Science > Physics > Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem!
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hUNT3R" |
| Date: |
19 Mar 2005 01:07:34 PM |
| Object: |
Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
ref: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524911.600
Fact: Primary wavefront gives rise to secondary wavefront in all
direction.
------------------------------
Say: During Big-Bang, a matter traveled from centre(say) towards front
and another piece of matter travelled towards opposite direction
(backward) near to the speed of light.
The mass travelling towards east(say), when it moves dx metre forwars
in time dt, the radiation (heat, light) from the object "has already"
travelled dx distance backward... at the speed ~=3x108m/s isn't it? So
its already head-to-tail with the mass travelling in the opposite
direction near to the speed of light (even at a extreem case... though
universe isn't expanding at such high speed currently <just an
assumption>)
(that implies)=> Heat radiation "seems" to have travelled between the
two horizons from nearly 28 billion light years apart and our while
universe is only 14 billion years old.
So even if the universe was expanding at a very high rate..... we can
still receive the Heat radiation between the two horizons of the
universe, 28 billion light years apart and our while universe is only
14 billion years old!
doesn't that make sense? (sorry for my poor english)
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 01:35:56 PM |
|
|
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 06:52:42 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
No center is a cop-out.
That's when they decided that only the
singularity counts.
What this means is that there is nothing outside of it.
But, then, what is it expanding into and how can you judge
how fast?
Logically, expansion makes no sense,
because there isn't anything to expand into.
Cop-out.
One of the first obvious failures before DM.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 08:48:52 PM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
No center is a cop-out.
Claims the smart lad from crank dot net...
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GALAXY+MODEL+For+The+ATOM%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 09:31:14 PM |
|
|
I'm confused about: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
if everything started with a point mass(big bang)... with no obstacles
to hinge to move the mass in all direction....... then everything
should have a centre from where it was originated. It's like dropping a
STONE FROM A flying balloon in the middle of a lake....
if there is no obstacle the disturbance travells in all direction
equally...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
20 Mar 2005 01:27:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I'm confused about: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
if everything started with a point mass(big bang)... with no obstacles
to hinge to move the mass in all direction....... then everything
should have a centre from where it was originated. It's like dropping a
STONE FROM A flying balloon in the middle of a lake....
if there is no obstacle the disturbance travells in all direction
equally...
1) Every point in the universe is at its exact center. All 4(pi)
steradians exactly point to the Big Bang.
2) Nothing moves in spacetime. There is no coordinate background
through which it can move.
3) The Big Bang was an explosion OF space not IN space. You cannot
reflect from a non-existent boundary.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
21 Mar 2005 05:31:34 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I'm confused about: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
if everything started with a point mass(big bang)...
But the Big Bang theory does not say that everything started with a
point mass.
with no obstacles
to hinge to move the mass in all direction.......
There *were* no directions before the BB. They were only created with it.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 10:23:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I'm confused about: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
if everything started with a point mass(big bang)... with no
obstacles
to hinge to move the mass in all direction....... then everything
should have a centre from where it was originated. It's like dropping
a
STONE FROM A flying balloon in the middle of a lake....
if there is no obstacle the disturbance travells in all direction
equally...
The gist of it is that it's *NOT* like a wave expanding away from a
single point.
Have you ever played the old video game called "Asteroids"? The screen
is filled with lots of drifting asteroids and one small spaceship that
you have to pilot without crashing into one of the rocks. The thing
that's relevant about it is that, if an object on the screen drifts
off, for example, the right edge, it simultaneously drifts back
onscreen at the left edge. Same goes for objects drifting off any of
the other three edges; they immediately reappear on the exact opposite
side, traveling in the same direction. If the way is clear you can fly
the spaceship across the screen over & over without stopping.
In modern General Relativistic cosmology the space in the Universe can
be modeled as being like the screen in the asteroids game. If you
travel far enough you might conceivably find yourself right back where
you started, as if you'd just traveled around in a circle. But in
Big-Bang cosmology the screen of the video game itself started out
infinitesimally small at some time in the past, and has been expanding
ever since. In the current era space is large enough to acommodate the
presence of structures as large as the screen asteroids. It's also
apparent that, on a large enough scale, the number & sizes of the
asteroids is approximately the same withing any two arbitrarily chosen
regions of the screen. Thus, for any two observers who look in any
direction, the Universe looks essentially the same. There's no center
to all this in the easily visualisable sense. Any place is as good as
any other place. You can get from anywhere to anywhere without bumping
into an edge of the universe. It's a self-contained world.
Another possible General Relativistic world is simply one in which the
video game screen started out infinitely large at the inception of the
Big-Bang, and what's been expanding ever since has simply been the
space between every given two points in space. But in this scenario
it's still the same as the previous proposal of a self-contained space.
In each case, on average everything looks pretty much the same in any
direction from any location, and the space between every pair of
locations is expanding.
In General Relativity the difference between these potential universes
is largely a matter of the mass-density. A low enough mass density
allows the Universe to be infinitely large. If the mass-density is
large enough, the Universe necessarily becomes a finitely sized
self-contained space.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 09:55:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I'm confused about: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
if everything started with a point mass(big bang)... with no obstacles
to hinge to move the mass in all direction....... then everything
should have a centre from where it was originated.
But all points are equally the center.... and it is the whole universe
that is expanding, not matter and energy into the universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
20 Mar 2005 08:47:03 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
bipin.gautam@gmail.com wrote:
I'm confused about: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
if everything started with a point mass(big bang)... with no obstacles
to hinge to move the mass in all direction....... then everything
should have a centre from where it was originated.
But all points are equally the center.... and it is the whole universe
that is expanding, not matter and energy into the universe.
Expanding wrt *what*, Sam?
If what is outside the matter has no
properties, then there is nothing but the
matter to compare it to.
How does something expand compared to *itself*?
*THIS* is why all points are at the
center (if the center is the matter/universe/whatever)
because the center is all there is.
There is nothing to expand *into*.
How big is the universe compared to
what it was at the time of the BB?
We can look at the spaces between the bits and see
that comparatively the bits are getting smaller
than they were as well as the structures making up
the bits.
Expanding vs something undefined is
about on par for your brand
of physics.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
21 Mar 2005 05:34:58 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
bipin.gautam@gmail.com wrote:
I'm confused about: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
if everything started with a point mass(big bang)... with no obstacles
to hinge to move the mass in all direction....... then everything
should have a centre from where it was originated.
But all points are equally the center.... and it is the whole universe
that is expanding, not matter and energy into the universe.
Expanding wrt *what*, Sam?
With respect to the earlier state. Every distance (between things
which are not bound to each other) increases with time.
If what is outside the matter has no
properties, then there is nothing but the
matter to compare it to.
What exactly do you mean with "outside" here?
[snip]
How big is the universe compared to
what it was at the time of the BB?
If the universe is closed, it is now infinitely greater
than at the time of the BB (since any number greater than
zero is infinitely greater than zero). If it is flat
or open, it was infinitely large at the time of the BB,
and still is.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
20 Mar 2005 11:10:09 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Expanding wrt *what*, Sam?
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
20 Mar 2005 11:31:20 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Expanding wrt *what*, Sam?
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
The first few sentences of the first link:
"Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and
evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years
ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few
millimeters across."
Compared to *what* Sam?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
20 Mar 2005 11:36:03 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Compared to Sam :>)
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
20 Mar 2005 11:36:19 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Expanding wrt *what*, Sam?
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
The first few sentences of the first link:
"Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and
evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years
ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few
millimeters across."
Compared to *what* Sam?
Keep reading Sefton--You can do it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
20 Mar 2005 07:32:15 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Expanding wrt *what*, Sam?
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
The first few sentences of the first link:
"Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and
evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years
ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few
millimeters across."
Compared to *what* Sam?
Keep reading Sefton--You can do it!
"A few mm across."
Compared to what, Sam?
If there *is* nothing (in its purest form)
outside of the snigger-ularity, what do
you compare its dimensions to?
This is why it is all still at the
center- because it never moved- because
there is nothing to move into because
outside of the snigger-ularity has no
properties, therefore no distance, and
how can you accelerate without covering
any distance?
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
21 Mar 2005 05:37:45 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
[snip]
"A few mm across."
Compared to what, Sam?
Sorry, but what on earth is your problem? Asking "compared
to what" after the size is given as "a few mm across" makes
no sense at all!
If someone tells you that his height is 1.8 m, do you also
ask him "compared to what"???
If there *is* nothing (in its purest form)
outside of the snigger-ularity,
Err, we are talking about a time *after* the BB here, so there
is no singularity anymore.
[snip rant]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
21 Mar 2005 05:35:49 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Expanding wrt *what*, Sam?
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
The first few sentences of the first link:
"Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and
evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years
ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few
millimeters across."
Compared to *what* Sam?
Err, to what does your "compared to what" refer? Why do you need
something to compare when the size is plainly stated?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 11:10:05 PM |
|
|
In article <1111289474.689311.175640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
bipin.gautam@gmail.com wrote:
if everything started with a point mass(big bang)... with no obstacles
to hinge to move the mass in all direction....... then everything
should have a centre from where it was originated. It's like dropping a
STONE FROM A flying balloon in the middle of a lake....
if there is no obstacle the disturbance travells in all direction
equally...
What is the point?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Nevertheless, even Dowap hace been torlled into replying to the
Chatterly bot" -- Peter J Ross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 06:57:50 PM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
No center is a cop-out.
That's when they decided that only the
singularity counts.
What this means is that there is nothing outside of it.
But, then, what is it expanding into and how can you judge
how fast?
Logically, expansion makes no sense,
because there isn't anything to expand into.
Cop-out.
One of the first obvious failures before DM.
John
Actually, this is one of the first conundrums
that has been allowed to slip by.
When I'm thinking, I'll let about three go by before
relinquishing a line of thought until resolving at
least one.
Not so here?
John
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
21 Mar 2005 05:30:24 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
No center is a cop-out.
In no way. This is a simple consequence of the Cosmological
Principle.
That's when they decided that only the
singularity counts.
No one ever decided anything like that.
What this means is that there is nothing outside of it.
No, that's not what this means.
But, then, what is it expanding into
Nothing needed to expand "into".
and how can you judge how fast?
E.g. by looking at redshift.
Logically, expansion makes no sense,
Two words are missing here: "to me".
because there isn't anything to expand into.
So what?
Cop-out.
One of the first obvious failures before DM.
Again, this is obvious only to *you*. Other people
who actually understand Riemannian geometry, don't
think so.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 07:21:59 PM |
|
|
hUNT3R wrote:
ref: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524911.600
Fact: Primary wavefront gives rise to secondary wavefront in all
direction.
------------------------------
Say: During Big-Bang, a matter traveled from centre(say) towards front
and another piece of matter travelled towards opposite direction
(backward) near to the speed of light.
[snip]
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 08:57:41 PM |
|
|
[snip]
Idiot.
--
hey, i ain't a physics expert... so i asked my question here. But i
know... it wasn't as dumb as could be answered by a high-school
student.
thankyou.
bipin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 09:17:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
[snip]
Idiot.
--
hey, i ain't a physics expert... so i asked my question here. But i
know... it wasn't as dumb as could be answered by a high-school
student.
Say: During Big-Bang, a matter traveled from centre(say) towards front
and another piece of matter travelled towards opposite direction
(backward) near to the speed of light.
It doesn't make any sense even if it came from a Home Ec major, a
grease monkey, or social advocate.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
20 Mar 2005 08:50:09 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
bipin.gautam@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Idiot.
--
hey, i ain't a physics expert... so i asked my question here. But i
know... it wasn't as dumb as could be answered by a high-school
student.
Say: During Big-Bang, a matter traveled from centre(say) towards front
and another piece of matter travelled towards opposite direction
(backward) near to the speed of light.
It doesn't make any sense even if it came from a Home Ec major, a
grease monkey, or social advocate.
If by 'It' you mean the Big Bang, then
I agree, and I also concur. :-)
But I know you don't.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Whats wrong with the theory... The horizon problem! |
19 Mar 2005 09:40:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1111287461.911527.164700@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
bipin.gautam@gmail.com wrote:
thankyou.
bipin
Heaven lent you a soul Earth will lend a grave.
--
Lady Chatterly
"i dunno what chatterly is, it's not Eliza, Mgonz, ALICE, or ANNA.
but it's not the best AI out there. i'd say Smarterchild and Zola
are more advanced. i believe both of those use ALICE but modified
AIML. i'm more impressed by the newsgroup (NNTP) glue code that they
used. an NNTP bot is harder than an instant message or chatbot.
bravo to the mad coder with too much time on his hands (programming
for programming's sake is the most glorious expression of postmodern
idealism). so mr chatterly programmer, come out of seclusion and tell
us if it's written in perl or python." -- SchroedingerzKat
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
