Re: big bang paradox
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:04:56 -0700
Dear Pax:
"Pax" <SherriFWhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jglhh.10440$hI.9006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
....
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pBfhh.197351$4Z1.6151@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
OK.
....
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.
I am interested in the subject, and I am not aware of any
observations that don't simply adjust the age of the Universe a
half Gy or so. So if you come up with a researchable citation...
....
"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?
I assume you imagine something even above the plane of ecliptic?
You are aware that there are a few dozen observations that
establish a "cooling curve" for CMBR light even in distant
galaxies, right? The CMBR would have to be pretty clever to be a
"local artifact" everywhere, wouldn't it?
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.
"some sort", without a physical center.
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?
Everything (non-local), in every direction, is moving away from
us. 14-15 Gy of history is displayed. Nothing new is intruding
into our space, only our ability to resolve is getting sharper.
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.
The illusion involves all the matter *not* in our cluster. And
is uniform enough that we can infer that all objects will see the
same expansion uniformly from their POV. Your "different
properties" simply aren't evident.
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.
Yes.
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.
We are in the middle... of how far we can go without getting into
space.
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.
Look, this started with predictions / discussion of Big Bang
Theory. What the theory predicts / says is "complete". Nature
is under no compulsion to support it, as time goes on.
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/
Thanks.
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
Thread title...
Science isn't about "truth" but about modelling, prediction, and
falsification. BBT has a lot of patches associated with it, but
mostly to allow the only tool we have that might be big enough
(GR) to allow us to peak beyond the veil of the CMBR.
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. :)
Yep. That is why we are here.
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.
There is no sin. Creation is an act of self-discovery. The left
and right hands of God can produce no sin.
Be well - Pax
You too.
David A. Smith
.
- References:
- Re: big bang paradox
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: big bang paradox
- From: Pax
- Re: big bang paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Relativity contradiction - gurus please explain
- Next by Date: Re: geodesic deviation confusion
- Previous by thread: Re: big bang paradox
- Next by thread: What instruction does Einstein give?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
