| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"dearcilla" |
| Date: |
23 Mar 2006 03:37:07 PM |
| Object: |
Olber's Paradox |
I don't believe in it. If the universe were infinitely large and old,
it seems to me that the brightness of the night sky would depend on the
average density of stars. Can someone explain to me how the paradox
arises?
.
|
|
| User: "Jenkem High" |
|
| Title: Re: Olber's Paradox |
23 Mar 2006 05:08:46 PM |
|
|
"dearcilla" <dearcilla@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143149827.424324.234640@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I don't believe in it. If the universe were infinitely large and old,
it seems to me that the brightness of the night sky would depend on the
average density of stars. Can someone explain to me how the paradox
arises?
If it was then in any direction you looked, you would see a star, therefore
the sky should be bright,
but that doesn't jive with limiting magnitude, light diminishing as the
square of distance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Olber's Paradox |
23 Mar 2006 06:49:00 PM |
|
|
"Jenkem High" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:44232a77$0$16357$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
"dearcilla" <dearcilla@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143149827.424324.234640@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I don't believe in it. If the universe were infinitely large and old,
it seems to me that the brightness of the night sky would depend on the
average density of stars. Can someone explain to me how the paradox
arises?
If it was then in any direction you looked, you would see a star,
therefore the sky should be bright,
but that doesn't jive with limiting magnitude, light diminishing as the
square of distance.
That is irrelevant in the case of Olber's Paradox - the surface brightness
(lumens per steradian) is constant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenkem High" |
|
| Title: Re: Olber's Paradox |
23 Mar 2006 07:51:08 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:48gtvtFjvvcbU1@individual.net...
"Jenkem High" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:44232a77$0$16357$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
"dearcilla" <dearcilla@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143149827.424324.234640@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I don't believe in it. If the universe were infinitely large and old,
it seems to me that the brightness of the night sky would depend on the
average density of stars. Can someone explain to me how the paradox
arises?
If it was then in any direction you looked, you would see a star,
therefore the sky should be bright,
but that doesn't jive with limiting magnitude, light diminishing as the
square of distance.
That is irrelevant in the case of Olber's Paradox - the surface brightness
(lumens per steradian) is constant
It is your assumption that SB is constant.
If so, then How bright is it?
What would be the value of your constant ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Olber's Paradox |
05 Apr 2006 06:02:15 PM |
|
|
"Jenkem High" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:44235087$0$15702$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:48gtvtFjvvcbU1@individual.net...
"Jenkem High" <spamless@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:44232a77$0$16357$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
"dearcilla" <dearcilla@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143149827.424324.234640@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I don't believe in it. If the universe were infinitely large and old,
it seems to me that the brightness of the night sky would depend on the
average density of stars. Can someone explain to me how the paradox
arises?
If it was then in any direction you looked, you would see a star,
therefore the sky should be bright,
but that doesn't jive with limiting magnitude, light diminishing as the
square of distance.
That is irrelevant in the case of Olber's Paradox - the surface
brightness (lumens per steradian) is constant
It is your assumption that SB is constant.
Not really, the constant SB is an inevitable consequence of a static
universe that is infinitely large and old.
If so, then How bright is it?
What would be the value of your constant ?
Sorry about the delay, don't know if you're still watching this thread -
here's your answer.
The surface brightness would depend on the surface brightness of the average
star, i.e. something like Black Body radiation at about 4000 - 5000 kelvin,
i.e similar to that of the sun.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dearcilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Olber's Paradox |
23 Mar 2006 07:19:53 PM |
|
|
OG wrote:
That is irrelevant in the case of Olber's Paradox - the surface brightness
(lumens per steradian) is constant
I don't see how it can be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Olber's Paradox |
24 Mar 2006 12:30:31 PM |
|
|
dearcilla wrote:
OG wrote:
That is irrelevant in the case of Olber's Paradox - the surface brightness
(lumens per steradian) is constant
I don't see how it can be.
Consider how many stars there are in the first, say, million light
years.
Then consider how many stars there are in the second million LYs.
Then the third, and so on. The apparent brightness of a star (of a
particular absolute brightness) goes as one over the square of the
distance. But the number of stars would be expected to go as
the square of the distance if the universe were uniform.
So on a sphere of 1 million LY radius, you'd find about N stars,
and they'd each have an apparent brightness of B. Total brightness
from that sphere is BN.
On a sphere of 2 million LY radius, you'd find about 4 N stars,
each with apparent brightness B/4, and so the total brightness
from stars at any distance is roughly constant, BN.
On a sphere of radius r, you'd find r^2 N stars, each of apparent
brightness B/r^2 for a total brightness of BN.
If the universe were infinite, then eventually your line of sight
in any direction would be blocked by a star. And since there
are roughly r^2 of them at any given distance, giving 1/r^2
light each, then the over all brightness from each distance
is roughly constant.
And if the universe really were infinite, and uniform, and very
old, then we'd be seeing a sky that was as bright as the
surface of a star all over. We'd be very warm indeed.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Olber's Paradox |
24 Mar 2006 01:29:53 PM |
|
|
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143225031.232064.187280@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| dearcilla wrote:
| > OG wrote:
| > > That is irrelevant in the case of Olber's Paradox - the surface
brightness
| > > (lumens per steradian) is constant
| >
| > I don't see how it can be.
|
| Consider how many stars there are in the first, say, million light
| years.
| Then consider how many stars there are in the second million LYs.
| Then the third, and so on. The apparent brightness of a star (of a
| particular absolute brightness) goes as one over the square of the
| distance. But the number of stars would be expected to go as
| the square of the distance if the universe were uniform.
|
| So on a sphere of 1 million LY radius, you'd find about N stars,
| and they'd each have an apparent brightness of B. Total brightness
| from that sphere is BN.
|
| On a sphere of 2 million LY radius, you'd find about 4 N stars,
| each with apparent brightness B/4, and so the total brightness
| from stars at any distance is roughly constant, BN.
|
| On a sphere of radius r, you'd find r^2 N stars, each of apparent
| brightness B/r^2 for a total brightness of BN.
|
| If the universe were infinite, then eventually your line of sight
| in any direction would be blocked by a star. And since there
| are roughly r^2 of them at any given distance, giving 1/r^2
| light each, then the over all brightness from each distance
| is roughly constant.
|
| And if the universe really were infinite, and uniform, and very
| old, then we'd be seeing a sky that was as bright as the
| surface of a star all over. We'd be very warm indeed.
| Socks
There are bigger gaps between raindrops than raindrop width,
no matter how many showerheads there are, and raindrops
also fall on showerheads. The more showerheads there are,
the more they shade is from higher raindrops. As it turns out
we are very wet indeed, and so we evaporate.
If we did not evaporate all the raindrops that fell upon us we'd
be an ever increasing ocean.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Olber's Paradox |
24 Mar 2006 01:33:50 PM |
|
|
There are bigger gaps between raindrops than raindrop width,
no matter how many showerheads there are, and raindrops
also fall on showerheads. The more showerheads there are,
the more they shade is from higher raindrops. As it turns out
we are very wet indeed, and so we evaporate.
If we did not evaporate all the raindrops that fell upon us we'd
be an ever increasing ocean.
Androcles.
**********
What a perfect explanation of Olber's paradox. Thank you, Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Light from stars gets dimmer with distance. |
23 Mar 2006 10:43:00 PM |
|
|
Hi DearCilla, You asked about Olber's Paradox,
I don't get it either, light from stars gets dimmer with distance, obviously.
At some point you wouldn't be able to see any light at all.
And you're right about density,
....one dim star every 20 billion light years would be a lot dimmer than
a bunch of brighter stars packed closer together.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Light from stars gets dimmer with distance. |
24 Mar 2006 10:44:34 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_23_CgCe@Cotse.NET...
Hi DearCilla, You asked about Olber's Paradox,
I don't get it either, light from stars gets dimmer with distance,
obviously.
At some point you wouldn't be able to see any light at all.
Do you know why this happens?
Do you understand what the paradox is about (size and time)?
And you're right about density,
...one dim star every 20 billion light years would be a lot dimmer than
a bunch of brighter stars packed closer together.
Anyway, am I right in thinking you will avoid answering my questions in the
other threads?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake's stupid/insincere questions. |
24 Mar 2006 12:26:29 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, I wrote:
light from stars gets dimmer with distance, obviously.
At some point you wouldn't be able to see any light at all.
And you asked: Do you know why this happens ?
Obviously, the closer the lamp, the brighter it is... light diffuses.
One dim star every 20 billion light years would be a lot dimmer than
a bunch of brighter stars packed closer together.
You asked:
Am I right in thinking you will avoid answering my questions
in the other threads ?
I'm not avoiding your questions per se, just the stupid/insincere ones.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake's stupid/insincere questions. |
24 Mar 2006 12:33:46 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_24_Bn90@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, I wrote:
light from stars gets dimmer with distance, obviously.
At some point you wouldn't be able to see any light at all.
And you asked: Do you know why this happens ?
Obviously, the closer the lamp, the brighter it is... light diffuses.
Yes. You have just repeated yourself.
The important question is why does the apparent brightness of a star
diminish the way it does?
One dim star every 20 billion light years would be a lot dimmer than
a bunch of brighter stars packed closer together.
Excellent. The key part of the idea behind the sky being bright is an
infinitely old universe.
Do you know why this works or shall I explain it to you?
You asked:
Am I right in thinking you will avoid answering my questions
in the other threads ?
I'm not avoiding your questions per se, just the stupid/insincere ones.
Well, they weren't stupid as you don't know the answer. I don't know why you
think they were insincere, I was trying to explain to you why your "entropy
as a spatial dimension" idea can be disproven.
If you refuse to learn then fine. Accept the crackpottery of your ideas and
go no further.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Seeing the horn's infinitely long mouthpiece/flange. |
24 Mar 2006 01:11:01 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You told me:
I was trying to explain to you why your
" entropy as a spatial dimension " idea can be disproven.
You failed, I advise you to give up as you have no interest in reality.
5D Space_Time_Entropy can be visualized as a 3D horn with no edges.
The 3 year WMAP data, -- released March 17th --,
shows polerizations only from diffusion,
not from the massive gravity waves you'd expect to see
if an entire cosmos instantly/absurdly popped into existence.
It won't be long now, -- maybe ten or twenty years --,
before scientists extend their view of my horn,
seeing its infinitely long mouthpiece/flange.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Seeing the horn's infinitely long mouthpiece/flange. |
24 Mar 2006 01:24:09 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_24_S8JU@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You told me:
I was trying to explain to you why your
" entropy as a spatial dimension " idea can be disproven.
You failed, I advise you to give up as you have no interest in reality.
Sadly, I failed because you refused to listen and no other reason.
5D Space_Time_Entropy can be visualized as a 3D horn with no edges.
Really? Cite this please. And I mean a theory which includes five spatial
dimensions.
Unless of course, your (ahem) theory allows the modeling of gravity to
exhibit its current observed characteristics whilst still alowing more or
less than three spatial dimensions.
It won't be long now, -- maybe ten or twenty years --,
before scientists extend their view of my horn,
seeing its infinitely long mouthpiece/flange.
Well, we shall see.
Your horn is an interesting concept and I have no issues with that as such.
Can we discuss the strong nuclear force if there are more than three spatial
dimensions please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: A WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles. |
24 Mar 2006 04:10:50 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, I wrote:
5D Space_Time_Entropy can be visualized as a 3D horn with no edges.
....and you replied:
Really ? Cite this please.
And I mean a theory which includes five spatial dimensions.
No problemo, this Nasa.GOV illustration is a 2D/3D way to visualize
cosmic time, or, as I call it, Space_Time_Entropy:
Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline150.jpg
The only thing they've yet to add is
the infinitely long mouthpiece and flange, but that's coming soon, I expect.
The March 17th data only shows polerizations from dissfusions,
not from the massive gravity waves you'd expect to see
if an entire cosmos instantly/absurdly popped into existence.
Since Riess' 1998 landmark in cosmology, and WMAPs recent landmarks,
the LambdaCDM model continues to gain ground,
i.e. GR's cosmological _Constant_, showing
a _Constant_ acceleration in the expansion of space-time.
What's needed most now, is a WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles.
You added:
Unless of course, your ( ahem ) theory allows the modeling of gravity to
exhibit its current observed characteristics whilst still alowing more or
less than three spatial dimensions.
If weren't so stuck in the days of Newton and the Bubonic plague,
you'd realize that Einstein/Hawking are right, time is a spatial dimension
and true event horizons never form.
It's unknowns, and only unknowns, that make time seem directional.
You concluded:
Can we discuss the strong nuclear force
if there are more than three spatial dimensions please.
Quantum mechanics' unknowns are chock-a-block,
so time can't be modeled as a spatial dimension.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: A WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles. |
24 Mar 2006 04:51:30 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_24_Mdy3@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, I wrote:
5D Space_Time_Entropy can be visualized as a 3D horn with no edges.
...and you replied:
Really ? Cite this please.
And I mean a theory which includes five spatial dimensions.
No problemo, this Nasa.GOV illustration is a 2D/3D way to visualize
cosmic time, or, as I call it, Space_Time_Entropy:
Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline150.jpg
Excellent graphic depicting the cosmological expansion of three spatial
dimensions over time since the t=0 event of the Big Bang, which includes the
inflationary phase.
Please note: This is not a citation which supports your ideas about entropy
being the fifth spatial dimension (or there even being a fifth spatial
dimension, which is all I asked for).
When asked a question about a theory you have been positing for months now,
youe best response for a citation is a publicity picture pushed out by the
WMAP team. Brilliant.
Where on your image do they make a reference to "cosmic time" or even
entropy.
The only thing they've yet to add is
the infinitely long mouthpiece and flange, but that's coming soon, I
expect.
I suspect it will be a while before anything in that image is changed as it
is functionally identical to ones I looked at years ago.
The March 17th data only shows polerizations from dissfusions,
not from the massive gravity waves you'd expect to see
if an entire cosmos instantly/absurdly popped into existence.
Since Riess' 1998 landmark in cosmology, and WMAPs recent landmarks,
the LambdaCDM model continues to gain ground,
i.e. GR's cosmological _Constant_, showing
a _Constant_ acceleration in the expansion of space-time.
You love cramming as many "sciency" sounding words as possible into a post,
don't you.
I am not arguing against the cosmological expansion, I am arguing against
your interpretation of it. You take phrases from the theories and re-word
them to mean what ever you want them to, without ever showing an
understanding of what you are talking about.
What's needed most now, is a WMAP-like telescope to record standard
candles.
You added:
Unless of course, your ( ahem ) theory allows the modeling of gravity
to
exhibit its current observed characteristics whilst still alowing more or
less than three spatial dimensions.
If weren't so stuck in the days of Newton and the Bubonic plague,
you'd realize that Einstein/Hawking are right, time is a spatial dimension
and true event horizons never form.
Nonsense. Neither Einstein nor Hawking have said time is a spatial
dimension.
Also, this is science we are talking here not religion. Proclamations from
Einstein and Hawking are not by definition correct. By trying to invoke them
(falsely) to support your ideas you undermine yourself more than you know.
It's unknowns, and only unknowns, that make time seem directional.
Nonsense.
You concluded:
Can we discuss the strong nuclear force
if there are more than three spatial dimensions please.
Quantum mechanics' unknowns are chock-a-block,
so time can't be modeled as a spatial dimension.
So now you are saying time is not a spatial dimension then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake, you just waste my time and make me sick. |
24 Mar 2006 08:49:18 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, Re: Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline150.jpg
You wrote:
Excellent graphic depicting the cosmological expansion of three spatial
dimensions over time since the t=0 event of the Big Bang,
which includes the inflationary phase.
Reading ***** like that from you makes me cringe in horror... it's painful.
The cosmos has no center of gravity, it's flat, homogeneous at large scales.
4D Space_Time over cosmic time, 5D, is hyperbolic, negatively curved.
The fifth dimension is more appropriately called _Entropy_,
and recent data from Riess and WMAP points to a _Constant_ acceleration
in the expansion of space-time, like the 3D horn with no edges.
CMB_Timeline150.jpg truncates this horn,
but, eventually, I'm quite confident that this omission will be corrected.
As I said, a WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles is badly needed.
I can't read the rest of your post, you just waste my time and make me sick.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake, you just waste my time and make me sick. |
25 Mar 2006 07:25:35 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_24_T3ZF@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, Re: Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline150.jpg
You wrote:
Excellent graphic depicting the cosmological expansion of three spatial
dimensions over time since the t=0 event of the Big Bang,
which includes the inflationary phase.
Reading ***** like that from you makes me cringe in horror... it's painful.
Tut tut. Poor show Jeff. What, in what I actually said (not what the voices
tell you I said) do you find to disagree with.
The cosmos has no center of gravity, it's flat, homogeneous at large
scales.
Where, ever, have I said it has a centre of anything?
4D Space_Time over cosmic time, 5D, is hyperbolic, negatively curved.
Gibberish. Meaningless gibberish.
The fifth dimension is more appropriately called _Entropy_,
Nope. There is no fifth spatial dimension. The one you fantasise about can
be called Mary for all I care.
and recent data from Riess and WMAP points to a _Constant_ acceleration
in the expansion of space-time, like the 3D horn with no edges.
Word salad which you are using to try and imply that 1+1 = 46
CMB_Timeline150.jpg truncates this horn,
but, eventually, I'm quite confident that this omission will be corrected.
As I said, a WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles is badly
needed.
You dont understand the words you use.
I can't read the rest of your post, you just waste my time and make me
sick.
Which is shorthand for saying you have neither an idea as to how gravity
describes three spatial dimensions nor the ability to re-model gravity for
five.
Poor show Mr Relf. Must try harder in future.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Take it from T_Wake, the guy who calls Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV a crank site. |
25 Mar 2006 06:17:20 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, Re: Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline150.jpg
I wrote: 4D Space_Time over cosmic time, 5D, is hyperbolic, negatively curved.
And you replied: Gibberish. Meaningless gibberish.
Says who ? You, the guy who calls Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV a crank site ? !
I'm stopping right here, not reading the rest of your inanities.
According to GR, _Space_Time_ is a function of
the density of mass-energy _And_ vacuum pressure, a.k.a. negative pressure,
negative mass-energy, dark energy, lambda, the cosmological constant.
So it's Space_Time, _Not_ space, that's expanding at a _Constant_ acceleration.
WMAP's very accurate measurement of dark energy, +- 5 percent,
is the measure of GR's cosmological constant.
From Imagine.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/docs/features/exhibit/map_age.html
The greater the force of dark energy, the faster the acceleration
and thus the greater the distance traveled by receding galaxies.
So knowing the contribution of dark energy, termed the cosmological constant,
places another limit on the redshift-distance connection.
From Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_uni/uni_101accel.html
By characterizing the detailed structure of
the cosmic microwave background fluctuations,
WMAP should be able to accurately determine
the basic cosmological parameters, including the cosmological constant,
to better than 5 percent.
From Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_uni/uni_101shape.html
The results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova
have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating
which implies the existence of
a form of matter with a strong negative pressure,
such as the cosmological constant.
This strange form of matter
is also sometimes referred to as the " dark energy ".
If dark energy in fact
plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe,
then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.
From WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant
The cosmological constant is estimated by cosmologists to be
on the order of 10 ^ −29 g / cm ^ 3
...
The cosmological constant has negative pressure equal to
its energy density and so causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate.
From CFHT.Hawaii.EDU/News/SNLS_Nov2005/SNLS_AAS_PR.html
November 22, 2005
WAS EINSTEIN'S BIGGEST BLUNDER A STELLAR SUCCESS ?
The genius of Albert Einstein, who added a " cosmological constant "
to his equation for the expansion of the universe
but later retracted it, may be vindicated by new research.
The enigmatic dark energy that drives the accelerating
expansion of the universe behaves just like Einstein's famed
cosmological constant,
according to the Supernova Legacy Survey ( SNLS ),
an international team of researchers in France
and Canada that collaborated with large telescope observers at
Oxford, Caltech and Berkeley.
Their observations reveal that the
dark energy behaves like Einstein's cosmological constant
to a precision of 10 percent.
^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^
" The significance is huge,"
said Professor Ray Carlberg of the Department
of Astronomy and Astrophysics at U of T.
" Our observation is at odds with a number of theoretical ideas
about the nature of dark energy that predict
that it should change as the universe expands,
and as far as we can see, it doesn't."
^^ ^^^^^^^
The results will be published in an upcoming issue of the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
" The Supernova Legacy Survey is arguably the world leader in
our quest to understand the nature of dark energy,"
said study co-author Chris Pritchet,
a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of
Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.
The researchers made their discovery using an innovative,
340-million pixel camera called MegaCam, built by the
Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope and the French atomic energy
agency, Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique.
" Because of its wide field of view ( you can fit four moons in an image )
it allows us to measure simultaneously, and very precisely,
several supernovae, which are rare events,"
said Pierre Astier, one of the scientists with
the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique ( CNRS ) in France.
" Improved observations of distant supernovae are
the most immediate way in which we can learn more about
the mysterious dark energy,"
adds Richard Ellis, a professor of astronomy at
the California Institute of Technology.
" This study is a very big step forward in quantity and quality. "
Study co-author Saul Perlmutter, a physics professor at the
University of California, Berkeley, says the findings kick off
a dramatic new generation of cosmology work using supernovae.
" The data is more beautiful than we could have imagined 10 years ago
-- a real tribute to the instrument builders,
the analysis teams and the large scientific vision of
the Canadian and French science communities."
...
" Only the world's largest optical telescopes,
those from eight to 10 metres in diameter,
are capable of studying distant supernovae in detail
by examining the spectrum,"
said Isobel Hook, an astronomer in
the Department of Astrophysics at Oxford University.
The current paper is based on about one-tenth of the imaging data that
will be obtained by the end of the survey.
Future results are expected to double or even triple
the precision of these findings and conclusively solve
several remaining mysteries about the nature of dark energy.
The research was funded by the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope, the
Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique (CEA), Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers du CNRS, the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the National
Research Council of Canada's Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, the
Gemini Observatory, the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council,
the W. M. Keck Observatory and the European Southern Observatory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Take it from T_Wake, the guy who calls Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV a crank site. |
25 Mar 2006 06:54:07 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_25_0Sw9@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, Re: Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline150.jpg
Hi Jeff. Here is a tip for you. When you cant come up with a reasonable
response, feel free to try and pretend I said things I never said. It will
make you feel better in your self.
I dont mind.
I wrote: 4D Space_Time over cosmic time, 5D, is hyperbolic, negatively
curved.
And you replied: Gibberish. Meaningless gibberish.
Says who ? You, the guy who calls Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV a crank site ? !
When did I say that?
I'm stopping right here, not reading the rest of your inanities.
Only because you cant respond. You dont understand why gravity demonstrates
there are no more or less than three spatial dimensions.
As the rest of your post is meaningless drivel that you have no
understanding off, other than to paraphrase, I wont bother with it.
It is a shame you don't even have the integrity to defend your own ideas.
There was little doubt you would resort to smoke and mirrors though.
Poor show Jeff. Go back to trying to impress 18 year olds, you suck at
science.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Light from stars gets dimmer with distance. |
23 Mar 2006 11:14:43 PM |
|
|
Jeff…Relf wrote:
Hi DearCilla, You asked about Olber's Paradox,
I don't get it either, light from stars gets dimmer with distance, obviously.
At some point you wouldn't be able to see any light at all.
And you're right about density,
...one dim star every 20 billion light years would be a lot dimmer than
a bunch of brighter stars packed closer together.
You're confusing total energy with energy per unit area. If the same
"dim" distant star were extended in surface area such that it occupied
the same field of view as our Sun, then it would appear as bright as the
Sun to you, even though it were light-years distant. Again, this is
assuming no dispersive media between you and the star.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "uri" |
|
| Title: Re: Light from stars gets dimmer with distance. |
24 Mar 2006 07:16:19 AM |
|
|
The assumption is that red light is a function of distance. This is
Hubble's law. However redshift might be intrinsic as Halton Arp points
out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: Light from stars gets dimmer with distance. |
24 Mar 2006 07:32:16 AM |
|
|
uri wrote:
The assumption is that red light is a function of distance. This is
Hubble's law. However redshift might be intrinsic as Halton Arp points
out.
It may indeed. I can think of at least two alternatives to Hubble red
shift that don't involve expansion:
1) Since we are looking back into the past, it is possible that the
spectral frequencies were simply lower at that time, ever increasing as
time goes on. I can provide no mechanism for this however based upon
existing theory.
2) Gravitational redshift, that is, when taking account of the mass
surrounding us up to that radial distance. This would put us at the
center of a massive structure and would put the star being viewed at the
surface of that sphere. Just as a clock at the surface of the Earth
will tick slower than an identical clock at its center, so would the
stars atoms *tic* slower than the same atoms on Earth.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: A WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles. |
24 Mar 2006 04:28:39 PM |
|
|
Hi RP and Uri,
Since Riess' 1998 landmark in cosmology, and WMAPs recent landmarks,
the LambdaCDM model continues to gain ground,
i.e. GR's cosmological _Constant_, showing
a _Constant_ acceleration in the expansion of space-time.
This Nasa.GOV illustration is a 2D/3D way to visualize
5D cosmic time, or, as I call it, Space_Time_Entropy:
Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline150.jpg
It's a truncated horn, the only thing they've yet to add is
the infinitely long mouthpiece and flange, but that's coming soon, I expect.
In 2D, it's a simple hyperbola, negatively curved:
JimLoy.COM/geometry/hyper0.gif
Entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy, I posit,
....the cosmos has just always been diffusing.
WMAP's March 17th data only shows polerizations from dissfusions,
not from the massive gravity waves you'd expect to see
if an entire cosmos instantly/absurdly popped into existence.
What's needed most now is a WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles.
If RP wasn't so stuck in the days of Newton and the Bubonic plague,
he'd realize that Einstein/Hawking are right,
time is a spatial dimension and true event horizons never form.
It's unknowns, and only unknowns, that make time seem directional.
Quantum mechanics' unknowns are chock-a-block;
hence, its time can't be modeled as a spatial dimension.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: A WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles. |
24 Mar 2006 05:35:33 PM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi RP and Uri,
Since Riess' 1998 landmark in cosmology, and WMAPs recent landmarks,
the LambdaCDM model continues to gain ground,
i.e. GR's cosmological _Constant_, showing
a _Constant_ acceleration in the expansion of space-time.
Wrong - the acceleration isn't constant. When you quote-mine, you
should at least try to read for comprehension.
This Nasa.GOV illustration is a 2D/3D way to visualize
5D cosmic time, or, as I call it, Space_Time_Entropy:
Nobody cares what you call it because it is wrong.
Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline150.jpg
It's a truncated horn, the only thing they've yet to add is
the infinitely long mouthpiece and flange, but that's coming soon, I expect.
In 2D, it's a simple hyperbola, negatively curved:
JimLoy.COM/geometry/hyper0.gif
A hyperbola is a conic section, hyperbolic space is something entirely
different. You neither understand the difference nor care to learn.
Entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy, I posit,
...the cosmos has just always been diffusing.
No, you blindly believe because you cannot support your inane
assertion.
WMAP's March 17th data only shows polerizations from dissfusions,
not from the massive gravity waves you'd expect to see
if an entire cosmos instantly/absurdly popped into existence.
More irrelevant quote mining.
What's needed most now is a WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles.
WMAP was a microwave telescope, fuckwit.
If RP wasn't so stuck in the days of Newton and the Bubonic plague,
he'd realize that Einstein/Hawking are right,
time is a spatial dimension and true event horizons never form.
Wrong again.
It's unknowns, and only unknowns, that make time seem directional.
Quantum mechanics' unknowns are chock-a-block;
hence, its time can't be modeled as a spatial dimension.
Time isn't modeled as a spatial dimension.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: A WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles. |
24 Mar 2006 05:41:31 PM |
|
|
Jeff…Relf wrote:
Hi RP and Uri,
Since Riess' 1998 landmark in cosmology, and WMAPs recent landmarks,
the LambdaCDM model continues to gain ground,
i.e. GR's cosmological _Constant_, showing
a _Constant_ acceleration in the expansion of space-time.
This Nasa.GOV illustration is a 2D/3D way to visualize
5D cosmic time, or, as I call it, Space_Time_Entropy:
Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline150.jpg
It's a truncated horn, the only thing they've yet to add is
the infinitely long mouthpiece and flange, but that's coming soon, I expect.
In 2D, it's a simple hyperbola, negatively curved:
JimLoy.COM/geometry/hyper0.gif
Entropy is an intrinsic property of mass-energy, I posit,
...the cosmos has just always been diffusing.
WMAP's March 17th data only shows polerizations from dissfusions,
not from the massive gravity waves you'd expect to see
if an entire cosmos instantly/absurdly popped into existence.
What's needed most now is a WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles.
If RP wasn't so stuck in the days of Newton and the Bubonic plague,
he'd realize that Einstein/Hawking are right,
time is a spatial dimension and true event horizons never form.
What does Newton have to do with gravitational ticking rate offsets?
It's unknowns, and only unknowns, that make time seem directional.
Speak for yourself.
Quantum mechanics' unknowns are chock-a-block;
hence, its time can't be modeled as a spatial dimension.
The word *hence* typically follows a logical argument consisting of at
least two related premises.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Re: A WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles. |
24 Mar 2006 08:22:26 PM |
|
|
Hi RP, Are you saying you understand time dilation and length contraction
but not GR's cosmological _Constant_ in the LambdaCDM model
which, given the Riess and WMAP data,
points to a _Constant_ acceleration in the expansion of space-time ?
If so, your point of view is rapidly losing ground.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: A WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles. |
24 Mar 2006 09:19:06 PM |
|
|
Jeff…Relf wrote:
Hi RP, Are you saying you understand time dilation and length contraction
but not GR's cosmological _Constant_ in the LambdaCDM model
which, given the Riess and WMAP data,
points to a _Constant_ acceleration in the expansion of space-time ?
If so, your point of view is rapidly losing ground.
If not for the fact that the cosmological constant is still an open
debate I wouldn't have provided my equally speculative alternatives.
When the book is finally closed then by all means get back to me with
that question. I am not generally impressed with the present state of
cosmology. I'm even less impressed with those who draw conclusions based
upon ambiguous or even in some cases synthetically manufactured data in
order to advance their own agendas. What is worse is that this entire
area of research should be privately funded because it offers no returns
whatsoever to the taxpayer. Science fiction can be obtained readily
from the private sector and quite independently of government sponsored
facilities. There is nothing wrong with the search for knowledge, but I
shouldn't have to pay for somebody else's playthings. It's a bit like
the welfare program.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: A _Very_ sober thought. |
24 Mar 2006 10:31:20 PM |
|
|
Hi RP, You wrote:
If not for the fact that the cosmological constant is still an open
debate I wouldn't have provided my equally speculative alternatives.
Have you seen WMAP's March 17th data ?
The polerizations are only consistent with diffusion over cosmic time,
where, at large scales, the cosmos is homogenous... with no center of gravity.
The polerizations are _Not_ consistent with the absurd notion
that the cosmos instantly popped into existence,
creating wild-***** gravitational waves.
That lends even more support to GR's cosmological _Constant_,
suggesting that expansion of space-time has had a _Constant_ acceleration.
Hence, 4D Space_Time over cosmic time, 5D, is hyperbolic, negatively curved,
....like a 3D horn with no edges.
The fifth dimension is more appropriately called _Entropy_, Space_Time_Entropy.
Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV/m_ig/060915/CMB_Timeline150.jpg truncates this horn,
but, eventually, I'm quite confident that that omission will be corrected.
As I said, a WMAP-like telescope to record standard candles is badly needed.
You continued:
When the book is finally closed
then by all means get back to me with that question.
The above, the LambdaCDM model, is best observations combined with best theory,
and, not unlike evolution, is too sober a topic for drunks like you.
You added:
I am not generally impressed with the present state of cosmology.
I'm even less impressed with those who draw conclusions based
upon ambiguous or even in some cases synthetically manufactured data in
order to advance their own agendas.
And what's your agenda ? Avoiding the truth at all costs ?
You went on:
What is worse is that this entire area of research
should be privately funded because
it offers no returns whatsoever to the taxpayer.
I'm guessing that you're drunk on something,
maybe religion, science fiction, drugs, or plain old hooch.
People like that can't handle the sobriety of evolution or GR.
You told me:
Science fiction can be obtained readily from the private sector
and quite independently of government sponsored facilities.
No, GR is hard science. Science fiction is what you indulge in.
You added:
There is nothing wrong with the search for knowledge,
but I shouldn't have to pay for somebody else's playthings.
It's a bit like the welfare program.
Sober people know the value of evolution and GR.
GR lends great support to the postulate that time is intrinsically spatial.
It's only unknowns that makes life seem like a casino to us,
where the house always wins in the end.
Given enough time, fast or slow, everything eventually dissipates.
All is just as limited in time as in space... a _Very_ sober thought.
With the immediate future being so unknown, but still set in stone,
it becomes painfully obvious that I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.
All meaning is local, here and now... the rest is inane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: A _Very_ sober thought. |
25 Mar 2006 07:18:14 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_24_2ooe@Cotse.NET...
The fifth dimension is more appropriately called _Entropy_,
Space_Time_Entropy.
Says who? (Other than you)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
