| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Anonymous" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 09:04:20 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
On 26 Sep 2005, "b...@...m" wrote:
How do they know the universe is ~(12-16) billion years old?
I thought that it was measured using a telescope and that the red glow
at the edge of the known universe is 12 billion light years away, hence
light has been traveling for 12 billion years, and thus the universe is
12 billion years old. But this cant be right... I mean, 12 billion
years ago, everything was much closer together, the light couldnt have
started its travels that long ago (when the distances were so close)
and just now getting to us for us to say its 12 billion light years away.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Kudos! What's even funnier about the so-called "secular"
atheistic academia's hopelessly irrational insanity is
that their cosmology places Earth at the center of the
visible isotropic Universe--which is of course correct!
Their obvious hypocrisy being that they flatly refuse
to acknowledge that the ancient Greeks, for example,
distinguished the infinite, non-geocentric, universal
continuum as kosmikos, to contrast from the geocentric,
electromagnetic radiation-apparent universe as Ouranos,
i.e., as relative to each planet or center of activity
from which said light is being witnessed by us living
beings, and our various instruments which measure it.
The heathen lunatics don't like to admit that they've
placed Earth at the center of their "big bang" theory,
because then they'd have to explain why ancient light
intercepting present-day Earth appears to come at us
from all directions--i.e. meaning at least TWICE 12-15
billion light-years have passed, making the Universe
at least 24-30 billion years young, according to the
godless heathens. (I really enjoy their "balloons"). :-D
Then we point out that very deep field galaxies appear
in all stages of development, new, old, and everything
in between. But again, there's no accounting for insane
academia, of whom Ward Churchill is their main spokesman.
Their "big bang" theory was, in reality, D.O.A. from its
inept, grotesquely egomaniacal misconception. Everybody
knows that the universe is non-finite, and illimitable,
even as God the Creator is omnipotent and omnipresent.
But the dumbkoff atheistic nutjobs just can't compete
with intellectual discussion and substantive dialogue,
so they just run and hide as usual...they're pathetic. :-D
Enjoy Life! (I do it all the time)
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQzh0rZljD7YrHM/nEQIYpQCffAX2Z7pHJboC2/fO4k0yv9oVdzcAn1vb
MQWFsbi4JYDcdgp6p+KbBumQ
=0aqj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 06:12:09 AM |
|
|
: On 26 Sep 2005, "b...@...m" wrote:
: >How do they know the universe is ~(12-16) billion years old?
: >I thought that it was measured using a telescope and that the red glow
: >at the edge of the known universe is 12 billion light years away, hence
: >light has been traveling for 12 billion years, and thus the universe is
: >12 billion years old. But this cant be right... I mean, 12 billion
: >years ago, everything was much closer together, the light couldnt have
: >started its travels that long ago (when the distances were so close)
: >and just now getting to us for us to say its 12 billion light years away.
Did anyone answer his question?
It's estimated fairly accurately to 13.7 Billion years with the latest Xray images.
1
when an ambulance is driving your way the siren goes EEE AWW EEE AWW EEE AWW
then when it passes it changes to AAA UWW AAA UWW AAA UWW.
That's redshift, if you look really closely the ambulance has a bluish tinge when its approaching
but looks more red when its leaving. Use a telescope in the sky and all the known frequencies
that light photons are naturally generated at are more red than they should be, so that's how you
know the universe is expanding. work out the speeds from the redshifts and distances and
it stars appear to have been travelling for about 10 to 20 billion years.
2
Same as carbon dating but done from a distance with chemicals with long half lives. estimated
life of universe 8 to 12 billion years.
3
background radiation temperatures, no idea how this works. estimated life 13.7 billion years.
4
stars seem to be 2nd or 3rd or 4th generation stars, made from the remnants of original stars that have
mostly exploded / stopped burning by now. since stars live from a few billion years to around 10 or more
billion years, and only a small fraction of 1st generation (pure hydrogen and helium) stars are left we
must be in our teens.
Herc
errors and ommisions excepted
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
27 Sep 2005 09:41:38 AM |
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
On 26 Sep 2005, "b...@...m" wrote:
How do they know the universe is ~(12-16) billion years old?
Lookup the resupts from the COBE and WMAP data. These 'telescopes'
measured the background glow from the big bang and fit it to the Big
Bang model of the universe including 'inflation'. The data confirms the
Big Bang theory and sets limits to the size, shape, geometry, and age
of the universe. The data indicates that the universe if 12.7 BYO +/-
0.2 BY.
I thought that it was measured using a telescope and that the red glow
at the edge of the known universe is 12 billion light years away, hence
light has been traveling for 12 billion years, and thus the universe is
12 billion years old. But this cant be right... I mean, 12 billion
years ago, everything was much closer together, the light couldnt have
started its travels that long ago (when the distances were so close)
and just now getting to us for us to say its 12 billion light years away.
The age of the universe and the size of the universe are not that
closely related. The size of the universe is on the order of 90 B light
years and much of it is beyond our horizon.
Kudos! What's even funnier about the so-called "secular"
atheistic academia's hopelessly irrational insanity is
that their cosmology places Earth at the center of the
visible isotropic Universe--which is of course correct!
No, the universe is isotropic (to a high degree of precision) and the
earth is no closer to the center than anything else! The universe is so
large (and still expanding) that everything we can see with large
telescopes can all be considered the center of the universe with equal
presision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Rudiak-Gould" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 08:46:04 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The age of the universe and the size of the universe are not that
closely related. The size of the universe is on the order of 90 B light
years and much of it is beyond our horizon.
The universe is *at least* 90 billion light years across, and probably much,
much larger. The 90 billion figure is just the part of it we can see (or
rather, the part whose existence we infer directly from what we can see).
-- Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "canopus56" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
28 Sep 2005 08:57:20 PM |
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
Their "big bang" theory was, in reality, D.O.A. . . .
Everybody knows that the universe is non-finite,
and illimitable, . . .
and
[T]hey'd have to explain why ancient light
intercepting present-day Earth appears to come at
us from all directions--i.e. meaning at least
TWICE 12-15 billion light-years have passed,. . .
Generally I do not respond to Min posts. But here he raises a good "bad
astronomy" point - if the Big Bang theory is wrong and the universe is
infinite, why does light appear to be coming from all directions?
With respect to an infinite universe theory, a simple but key
observation in favor of the Big Bang theory is that light _does not_
appear to be coming from all directions - that is at night, large parts
of the night sky are dark.
This is a variation of the Olber's Paradox. Olber's Paradox states
that if the universe were both infinite in space and time then at night
all points on the celestial sphere would at some point intersect with
the surface of a star. Therefore, the sky at "night" would never be
dark. We would be surrounded by a celestial sphere of a brightness
equal to the surface of the Sun.
The fact that we see darkness at night negates Obler's Paradox. In the
observable universe (taking either a radius of 12-15 billion years or a
diameter of 24-30 billion years), there are not enough galaxies (50-70
billion) to light-up the entire celestial sphere. The darkness of the
night sky implies at some point in the past, the light matter in
galaxies were closer together, the universe was more dense, and as they
moved apart over time, a dark night became possible.
A related "bad astronomy" question, Question 224 in Odenwald's _The
Astronomy Cafe_ (1998), is "How can we still see the birth of our
universe in the cosmic background radiation when light travels faster
than the expansion of the universe?"
This second "bad astronomy" question is more puzzling to me. The
cosmic background radiation map (CMBR) fills the empty vacum of space
with about 400 photons per centimeter. This makes sense to me in that
the original CMBR photos in my immediate vicinity used to be visual and
have been moving for 12-15 billion years. That movement and reduction
in temperature lowered their frequency to below that of visual light.
The WMAP CMBR map -
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
and its less-detailed COBE predecessor CMBR map -
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/cmb_fluctuations_big.jpg
at
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/
are not visual spectrum maps - they are maps of lower-frequency
microwave radiation arriving at Earth at the speed of light after
traveling 12-15 billion years.
But if the original light was emitted 12-15 billion years ago when the
universe was 300,000 years old (thus probably only 300,000 light years
across), why didn't the original light simply "overrun" our early
position in the cosmic breadloaf. Thus, would not COBE and WMAP see
nothing after 12-15 billion years?
- Suffering from the usual headache I get when contemplating cosmology
- Canopus56
References:
Sten Odenwald. 1998. The Astronomy Cafe. At 141.
William H. Waller and Paul W. Hodge. 2003. Galaxies and the Cosmic
Frontier. At 240-242, 249.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 01:00:16 PM |
|
|
"canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127959040.595532.20250@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Anonymous wrote:
Their "big bang" theory was, in reality, D.O.A. . . .
Everybody knows that the universe is non-finite,
and illimitable, . . .
and
[T]hey'd have to explain why ancient light
intercepting present-day Earth appears to come at
us from all directions--i.e. meaning at least
TWICE 12-15 billion light-years have passed,. . .
Generally I do not respond to Min posts.
Good idea.
But here he raises a good "bad
astronomy" point - if the Big Bang theory is wrong and the universe is
infinite, ...
He is wrong already, the big bang says the
universe is probably infinite given current
observations.
But here he raises a good "bad
astronomy" point - if the Big Bang theory is wrong and the universe is
infinite, why does light appear to be coming from all directions?
Because the matter is distributed homogenously
at large scales.
With respect to an infinite universe theory, a simple but key
observation in favor of the Big Bang theory is that light _does not_
appear to be coming from all directions - that is at night, large parts
of the night sky are dark.
If that were true, it would contradict the big bang.
Our skies appear dark only because our eyes are not
sufficiently sensisitive. If our eyes were 10m in
diameter the sky would be much brighter ;-)
This is a variation of the Olber's Paradox. ...
Others have answered.
A related "bad astronomy" question, Question 224 in Odenwald's _The
Astronomy Cafe_ (1998), is "How can we still see the birth of our
universe in the cosmic background radiation when light travels faster
than the expansion of the universe?"
Because the light we see comes from material that
was 'over there' when the light was emitted - see
later for what 'over there' means.
This second "bad astronomy" question is more puzzling to me. The
cosmic background radiation map (CMBR) fills the empty vacum of space
with about 400 photons per centimeter. This makes sense to me in that
the original CMBR photos in my immediate vicinity used to be visual and
have been moving for 12-15 billion years. That movement and reduction
in temperature lowered their frequency to below that of visual light.
The WMAP CMBR map -
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
and its less-detailed COBE predecessor CMBR map -
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/cmb_fluctuations_big.jpg
at
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/
are not visual spectrum maps - they are maps of lower-frequency
microwave radiation arriving at Earth at the speed of light after
traveling 12-15 billion years.
But if the original light was emitted 12-15 billion years ago when the
universe was 300,000 years old (thus probably only 300,000 light years
across), why didn't the original light simply "overrun" our early
position in the cosmic breadloaf. Thus, would not COBE and WMAP see
nothing after 12-15 billion years?
Because the space between there and here was
expanding while the light was travelling. By
the time the light had travelled one light
year, the remaining space between it and us
had expanded by perhaps 0.99... light years so
it had only marginally less distance still to
go.
- Suffering from the usual headache I get when contemplating cosmology
This might ease the pain but don't take too many
pages at once:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
George
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
28 Sep 2005 10:26:34 PM |
|
|
"canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127959040.595532.20250@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Generally I do not respond to Min posts. But here he raises a good
"bad
| astronomy" point - if the Big Bang theory is wrong and the universe is
| infinite, why does light appear to be coming from all directions?
Huh?
IF NOT (BB) AND (universe infinite) THEN NOT (light omnidirectional)
IF (BB) AND (universe infinite) THEN (light omnidirectional)
BB AND (universe infinite) = 0
IF 0 THEN (light omnidirectional)
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
| With respect to an infinite universe theory, a simple but key
| observation in favor of the Big Bang theory is that light _does not_
| appear to be coming from all directions - that is at night, large
parts
| of the night sky are dark.
Oh, do come on... How much observing have you ever done?
Tell me where to look and not find stars.
| This is a variation of the Olber's Paradox.
Who needs a variation?
| Olber's Paradox states
| that if the universe were both infinite in space and time then at
night
| all points on the celestial sphere would at some point intersect with
| the surface of a star. Therefore, the sky at "night" would never be
| dark. We would be surrounded by a celestial sphere of a brightness
| equal to the surface of the Sun.
|
| The fact that we see darkness at night negates Obler's Paradox.
You are nuts.
*plonk*
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 05:04:11 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm glad it bothers you that much. And I'm glad you read
my authoritative articles and essays, seeing that none of
you heathen liberal looneys are even capable of responding
substantively, neither intellectually, neither impressively.
Enjoy Life! (I do it all the time)
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
"c...@...m" wrote:
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
--William of Ockham (~1300-1349)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQzv0lpljD7YrHM/nEQJLVwCg05AbpZWYGjhZrHdyvceqpEJWrKgAnjeo
uUtHBSWcahEG0W7j4tvKSpGM
=Zqmx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 07:18:37 PM |
|
|
It might help if we know who the ***** you are addressing.
Androcles
"Anonymous" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:NWLMXR6N38624.7112384259@anonymous.poster...
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| I'm glad it bothers you that much. And I'm glad you read
| my authoritative articles and essays, seeing that none of
| you heathen liberal looneys are even capable of responding
| substantively, neither intellectually, neither impressively.
|
| Enjoy Life! (I do it all the time)
| Daniel Joseph Min
| http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
|
| *Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
| http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
|
| *Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
|
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
|
| "c...@...m" wrote:
|
| "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
| --William of Ockham (~1300-1349)
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
| iQA/AwUBQzv0lpljD7YrHM/nEQJLVwCg05AbpZWYGjhZrHdyvceqpEJWrKgAnjeo
| uUtHBSWcahEG0W7j4tvKSpGM
| =Zqmx
| -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 09:17:07 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I've enjoyed name-brand recognition on the blogs for
years now. Hence the lurkers are my biggest audience. :-D
Enjoy Life! (fillet a liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
"A...@...g" sniped indignantly:
It might help if...
<snipped for clarity>
"'God is dead'-Nietzsche
'Nietzsche is dead'-God"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQzyUfJljD7YrHM/nEQKbCACg4/nY/8IvqTfuU3TwPOlS5NBIJkYAoM9z
UhMDPQaxQTJtZhYVYhWR7SWC
=h5jo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anonymous" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 09:00:46 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm glad it bothers you that much. And I'm glad you read
my authoritative articles and essays, seeing that none of
you heathen liberal looneys are even capable of responding
substantively, neither intellectually, neither impressively.
Enjoy Life! (I do it all the time)
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
"c...@...m" wrote:
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
--William of Ockham (~1300-1349)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBQzxdbJljD7YrHM/nEQL2awCfUfl/Bfa4Gp2TPxNmX2HoRcPu0y4AnjFr
+H38L9bdfT9bNwzB7G0coVrb
=SwsF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
28 Sep 2005 11:29:43 PM |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005 18:57:20 -0700, "canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Generally I do not respond to Min posts. But here he raises a good "bad
astronomy" point - if the Big Bang theory is wrong and the universe is
infinite, why does light appear to be coming from all directions?
With respect to an infinite universe theory, a simple but key
observation in favor of the Big Bang theory is that light _does not_
appear to be coming from all directions - that is at night, large parts
of the night sky are dark.
This is a variation of the Olber's Paradox. Olber's Paradox states
that if the universe were both infinite in space and time then at night
all points on the celestial sphere would at some point intersect with
the surface of a star. Therefore, the sky at "night" would never be
dark. We would be surrounded by a celestial sphere of a brightness
equal to the surface of the Sun.
The fact that we see darkness at night negates Obler's Paradox. In the
observable universe (taking either a radius of 12-15 billion years or a
diameter of 24-30 billion years), there are not enough galaxies (50-70
billion) to light-up the entire celestial sphere. The darkness of the
night sky implies at some point in the past, the light matter in
galaxies were closer together, the universe was more dense, and as they
moved apart over time, a dark night became possible.
Olber's paradox disappears if we assume an expanding universe,
which will provide an event horizon.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris L Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
28 Sep 2005 11:17:12 PM |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005 18:57:20 -0700, "canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
But if the original light was emitted 12-15 billion years ago when the
universe was 300,000 years old (thus probably only 300,000 light years
across), why didn't the original light simply "overrun" our early
position in the cosmic breadloaf. Thus, would not COBE and WMAP see
nothing after 12-15 billion years?
Why do you think the Universe was 300,000 ly across when it was 300,000
years old? There is no speed of light limitation on the expansion rate
of the Universe. Most BB variations have the Universe expanding very
rapidly in its early evolution- at 300,000 years it may have been
billions of ly "across".
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 05:38:21 AM |
|
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:gkpmj15qlhrv6mkh09fp63fq29hjur3dhu@4ax.com...
| On 28 Sep 2005 18:57:20 -0700, "canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com>
wrote:
|
| >But if the original light was emitted 12-15 billion years ago when
the
| >universe was 300,000 years old (thus probably only 300,000 light
years
| >across), why didn't the original light simply "overrun" our early
| >position in the cosmic breadloaf. Thus, would not COBE and WMAP see
| >nothing after 12-15 billion years?
|
| Why do you think the Universe was 300,000 ly across when it was
300,000
| years old? There is no speed of light limitation on the expansion rate
| of the Universe. Most BB variations have the Universe expanding very
| rapidly in its early evolution- at 300,000 years it may have been
| billions of ly "across".
|
| _________________________________________________
|
| Chris L Peterson
| Cloudbait Observatory
| http://www.cloudbait.com
Why do you think beta Perseus is a binary system when one star is at the
Roche limit?
Why do you think straight sticks bend when you put them in water?
Why do you think the Universe is expanding?
Why do you think there is a speed of turtles limitation?
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris L Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 09:25:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:38:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
wrote:
Why do you think beta Perseus is a binary system when one star is at the
Roche limit?
Why do you think straight sticks bend when you put them in water?
Why do you think the Universe is expanding?
Why do you think there is a speed of turtles limitation?
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
I don't understand the relevance of the reference. Nothing is
"traveling" as such when the Universe expands. You need to define
"velocity" very carefully when you talk about universal expansion, since
that expansion involves a four dimensional manifold. And even within the
three dimensional space we observe, objects can be moving apart at
greater than c if they are being carried by the expansion of space.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 03:53:44 PM |
|
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:i2unj1p3o4hvste41ddg7uoske9ld0aste@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:38:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
| wrote:
|
| >Why do you think beta Perseus is a binary system when one star is at
the
| >Roche limit?
| >Why do you think straight sticks bend when you put them in water?
| >Why do you think the Universe is expanding?
| >Why do you think there is a speed of turtles limitation?
| >[quote]
| >we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
| >travel
| > from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
| >[end quote]
| >Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| >
| >Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
|
| I don't understand the relevance of the reference.
Uh huh...
Nothing is
| "traveling" as such when the Universe expands.
The universe doesn't expand.
You need to define
| "velocity" very carefully
v = x/t constant, or dx/dt.
when you talk about universal expansion, since
| that expansion involves a four dimensional manifold.
There are only three spatial dimensions.
Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse.
And even within the
| three dimensional space we observe, objects can be moving apart at
| greater than c if they are being carried by the expansion of space.
Objects can be moving apart at greater than c if they move faster than
c.
You've got a telescope. Use it.
Why do you think beta Perseus is a binary system when one star is at the
Roche limit? What is your explanation for it's light curve?
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
What is your explanation for this light curve?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
16 Oct 2005 12:36:46 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
The universe doesn't expand.
It does. And so does the fine structure constant.
when you talk about universal expansion, since
| that expansion involves a four dimensional manifold.
There are only three spatial dimensions.
Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse.
There are six spatial dimensions, two temporal dimensions, and three
fortial dimensions. They're all vectors in their own respects.
Objects can be moving apart at greater than c if they move faster than
c.
You've got a telescope. Use it.
gotten
Why do you think beta Perseus is a binary system when one star is at the
Roche limit? What is your explanation for it's light curve?
its, retard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
16 Oct 2005 01:00:21 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Androcles wrote:
The universe doesn't expand.
It does. And so does the fine structure constant.
The speed of light (actually the fine structure constant alpha)
appears to be constant under finer scrutiny.
Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html#15Aug01
9 Jan 2004 - Chand et al. (2004) present data on the time variation
of the fine structure constant alpha that contradict previous claimed
detections of a variation. The latest result is -0.6+/-0.6 parts per
million for the change which is consistent with zero and much more
accurate than the claimed -5.4+/-1.2 parts per million variation. So
this constant appears to be constant.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401094
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306483
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1999/split/pnu410-1.htm
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2001/split/552-3.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
26 Oct 2005 10:02:50 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
The speed of light (actually the fine structure constant alpha)
appears to be constant under finer scrutiny.
Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html#15Aug01
9 Jan 2004 - Chand et al. (2004) present data on the time variation
of the fine structure constant alpha that contradict previous claim=
ed
detections of a variation. The latest result is -0.6+/-0.6 parts per
million for the change which is consistent with zero and much more
accurate than the claimed -5.4+/-1.2 parts per million variation. So
this constant appears to be constant.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401094
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306483
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1999/split/pnu410-1.htm
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2001/split/552-3.html
These only prove that alfa is measured different for different quasars.
The new data do not contradict the old, and -(.6=B1.6)..-6 isn't
consistent with 0.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris L Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 06:24:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:53:44 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
wrote:
The universe doesn't expand.
Ah, sorry, I thought I was talking to a scientist, or someone who
understands science. My mistake.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
30 Sep 2005 04:35:28 AM |
|
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:irtoj1lin7dgm5vfne4qo4kgafl3oue26i@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:53:44 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
| wrote:
|
| >The universe doesn't expand.
|
| Ah, sorry, I thought I was talking to a scientist, or someone who
| understands science. My mistake.
Very much your mistake.
I thought I might be talking to an astronomer, but it turned out to be a
trained parrot.
Not really a mistake, I had to find out first.
Now I know..
*plonk*.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 06:59:46 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (28 Sep 2005 18:57:20 -0700) it happened "canopus56"
<canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1127959040.595532.20250@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
The fact that we see darkness at night negates Obler's Paradox. In the
observable universe (taking either a radius of 12-15 billion years or a
diameter of 24-30 billion years), there are not enough galaxies (50-70
billion) to light-up the entire celestial sphere. The darkness of the
night sky implies at some point in the past, the light matter in
galaxies were closer together, the universe was more dense, and as they
moved apart over time, a dark night became possible.
What about darkish matter obscuring that light?
Space is full of gass clouds... mysterious dark matter.
Why not do away with that bang, have a very large universe, get rid of
that singularity.
?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Theodorakis" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 09:56:25 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:59:46 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip re: Olber's paradox]
Space is full of gass clouds... mysterious dark matter.
Why not do away with that bang, have a very large universe, get rid of
that singularity.
Gas clouds or other obscuring mater still won't resolve the paradox.
They would eventually heat up and radiate. See:
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html>
Nick
--
Nick Theodorakis
nick_theodorakis@hotmail.com
contact form:
http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 10:24:58 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:56:25 GMT) it happened
nick_theodorakis@hotmail.com (Nick Theodorakis) wrote in
<433c01aa.4214934@news.ind.sbcglobal.net>:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:59:46 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip re: Olber's paradox]
Space is full of gass clouds... mysterious dark matter.
Why not do away with that bang, have a very large universe, get rid of
that singularity.
Gas clouds or other obscuring mater still won't resolve the paradox.
They would eventually heat up and radiate. See:
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html>
Nick
OK, it says that distant stars are 'redshifted into obscurity' because
the universe is expanding.
If this is so, then we should hear those stars (their emitted visible light)
in the radio spectrum, all the way to LF and VLF and aproaching zero Hz,.
Is this observed?
So then that leaves us with a young universe.
Why cannot the whole universe just have condensed (materialized) out of the
quantum vacuum?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 12:50:31 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128007507.95f99c6e0a188be8d9e9f481857daa1d@teranews...
On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:56:25 GMT) it happened
nick_theodorakis@hotmail.com (Nick Theodorakis) wrote in
<433c01aa.4214934@news.ind.sbcglobal.net>:
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html>
OK, it says that distant stars are 'redshifted into obscurity' because
the universe is expanding.
If this is so, then we should hear those stars (their emitted visible
light)
in the radio spectrum, all the way to LF and VLF and aproaching zero Hz,.
Is this observed?
Item 4 assumes infinite age. As it says later,
you need a combination of both 4 and 5.
So then that leaves us with a young universe.
Why cannot the whole universe just have condensed (materialized) out of
the
quantum vacuum?
That is one way to look at the earliest moment of
the big bang. Since then we know it has expanded
because of the observed red shift. You also have
to explain the observed homogeneity. Why would
what condensed have the same properties everywhere
when quantum processes are essentially random.
There is less variability than is expected, hence
ideas like inflation.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
29 Sep 2005 01:08:37 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:50:31 +0100) it happened "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in <dhh9br$v3$1@news.freedom2surf.net>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128007507.95f99c6e0a188be8d9e9f481857daa1d@teranews...
On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:56:25 GMT) it happened
nick_theodorakis@hotmail.com (Nick Theodorakis) wrote in
<433c01aa.4214934@news.ind.sbcglobal.net>:
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html>
OK, it says that distant stars are 'redshifted into obscurity' because
the universe is expanding.
If this is so, then we should hear those stars (their emitted visible
light)
in the radio spectrum, all the way to LF and VLF and approaching zero Hz,.
Is this observed?
Item 4 assumes infinite age. As it says later,
you need a combination of both 4 and 5.
So then that leaves us with a young universe.
Why cannot the whole universe just have condensed (materialized) out of
the
quantum vacuum?
That is one way to look at the earliest moment of
the big bang. Since then we know it has expanded
because of the observed red shift. You also have
to explain the observed homogeneity. Why would
what condensed have the same properties everywhere
when quantum processes are essentially random.
There is less variability than is expected, hence
ideas like inflation.
OK, was there not recently new data on the cosmic background radiation?
Was posted by Andrew Yee I think, but cannot remember the implications,
except it turned BB theory upside down, lemme look:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/ef23f43c32f0e8a0/69e1bebb238f1329?q=Yee+cosmic+background&rnum=2#69e1bebb238f1329
So no BB? .....
And I have always been thinking (very old posts of mine years and years back)
of looking in the radio spectrum (say 200GHz and lower) for signature of
spectral bands shifted, has this been done?
And also, if something 'condenses' it is a matter of scale, condensation
on a window can look really regular, but when you look close it is not.
Maybe the the galaxies are the snowflakes of the quantum vacuum.
But I know that takes us into fantasy land....
On the other hand explaining the accelerating expansion of that what came
after the BB has not been done either.
In a Le Sage like theory, where [if] LS particles were originating in star
processes, the universe would ALWAYS push itself apart... ACCELERATING...
No BB needed.
What do we know :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
30 Sep 2005 08:34:37 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128017331.b6291c3cf79eabc3c6056916698b8a9e@teranews...
On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:50:31 +0100) it happened "George
Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in <dhh9br$v3$1@news.freedom2surf.net>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128007507.95f99c6e0a188be8d9e9f481857daa1d@teranews...
On a sunny day (Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:56:25 GMT) it happened
nick_theodorakis@hotmail.com (Nick Theodorakis) wrote in
<433c01aa.4214934@news.ind.sbcglobal.net>:
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html>
OK, it says that distant stars are 'redshifted into obscurity' because
the universe is expanding.
If this is so, then we should hear those stars (their emitted visible
light)
in the radio spectrum, all the way to LF and VLF and approaching zero
Hz,.
Is this observed?
Item 4 assumes infinite age. As it says later,
you need a combination of both 4 and 5.
So then that leaves us with a young universe.
Why cannot the whole universe just have condensed (materialized) out of
the
quantum vacuum?
That is one way to look at the earliest moment of
the big bang. Since then we know it has expanded
because of the observed red shift. You also have
to explain the observed homogeneity. Why would
what condensed have the same properties everywhere
when quantum processes are essentially random.
There is less variability than is expected, hence
ideas like inflation.
OK, was there not recently new data on the cosmic background radiation?
Was posted by Andrew Yee I think, but cannot remember the implications,
except it turned BB theory upside down, lemme look:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/ef23f43c32f0e8a0/69e1bebb238f1329?q=Yee+cosmic+background&rnum=2#69e1bebb238f1329
Interesting finding and the author does seem to think
it is significant as you say. I was somewhat puzzled
at that when I first read it because his comments seem
somewhat beyond the problem. What the data says, if it
is correct, is still that there was a big bang and that
plasma filled the universe as we think, but the denser
regions which would later become clusters of galaxies
appear to be of similar size or at least less random
than expected. Our understanding of the roles of dark
matter and super-massive black holes in galaxy formation
are still rudimentary and it seems premature to suggest
anything beyond that as the source of the problem.
So no BB? .....
On the contrary, it still requires the primordial
plasma hence the BB as well.
And I have always been thinking (very old posts of mine years and years
back)
of looking in the radio spectrum (say 200GHz and lower) for signature of
spectral bands shifted, has this been done?
The COBE results were in fairly broad bands. I think WMAP
had narrower bands but the signal is so low it still takes
years of data to get good results. The technology is not
at a stage where we can get high resolution spectra yet.
And also, if something 'condenses' it is a matter of scale, condensation
on a window can look really regular, but when you look close it is not.
Maybe the the galaxies are the snowflakes of the quantum vacuum.
But I know that takes us into fantasy land....
Indeed. If you said neutrinos perhaps, but not galaxies.
On the other hand explaining the accelerating expansion of that what came
after the BB has not been done either.
Nor the true nature of dark matter, there is a lot
we don't know yet but the amount of information we
are getting is enormous. IMHO there is a significant
backlog in the analysis, and the new telescopes
coming on-line are only going to make that worse.
Interesting times!
In a Le Sage like theory, where [if] LS particles were originating in star
processes, the universe would ALWAYS push itself apart... ACCELERATING...
No BB needed.
And no explanation for the CMBR.
What do we know :-)
We know we can constrain alternatives to GR quite
tightly so in Le Sage there are limits on the
speed and mass of the particles. Similarly we are
slowly tightening the bounds on MOND.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
30 Sep 2005 04:18:03 PM |
|
|
It would be something of a blessing if
those who, like myself, can discern no
ARCHAEOLOGY, at all, within the limits
of this discussion (which otherwise
seems to have few limits) might deem
it possible to discontinue posting it
to sci.archaeology.
We are dedicated to a totally different
type of non-productive speculation about
the origins of certain forms of titanium
salts in bogus maps.
If any here can shed light on *that*
problem, please stop in.
tnx
Lloyd
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
16 Oct 2005 12:40:09 PM |
|
|
data are
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris L Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
27 Sep 2005 10:16:00 AM |
|
|
On 27 Sep 2005 07:41:38 -0700, wrote:
No, the universe is isotropic (to a high degree of precision) and the
earth is no closer to the center than anything else! The universe is so
large (and still expanding) that everything we can see with large
telescopes can all be considered the center of the universe with equal
presision.
I'm not sure how you meant this, but to avoid confusion: the reason that
any point (or really, no point) can be considered the center of the
Universe has nothing to do with its size. It is a consequence of the
fact that an object with more than three dimensions (the Universe) has
no center that can be represented by a three-dimensional point.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseki" |
|
| Title: Re: Basic Astronomy Question 101 |
05 Oct 2005 12:06:23 PM |
|
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 27 Sep 2005 07:41:38 -0700, wrote:
No, the universe is isotropic (to a high degree of precision) and the
earth is no closer to the center than anything else! The universe is so
large (and still expanding) that everything we can see with large
telescopes can all be considered the center of the universe with equal
presision.
I'm not sure how you meant this, but to avoid confusion: the reason that
any point (or really, no point) can be considered the center of the
Universe has nothing to do with its size. It is a consequence of the
fact that an object with more than three dimensions (the Universe) has
no center that can be represented by a three-dimensional point.
If time is included in your universe the "center" must be four
dimensional (i.e. describe a trajectory in a time-like direction
through spacetime) point. I suppose rather than a trajectory, if the
universe does indeed collaspe upon itself (a question that remains to
be decisively decided), one could choose the mid-point of that
trajectory as the center, but again it is a four dimensional point
(when discussing spacetime most physicists use the word "event" rather
than "point" as it then implies the nature of time-like occurances).
Um, err, no! Imagine a subset of the universe where the three spatial
directions are limited to an extent of x with an edge. There is no
curvature (i.e. it is a minkowski spacetime). Time in this unverse
occurs perpendicular to the other three dimensions. The point p that
is x from all the edges is the center of that particular universe.
However, the answer to the question brought up here, is that our
universe, while finite is unbounded. The universe relative to any
interial timeframe (defining a "slice of universe perpendicular to
time")approximates the surface of a 4-sphere. Measurements have
confirmed that with time the surface of this 4-sphere is increasing
(expanding). Such an unbounded space has no center, 4 or 5
dimensionally.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
