| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"SDR" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2005 02:40:38 AM |
| Object: |
Vestiges of Big Bang Waves Are Reported |
From: jacob navia (jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr)
Subject: Re: Vestiges of Big Bang Waves Are Reported
Newsgroups: sci.physics, gac.physics.astronomy, sci.astro,
alt.astronomy, >alt.sci.physics
Date: 2005-01-18 16:32:23 PST
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
If you can quantitatively describe the observations with
your idea of an imploding universe, feel free to show your work.
Reading some of the ideas in his web site, I do not see any
quantitative predictions or other hints of how the theory
of space implosion can lead anywhere else than into the
same problems that the theory of space expansion leads to.
The implosion model predicts the universe should be
accelerating, the BB expansion model does not (recently
the universe was found to be accelerating). The BB model
predicts the universe must either be in steady-state OR
expanding (when Hubble discovered the galaxies receeding
it seemed to clinch the BB model): Unfortunately for the
BB model and its advocates, although many observations SEEM
to support it... there are many observations which also SEEM
to oppose it. This is, so far, not the case with an implosion
model: all observations (including, as with the recently
discovered observation that the universe is accelerating,
observations yet being made) all observations support it.
The implosion model demands that the speed of light be
everywhere constant in identical mediums (and ONLY in identical
mediums). In the BB model the constancy of c is a magical
mystery with a necessarily nonsensical impossible solution.
And it goes on & on like that (the misbahavior of Newtonian
gravitation, of the outer stars in spiral galaxies, nonaberation
of gravity, the impossibility of interpreting gravitation in terms
of particle physics et al). There is a VERY GOOD reason why the
geometry of Einstein describe the bahavior of celestial bodies
better than the laws of universal gravitation of Newton. But if
you refuse to see it (although it's very plainly expressed in my
site, and I have posted all these things often enough)... I can
not force you to see what you will refuse to see. Sorry.
The concept of space is an "a-priori", given in
the very fabric of our thoughts. See Kant, or any
text of philosophy.
My concept of space is simple & straightforward: It's the
absence of matter/mass, it's the distance between mass/matter.
Could I put it simpler? Space is nothingness.
*Into what* would be space expanding into?
Why should space expand or contract?!?!?! Except as some
perverse outcome of bodies/masses getting closer/farther
from each other perhaps.
*How would you measure space "shrinking" ???*
The mind can do anything. You should read a little Emily
Dickinson.
He needs to postulate that space is shrinking relative
to another "x-space" as he calls it.
And that "x-space" doesn't shrink or... does it?
jacob
I see that there are far too many persons in this world
of evolved apes who will never understand even the simplest
facts/elucidations. So I will post "The Origin of The Universe"
as a sort of literary narrative--perhaps many more persons
might grasp the thing if they think they are reading a story.
Look for it under the title above,
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
PS. In your other post you seem to have been brought up
on "Ant Man" comics or the like: Let me assure you that
"life" can only exist as made up of our sorts of atoms.
Although atoms may themselves be composed of subparticles
ad infinitum, it's impossible for us to predict what form
these "particles" take much below the level of quarks (and
no "beings" could be composed of anything like quarks). Not
to mentioin that all life as we know it must feed on some
form of radiation or other--and the particles of radiation
are just so small and no smaller. Sorry.
.
|
|
| User: "Golden Boar" |
|
| Title: Re: Vestiges of Big Bang Waves Are Reported |
19 Jan 2005 03:38:23 AM |
|
|
Has anyone considered that the universe was created from a decaying
particle? Or colliding particles?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jacob navia" |
|
| Title: Re: Vestiges of Big Bang Waves Are Reported |
20 Jan 2005 04:27:45 PM |
|
|
SDR wrote:
The mind can do anything. You should read a little Emily
Dickinson.
I suppose you say that because I wrote:
He needs to postulate that space is shrinking relative
to another "x-space" as he calls it.
And that "x-space" doesn't shrink or... does it?
Then you lost control, and started babbling like
this:
I see that there are far too many persons in this world
of evolved apes who will never understand even the simplest
facts/elucidations.
You are not an evolved ape then?
Oh my... You mean you are just an ape?
Yes, I hope I am an evolved one. :-)
I know, there are people that will not understand
the simplest facts:
Space can't expand nor shrink. *Into what* would
space expand/shrink?
That's a simple fact.
So I will post "The Origin of The Universe"
as a sort of literary narrative--perhaps many more persons
might grasp the thing if they think they are reading a story.
It is a story. You do not present any observation
that would give credit to the story as fact.
[snip]
PS. In your other post you seem to have been brought up
on "Ant Man" comics or the like: Let me assure you that
"life" can only exist as made up of our sorts of atoms.
I am convinced that at all levels of life, people are
saying the same thing:
Only our atoms are conceivable. Most people living in the
surface of my atoms do not believe I am living. And many
among them must be in a stage where the lower levels aren't
at all visible, like humans 200 years ago.
Although atoms may themselves be composed of subparticles
ad infinitum, it's impossible for us to predict what form
these "particles" take much below the level of quarks
Yes, we do not know at all what happens within a quark, and
what is made of.
(and
no "beings" could be composed of anything like quarks).
Why not?
How can you ever know if you do not know at all
what are they made of?
You said that there are NO ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, what
(at least in my opinion) is a good idea. There is always
a particle smaller than the one we know about. To all
"particles" we can suppose it is made of even
smaller ones ad infinitum.
Smaller scales would have a higher time, bigger scales
a slower one. Galaxy movements take forever, seen from
our time frame.
Not
to mentioin that all life as we know it
Beings in the "surface" of an atom (whatever that
is) would surely be completely different than we
are. They would be "life as we do not know it"
from the very start. Photons, atoms, etc are
big structures for them, that move very slowly.
Most of the atom is empty space, and in the center
there is a liquid form, the core, where all the
mass is.
The liquid nature of the core is more evident in
big atoms, with many protons and neutrons.
This liquid could have a complex chemistry where
the particles that make the "liquid" could react
in very complex ways. Not only the proton/neutron
interaction but the reactions of their basic
particles.
Still, life is software, and software can be
constructed at all levels of being. Whatever
they are, the "particles" that make our atoms,
they could have an evolution within them
and construct very complex forms in seconds,
just seconds.
must feed on some
form of radiation or other--and the particles of radiation
are just so small and no smaller. Sorry.
There must be "radiation", i.e. energy, but surely not
in form of photons, or particles we know about.
This beings are off limits for us anyway.
We can never meet them.
They live in another time and space frame.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
