Re: big bang paradox

Dear Pax:

"Pax" <SherriFWhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:szahh.29645$qO4.7571@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"dlzc" <dlzc1@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165875231.495444.106360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
....
The fact normally-formed cosmic objects have
been viewed at around 15 billion LY distance from
us,

More like 14 billion LY. And they are not like the
objects we see around us, mainly because the
objects around us are far too dim to be seen at that distance.
These are very energetic.

True, after recalculations that allowed for that
stretching you mentioned, with a juggling of the
Hubble Constant yet again... (The Hubble Constant isn't very,
is it?)...

Agreed by all.

that brought them down from the first number that
was close to 18 billion LY.

14.7 was the most recent determination that I am aware of, made
about 6 months ago. What have you got?

But they're also well-formed, isn't that correct?

Well formed, perhaps, but still hot enough to see over all that
distance... seems like a stretch doesn't it?

They aren't blobs of still-coalescing plasma, are they?

No, definite stellar activity.

is the real Big Bang paradox, since the universe is
calculated to be between 12 and 15 billion years old.

~15 now. Moved to "14.7" from "12.7", with the oldest
/ youngest "normal" object this side of the CMBR
"curtain" being about 750 million years later.

Something's very wrong with that.

Your "facts".

???? Stated. Sometimes facts are simple.

Sometimes misremembered...

If the BB really happened, looking 15 billion LY out in
space should show us no cosmic objects, even if we
were looking straight across the center of the universe
to view them, cutting their (and our) actual distance
from the point of the BB in half.

There was no space before the BB, so looking before
the BB Could show only a "zero size" singularity
(according to BBT)... even though light had not coalesced then
either.

You know what I meant, and that wasn't it. :) 15
billion was an approximation, as you used above.

Oh. You had only used 15 billion up to that point...

Logically, there is no way to see the original churning
stuff produced by the BB, because we are part of that
stuff.

Well, skid marks from my last time around the track
are still visible. In a closed space, the "light echo"
goes around and around infinitum.

"In an enclosed space"... but why do you assume such?
There's really no evidence for that, only (to date)
unprovable theory.

But it is potentially disprovable, which is all science requires.
Are there any directions we can look in that don't show the CMBR,
or show it in some discontinuous intensity (as close to the
center / beginning that we can see)? Are there any directions we
look at (beyond our local cluster) that has objects not moving
fairly uniformly away from us?

There is no empty space in any direction. All the distant laws
of physics appear to agree with what we have here. Everything
(non-local) is moving uniformly away from us. These observations
are inconsistent with a non-closed Universe.

But the early Universe had the dispersive medium
responsible for the CMBR, which extingushed specular
light in a parsec or so... before it itself "quenched",
and became transparent.

Theories are fun, huh? :) The stuff we can do with
computers these days.

In lieu of a star drive...

However, by the same token, no stuff should exist
independently 15 billion years back in time for its light
to finally reached us because, at that time, it should
have been part of the churning plasma too.

Something like that.

Exactly something like that.

Only in BBT.

In my pet theory (which only I will pet), the CMBR is "just
inside" an event horizon, and our universe is some other
universe's black hole. Our universe is contained by one higher,
and ours contains one (or more) lower (which may also be our
"container" universe). Fully formed "gravitationally bound"
structures and heavy elements could be allowed to be detectable
right up to the CMBR. My "only" problem is having heavy elements
<< hydrogen...

Over and out.

David A. Smith


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Olbers paradox: a poll
    ... The further away the shower head, the less water will hit you. ... of the distance from you to the shower head. ... We ARE soaked, by the CMBR. ... What you cannot do is extinguish or attenuate energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How is luminosity distance interpreted?
    ... For a universe expanding at a constant rate, the distance now should be derivable from the emission distance and the rate of expansion. ... I had it as originating about 500 million years after the Big Bang, when in fact standard cosmology has it at about 500 _thousand_ years. ... The result of correcting this misconception is that it may be possible to eliminate the epoch of the ``Dark Ages'' of cosmology, completely, and redefine the era and origins of the CMBR. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
    ... You keep referencing distance. ... Earth has, (as to deciding how he views the CMBR). ... to your initial velocity in order to again observe ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... > radiation, a thin shell at a distance of about ... The CMBR is not starlight. ... aether is at a uniform temperature. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???
    ... to the beginning of the Universe. ... exactly zero) to the distant horizon or rim--be it 13.7 billion light years ... How old are the galaxies observed at a distance of 13.4 billion light ... accumulating between, in the picture of time between here and now and there ...
    (sci.physics)