bweatherley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Let me start off by saying that I am just barely aware of the basics of
> > relativity and in as much I have a question that I cannot seem to find an
> > answer to. I would appreciate someone with not only understanding but
> > maybe a certain level of skill for stating things in easy to understand
> > terms for non psycisist.
> >
> > I have heard mention that with our advanced telescopes we can see light
> > that is so far away that it has been travelling towards us since very near
> > the "big bang", in effect giving us a view into the universe's distant
> > past
> > and early beginnings.
>
> With our advanced telescopes we can see light that ORIGINATED
> so far away that it has been travelling towards us for a long time.
> That you can take to the bank. I'm not so sure they'll accept the
> forgery you added to it.
>
>
> > But it is also my understanding that at the big
> > bang, all matter in the universe was essentially in a single point, this
> > point including all space as well.
>
> I wouldn't call that an "understanding". Why not just say its a rumour
> you heard on the grapevine?
>
>
>
> > At the point of the "bang" matter and
> > the space containing it exploded outward.
> Rumour.
>
> > Light being a constant speed,
>
> Another rumour.
>
> > and nothing can move faster than light,
>
> Yet another rumour.
>
> > how is it that the matter that is
> > our planet, having started at the same point as everything else, can be so
> > far away from the light that is coming towards us that supposedly was
> > emitted near the forming of the universe?
>
> Maybe you shouldn't trust rumours. Like lies they become whoppers
> if allowed to grow.
>
> > Wouldn't light from the big bang
> > 14 billion years or so ago be at the very edges of the expanding space,
> > farthest from the point of origin?
>
> What big bang?
> Light is like the ripples on a pond and you can only detect them at
> the pond edge.

No... Light is like the mother croc that crawled out the pond and
swallowed a child molester. When the Pope heard about it he
fought a paper bull and Stephen Hawking said child molesters are
caused by priests that remain singularities. IMHO... BB and
the mother croc are both crocks. :o)

Sue...

If the splash that makes the ripples is at the centre
> of the Pacific Ocean they get somewhat lost in all the other waves
> by the time they reach shore.
>
>
> > I would think that in order to see light coming towards us from so long
> > ago
> > that it was from the big bang would require us to be some 14 billion light
> > years in front of it to begin with?
>
> What big bang?
>
> > I know that my reasoning reflects my lack of study in this field which is
> > why I have turned to those who could explain it to me.
> I can't explain what isn't known to be true.
> All I can explain is that some people think they know it all and spread
> rumours to make themselves seem important.
> This is what we know.
> Light from distant galaxies is red-shifted.
>
> This is what some people ASSUME.
> Assumption 1)
> The red shift is Doppler shift, there can be no
> other explanation. (I disagree, there is another explanation)
> Assumption 2)
> From the Doppler shift, it follows that the further galaxies are
> racing away.
> Assumption 3)
> From the racing away, there was a central point to race away from.
> Assumption 4)
> At some time in the past, there was a big bang.
>
> What else do we KNOW?
> Ripples on a pond carry ALL the energy of the splash to the
> shore, but the bigger the pond the bigger the shore and the greater
> the spread of the energy.
> We at the edge of the pond see tiny ripples, not much energy LOCALLY.
> In energy terms, Max Planck discovered E = hf, which Hubble
> ignored. Frequency f multiplied h, Planck's constant, gives a measure
> of the energy. So we EXPECT to see red shift from distant objects.
> Now throw out all the assumptions, no big bang. The universe always
> was, always will be, just as it is now.
> Problem solved.
> Androcles.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
    ... > bang, all matter in the universe was essentially in a single point, this ... Why not just say its a rumour ... Light is like the ripples on a pond and you can only detect them at ... Ripples on a pond carry ALL the energy of the splash to the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about Light from the Big Bang
    ... >>> bang, all matter in the universe was essentially in a single point, ... >> the pond edge. ... > the mother croc are both crocks. ... >> the spread of the energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Farming must-haves from Santa?
    ... >>> Perhaps they might hear a rumour that he is an expert on The Big Bang. ... >>> That would be open to misinterpretation by attractive young ladies of a ... I suspect he is weakening already;-)) ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Farming must-haves from Santa?
    ... >>> Perhaps they might hear a rumour that he is an expert on The Big Bang. ... >Is that a reference to Jack Vane's Dying World? ... Peter Duncanson ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: What Behringer cab .....
    ... Does Dave ship over pond? ... generally recognized as wonderful "bang for the buck". ... several folks at AGB own them. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)