Re: Non-expanding universe


Spoonfed wrote:
> Daniel Weston wrote:
> > I have seen a lot of small bangs. (SB)
> > None start with anything approaching a singularity. There are ~100b
> > galaxies with each containing ~100b suns. And we are told that modern
> > science says that all that matter and energy came from something
> > infinitely smaller than a pin head. That doesn't set well with me at
> > all. I have taken the BBT and just put it on the shelf. I am suspending
> > final judgement until we have more knowledge as to what is happening and
> > what are the causalities.
> > A lot of professional scientists have noted that the BBT is requiring an
> > increasing number of epicycles. I have well braced myself for any
> > ensuing scorn and ridicule from the defenders of the faith.
>
> That, I could live with. To me, an original finite volume for where
> the matter came from doesn't seem inconsistent with our observations.
> There is a significant detail that should be noted here, though. Say
> you've started with all the matter compressed, not to a point, but to
> an sphere 1 meter across. It's very hot, and in the center portion,
> the matter is all moving in arbitrary directions, colliding
> willy-nilly.
>
> Now, make an analysis of the situation from the perspective of any
> particle inside, after performing a Lorentz transformation into its
> reference frame.
>
> The curious thing is that at that particular moment, all particles
> within would observe the sphere to be a different size, and by finding,
> at that particular moment, the reference frame where the sphere was the
> SMALLEST, you would be able to establish a center of the universe.
>

I erred here. If you choose a particle which is moving toward the
center and switch to its reference frame, the sphere would appear
larger at that moment in that particle's frame. If you choose a
particle which is moving away from the center and switch to its
reference frame, the universe would be smaller.

Since presumably, out at the very edge of the universe, there would be
particles traveling outward at velocities arbitrarily close to the
speed of light, there would be particles from whose reference frame,
the universe would appear to be arbitrarily small.

Now if the universe can appear arbitrarily small from the perspective
of one particle, then it should also appear arbitrarily small to every
other particle. So, not only do I LIKE the idea of the universe
starting out at a single point, it is the ONLY possibility if the
universe started out with a finite spherical volume.

On the other hand, if the universe started out with an infinite
Euclidian volume, with homogeneously distributed matter, we should be
continually smacked with matter from nether regions of the universe.

-OR- there would be galaxies hanging stationary in the sky. If this
were the case, I wouldn't think they should be redshifted to varying
degrees depending on their distance. Either way an infinite
homogeneous universe (in Euclidian space) is inconsistent with our
observations.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Non-expanding universe
    ... >> the matter came from doesn't seem inconsistent with our observations. ... the reference frame where the sphere was the ... you would be able to establish a center of the universe. ... If you choose a particle which is moving toward the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Does latitude change over geological time scales?
    ... Most of the Universe is composed of "dark matter" We know it is there ... But as a particle, it eludes us. ... EVER EXISTED...humans have created more of it than Nature has. ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • Re: When did time start?
    ... Where is the universe? ... the nucleus of an atom, every photon, every bit of matter and energy in the ... For local time, follow Einstein's theory ... quantum probability of local particle persistence. ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • Re: Dont like the truth? Lie.
    ... A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy ... "Most of the energy in the universe is not gravitationally attractive. ... We are probably the last generation to have been taught that gravity ... Visible matter comes nowhere close to closing the Universe. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • TOTAL FIELD THEORY (Gravity, Electricity & Magnetism are the 4th, 5th & 6th Dimensions)
    ... (Is the entire physical-spatial universe a Total Field and Is Gravity ... Didn't Einstein say, 'There is no space empty of field'? ... When a circle representing a particle is divided into four 90o ... physical dimensions the right angle motion out of the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)