| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Morpheal" |
| Date: |
31 May 2007 11:26:21 AM |
| Object: |
Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
Back to cosmological musings again.
Reading through some accounts as published on the internet it becomes
clear that there are several beliefs that continue to predominate in
questions about matter, time and universe.
1). There was no matter before the universe began with the "big bang"
origin.
2). Distance from the origin is the basis for determinining the time
that any observable matter has existed since the "big bang".
It is suggested alternatively that:
1). There was matter before the origin and that the origin is not
unique, ie. that the origin is only an instance of a common process
that occurs at various places and times within infinite space-time as
a whole.
2). That distance from the origin is a false indication of the age of
SOME instances of observable matter.
It is predicated that some instances of observable matter have other
origins other than the "big bang" responsible for the larger portion
of the observable matter seen with our telescopes.
Robert Morpheal
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
31 May 2007 12:02:32 PM |
|
|
Morpheal wrote:
Distance from the origin is the basis for determinining the time
that any observable matter has existed since the "big bang".
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
04 Jun 2007 12:12:33 AM |
|
|
No BB .
The visible universe is a time line from center to side.
Outside the universe is more universe .
The universe outside this one is invisible to us at our time rate .
Time becomes a stait line at the edge of the visible universe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
03 Jun 2007 07:26:39 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 1:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Morphealwrote:
Distance from the origin is the basis for determinining the time
that any observable matter has existed since the "big bang".
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Originary event.... but no center.... is the same thing. Ultimately.
You are still quagmired in proposing that everything came from nothing
at some instant in the distant past.
I say horse puckeys and suggest you begin to find ways to observe and
measure what was there before that event and some of which is still
somewhere in relation to what originated in that significant event.
I don't deny there was an event, but I do say that it was not the only
instance of an event in all of infinity, and that putting the big
bang, or little bang, whatever you propose, at the center of
everything is no different than a flat Earth in the middle of the
heavens with everything moving around it.
We never seem to learn from our past cosmological errors. We always
want to save our specialness and the specialness of the heavens around
us, as there for us as a special one time gift. It isn't how the
universe functions. We are not that special. It is bigger and more
complicated than we have been imagining.
There was something before the event.
We now need to direct our observations, our methods of measurement, in
a new direction... to find ways to observe and measure what that was
that was there BEFORE the "big bang" event.
Center or no center is not really relevant to that fundamental
question.
R.M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
03 Jun 2007 07:28:39 PM |
|
|
In article <1180916799.400973.13210@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Morpheal <morpheal@yahoo.com> wrote:
We never seem to learn from our past cosmological errors. We always
want to save our specialness and the specialness of the heavens around
us, as there for us as a special one time gift. It isn't how the
universe functions. We are not that special. It is bigger and more
complicated than we have been imagining.
There was something before the event.
The BB theory has SFA to do with religious overtones or neo-geocentrism.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
03 Jun 2007 07:58:01 PM |
|
|
Morpheal wrote:
We never seem to learn from our past cosmological errors. We always
want to save our specialness and the specialness of the heavens around
us, as there for us as a special one time gift. It isn't how the
universe functions. We are not that special. It is bigger and more
complicated than we have been imagining.
There was something before the event.
We now need to direct our observations, our methods of measurement, in
a new direction... to find ways to observe and measure what that was
that was there BEFORE the "big bang" event.
Center or no center is not really relevant to that fundamental
question.
R.M.
See Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
31 May 2007 04:08:23 PM |
|
|
On 31 mai, 12:26, Morpheal <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Back to cosmological musings again.
Reading through some accounts as published on the internet it becomes
clear that there are several beliefs that continue to predominate in
questions about matter, time and universe.
1). There was no matter before the universe began with the "big bang"
origin.
2). Distance from the origin is the basis for determinining the time
that any observable matter has existed since the "big bang".
It is suggested alternatively that:
1). There was matter before the origin and that the origin is not
unique, ie. that the origin is only an instance of a common process
that occurs at various places and times within infinite space-time as
a whole.
2). That distance from the origin is a false indication of the age of
SOME instances of observable matter.
It is predicated that some instances of observable matter have other
origins other than the "big bang" responsible for the larger portion
of the observable matter seen with our telescopes.
Robert Morpheal
Even the notion of Big Bang is only a theory also, based on
General Relativity. If GR eventually fell from favor, so would
the Big Bang.
Electromagnetism does not require a Big Bang for matter
to be created. Simple photons of energy 1.022 MeV coming
close enough together can split into pairs of electron-positron
as was demonstrated at SLAC some years ago.
So all could also have begun very modestly and built up
progressively to what we see today. The universe could
be much older and much larger than what GR leads to
believe. No one knows, in fact.
Andr=E9 Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morpheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
03 Jun 2007 07:20:41 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 5:08 pm, wrote:
On 31 mai, 12:26,Morpheal<morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Back to cosmological musings again.
Reading through some accounts as published on the internet it becomes
clear that there are several beliefs that continue to predominate in
questions about matter, time and universe.
1). There was no matter before the universe began with the "big bang"
origin.
2). Distance from the origin is the basis for determinining the time
that any observable matter has existed since the "big bang".
It is suggested alternatively that:
1). There was matter before the origin and that the origin is not
unique, ie. that the origin is only an instance of a common process
that occurs at various places and times within infinite space-time as
a whole.
2). That distance from the origin is a false indication of the age of
SOME instances of observable matter.
It is predicated that some instances of observable matter have other
origins other than the "big bang" responsible for the larger portion
of the observable matter seen with our telescopes.
RobertMorpheal
Even the notion of Big Bang is only a theory also, based on
General Relativity. If GR eventually fell from favor, so would
the Big Bang.
Electromagnetism does not require a Big Bang for matter
to be created. Simple photons of energy 1.022 MeV coming
close enough together can split into pairs of electron-positron
as was demonstrated at SLAC some years ago.
So all could also have begun very modestly and built up
progressively to what we see today. The universe could
be much older and much larger than what GR leads to
believe. No one knows, in fact.
Andr=E9 Michaud
You still propose a unique originary event... a quiet big bang, or
little bang, but in that way your remain tied to the religious
paradigm of an originary creative moment from which everything else
follows.
I suggest phenomenologically bracketing out that assumption, and
considering the possible data without that assumption.
I suggest that the assumption of a creation that begins with an
originary event, the primal thought of Genesis, is flawed in that it
is myth upon which science is then built. Science should ever be built
upon a foundation of myth.
Let's look at it again and look for ways to identify the matter in our
universe that in all probability existed prior to the originary event,
that we keep trying to tie everything to. Something was there.
Something happened and something more was there, and is moving
outwards from that event, but that does not prove that there was
nothing before there was something.
Creation ex nihilo is not a good scientific foundation, but it is an
assumption that has plagued cosmological physics since the beginning
of the subject.
R=2EM.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
03 Jun 2007 07:23:53 PM |
|
|
In article <1180916441.687825.323170@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Morpheal <morpheal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Creation ex nihilo is not a good scientific foundation, but it is an
assumption that has plagued cosmological physics since the beginning
of the subject.
Why? Broken into its simplest, there are only two possiblities
1) The universe has always existed
2) The universe has not always existed
Both are equally surreal.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
03 Jun 2007 08:00:41 PM |
|
|
Morpheal wrote:
I suggest phenomenologically bracketing out that assumption, and
considering the possible data without that assumption.
I suggest that the assumption of a creation that begins with an
originary event, the primal thought of Genesis, is flawed in that it
is myth upon which science is then built. Science should ever be built
upon a foundation of myth.
Let's look at it again and look for ways to identify the matter in our
universe that in all probability existed prior to the originary event,
that we keep trying to tie everything to. Something was there.
Something happened and something more was there, and is moving
outwards from that event, but that does not prove that there was
nothing before there was something.
Creation ex nihilo is not a good scientific foundation, but it is an
assumption that has plagued cosmological physics since the beginning
of the subject.
R.M.
What's you problem with all the matter and energy of the observable
universe being created during the inflationary epoch of the BB scenario?
See Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Age of Matter and Time Since the Origin |
04 Jun 2007 07:51:53 AM |
|
|
On 3 juin, 20:20, Morpheal <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 31, 5:08 pm, wrote:
On 31 mai, 12:26,Morpheal<morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Back to cosmological musings again.
Reading through some accounts as published on the internet it becomes
clear that there are several beliefs that continue to predominate in
questions about matter, time and universe.
1). There was no matter before the universe began with the "big bang"
origin.
2). Distance from the origin is the basis for determinining the time
that any observable matter has existed since the "big bang".
It is suggested alternatively that:
1). There was matter before the origin and that the origin is not
unique, ie. that the origin is only an instance of a common process
that occurs at various places and times within infinite space-time as
a whole.
2). That distance from the origin is a false indication of the age of
SOME instances of observable matter.
It is predicated that some instances of observable matter have other
origins other than the "big bang" responsible for the larger portion
of the observable matter seen with our telescopes.
RobertMorpheal
Even the notion of Big Bang is only a theory also, based on
General Relativity. If GR eventually fell from favor, so would
the Big Bang.
Electromagnetism does not require a Big Bang for matter
to be created. Simple photons of energy 1.022 MeV coming
close enough together can split into pairs of electron-positron
as was demonstrated at SLAC some years ago.
So all could also have begun very modestly and built up
progressively to what we see today. The universe could
be much older and much larger than what GR leads to
believe. No one knows, in fact.
Andr=E9 Michaud
You still propose a unique originary event... a quiet big bang, or
little bang, but in that way your remain tied to the religious
paradigm of an originary creative moment from which everything else
follows.
I do not really "propose" a unique originary event.
This simply is the end conclusion of simple logical reasoning.
Nothing to do with religion or creation in any religious sense.
I also draw a clear distinction between the origin of the
Universe and the origin of life, for which I see no clear
explanation either.
We know since the 1930's that matter (massive particles)
come into being as massless high energy photons (gamma
photons of energy 1.022 MeV or more) split into two
massive particles (.0511 MeV electron and positron pair).
So why would such an easily verifiable possibility have been
different in the beginning ?
For all we know, the universe could well have started
with only two such high energy photons, resulting
in two such massive pairs.
It is rather easy to extrapolate one step further and
get a clear mechanical idea of how such electron
positron pairs could then combine to make up the
first proton, in the process causing the appearence
of minimally three more high energy photons.
The one thing that then needs explaining in such a
set up is what could have caused the first two photons
to appear in the first place.
We know more now than a hundred years ago,
and in one century, we will know more yet.
I suggest phenomenologically bracketing out that assumption,
and considering the possible data without that assumption.
That's precisely what I did. Reasoning of the same nature
as that that caused Descartes to conclude that he must
really exist since he could think.
I suggest that the assumption of a creation that begins with an
originary event, the primal thought of Genesis, is flawed in that it
is myth upon which science is then built. Science should ever be
built upon a foundation of myth.
What is the primal thought of Genesis is that God created
the universe, not that the universe must have begun somehow.
The first might well be a myth for all we know, but the second is
plain logics. The idea of a Big Bang or that of two initial photons
is plain scientific exploration of possible causes.
Let's look at it again and look for ways to identify the matter in our
universe that in all probability existed prior to the originary event,
Isn't this self contradictory ? If you suppose an originary event for
the universe, it seems to me that matter nor anything else could
have been there "before" such an originary event.
that we keep trying to tie everything to. Something was there.
Something happened and something more was there, and is
moving outwards from that event, but that does not prove that
there was nothing before there was something.
You seem to be asserting yourself that "something" caused
the universe to begin in some manner.
Creation ex nihilo is not a good scientific foundation,
I agree.
but it is an assumption that has plagued cosmological physics
since the beginning of the subject.
The Big Bang idea does not assume that it occurred ex nihilo,
nor does the two photons origin.
For the Big Bang, you'd have to discuss the issue with
people who like the idea.
For the two photons origin idea, I have no explanation as to
what could have caused their appearance.
Andr=E9 Michaud
R.M.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The cosmos doesn't end at the horizon. |
17 Jun 2007 05:28:59 AM |
|
|
The cosmos doesn't end at the horizon.
The so-called start of the Big Bang is merely a limit
to how far back we can see, assuming the model is correct;
it's just a horizon, there's nothing special about it.
In the Lambda-CDM model ( i.e. the concordance model )
the Cosmic Microwave Background ( a 2.725 kelvin black-body )
came from an event that happened everywhere 13.7 giga years ago.
Lambda-CDM posits an ever-flat ( i.e. 4-D euclidean ) cosmos,
i.e. the cosmos never had a center of gravity.
We see the C.M.B. comming from a euclidian hyper ( 4-D ) sphere
that _ Would Be _ 45 giga light years away
if the hyper-volume of our known Universe suddenly became static
and remained that way for 45 giga years... ha ha.
The hyper-volume of the cosmos is not static, of course,
it accrues over cosmic time, in the rest frame of the C.M.B. .
Dark energy is why it accrues ( i.e. expands ) they say,
but I say it's just " Cosmic Entropy ";
i.e. it's just cosmic, spontaneous, irrevocable dissipation.
Although randomess is alway ignorance and nothing but ignorance,
pseudo cosmic entropy virtually creates/destroys everything,
entrapping us in a virtual casino, taking all, eventually.
Cosmic Entropy is virtually Thee God Almighty
making us ( lesser ) gods to our slaves and slaves to our gods.
All choices/changes are virtual, not real.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
