Re: big bang paradox
- From: "Pax" <SherriFWhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:27:59 GMT
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pBfhh.197351$4Z1.6151@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Pax:
"Pax" <SherriFWhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:szahh.29645$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?
Actually, the age that was brought down from almost 18 billion LYs to
something over 13 was of that distant object we're talking about. That was
from an interview with a cosmologist who was a member of the team who
discovered it. She said they knew immediately something was very wrong
somewhere, because the object was registering as being older than their
estimates for the age of the universe.
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...
True, but not in this instance. The facts I was stating are repeated
constantly, and anyone who's interested in the subject is aware of them.
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?
Is there any place we look that isn't through the interior area of our solar
system?
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.
No they aren't. If you take away the creative speculations, all such
observations prove is cosmic motion of some sort. What if it all winds up
being no more than a "local" roiling of the objects inhabiting the area of
the universe we can see, a universe that is, in actuality, truly infinite?
Perhaps our galaxy is part of a galactic mega-cluster with properties
different from the structure we're familiar with for most galaxies. Maybe
more on the order of a spherical galaxy, but with properties that cause
movement within the cluster outward from the center then back inward. In
that instance, of course, all cosmic objects making up the cluster would
appear to be moving away from each other as they moved outward.
For years it was taken for granted all the stars we can see from here on
Earth were all of the universe. That was the state of cosmology at the time
Einstein was growing up. Believing the universe was in "Steady State" is why
Einstein came up with the Cosmological Constant to counteract the force of
gravity.
The idea of a galaxy was not part of the nomenclature. The Milky Way was
named that because of what was considered to be an unusual huge grouping of
stars in the appearance of a stream of milk streaking across the night sky,
it wasn't the name of our entire galaxy back then, as it is today. The fact
those stars make up only one of the spiral arms of our galaxy, the arm our
sun's system was situated within, wasn't considered, because no one knew of
the existence of galaxies.
Do you see what I'm getting at? :) We're at the beginning, not the end. To
talk as if we know it all, when what we know is only something based on
current, incomplete knowledge that could be proved wrong in the light of new
discoveries, is... well... childish.
Perhaps you might find this article interesting:
Nailing Down Gravity
New ideas about the most mysterious power in the universe
By Tim Folger
Drawings by Dan Winters
DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 10 | October 2003
http://www.discover.com:80/issues/oct-03/cover/
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...
I'm a sci-fi fanatic myself. :)
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.
Exactly some more. lol
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...
Not just you concerning the black hole part. <grin> I've entertained an idea
similar to yours, but where our "singularity" is one of a group (within an
entirely different sort of reality from ours). Their forces pulling on and
against each other build our spacetime, by causing "whorls", within our
singularity, of these warring forces that manifest (to us) as particles.
Okay... far out, I know... but it's fun to imagine. :)
Over and out.
Science should be fun, and its vistas should be wide open to imagination,
exploration, and discovery. The most fun is in tackling the "givens"... the
reasons behind not just the theories, but the laws. The sin isn't in being
wrong, everyone is wrong at times, the sin is in not wondering in the first
place. Being ignorant is forgivable, it's wonderful to not know and then
discover. True stupidity lies in thinking you've already learned everything
you need to know.
David A. Smith
Be well - Pax
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: big bang paradox
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: big bang paradox
- References:
- Re: big bang paradox
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: big bang paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Relativists Conclusively Prove They Are a Bunch of Morons
- Next by Date: Re: Simple question about light
- Previous by thread: Re: big bang paradox
- Next by thread: Re: big bang paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
