The Big Bang- It time to settle this once and for all!!!

Saiph · Apr 30, 2006

bonze: cool, I can wait. But the things I'd like to hear about: What exactly do you mean by orbits being a function of geometric relationships? Explain to me, step by step, point by point, how a satellite (take the moon for example) goes from one side of the earth to another, under the expansion principle. Also explain to me how the distance between the surface of the moon, and earth remains constant, if each is expanding from it's radius at 9.8 m/s/s for earth, and ~1.5 m/s/s for the moon. how is olber's paradox "bs"? For those who don't know it: If the universe is infinite, and eternal you will have a star at every point in the sky, because sooner or later, in an infinite universe, a star will be in any given point. It's like probability, there's a 1 in a trillion chance, but you get an infinite number of tries...so you're going to get it sooner or later, and that's where the eternal part kicks in. The universe has been around forever, so even if a star lives, then dies, at some other time in the past (as there are an infinite number of years in the past) another star existed whose light hasn't reached us yet to fill the gap. So the night sky should, at least, be much brighter than it is, and calculations show that it should be as bright as day. Unless the universe is finite in size, or duration, this will occur. anyway, looking forward to your responses bonze. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 30, 2006

If the universe is infinite, and eternal you will have a star at every point in the sky, because sooner or later, in an infinite universe, a star will be in any given point. It's like probability, there's a 1 in a trillion chance, but you get an infinite number of tries...so you're going to get it sooner or later, and that's where the eternal part kicks in. The universe has been around forever, so even if a star lives, then dies, at some other time in the past (as there are an infinite number of years in the past) another star existed whose light hasn't reached us yet to fill the gap. So the night sky should, at least, be much brighter than it is, and calculations show that it should be as bright as day. Unless the universe is finite in size, or duration, this will occur. That's only true if you ascribe to the cosmological principle. Without it, you may expect other regions of the universe to be so dense that they behave like black holes. These would be barriers that are not infinitely bright. Also, the greater universe could yet be an island universe much like the galaxies, which were once called island universes. Other galaxies used to be called nebulae until it was discovered that they actually consist of many, many stars.

Saiph · Apr 30, 2006

even if you assume huge swaths of black holes, it doesn't work either, due to gravitational lensing. The light from objects behind the "black hole" will not be allowed to take a direct route, but the light that goes past the black hole (and wouldn't normally get to us) can be deflected into our line of sight. And, since there's an infinite amount of space beyond that "bh" there'll be more than enough to make up for the loss. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 30, 2006

even if you assume huge swaths of black holes, it doesn't work either, due to gravitational lensing. The light from objects behind the "black hole" will not be allowed to take a direct route, but the light that goes past the black hole (and wouldn't normally get to us) can be deflected into our line of sight. And, since there's an infinite amount of space beyond that "bh" there'll be more than enough to make up for the loss. But if these swaths of black holes constitute a very large "nucleon" of a very a large "atom" you would not expect to see very many galaxies beyond the swath. Most of it would be the empty space within the "electron cloud" (if there is an electron). Our local area would appear to be alone if we did not look further, similar to how the galaxy seemed to be alone until other galaxies (which are much dimmer) were discovered. The size of the voids increases with distance and so the brightness does not follow an 1/r^2 * r^2 relationship. Olber's paradox assumes that the density of the universe is constant for any arbitrary large cosmological distance. However, if overall, the density was inversely proportional to distance, the brightness would involve a 1/r^2 * r relationship, thus it would be 1/r relationship - diverting itself from Olber's paradox.

bonzelite · Apr 30, 2006

i'll address the issues incrementally. first this issue, which is a good one (kmar's): If objects expanded as fast as earth, then you would expect an astronaut to attract other objects in space with the acceleration of 1 g (and that means anything!) excellent point and i will clarify. objects do expand at the same rate universally. but their relative expansions due to their relative sizes create varied "g". for example, if you have $1million compouding at 3% over a year, you will have VASTLY more money by year's end than had you only $10 compounding at 3%. objects are the same. the earth expands far "more" moment-to-moment due to it's relatively larger size than a spaceman, who is also expanding at the same rate. therefore, "gravity" is dependent upon the SIZE of objects primarily and not their masses, expanding outwardly from their centres of mass.

Saiph · Apr 30, 2006

kmar: ummm...I have no idea why you're introducing the terms nucleon and atom into this. First, obler's paradox deals with an infinite and eternal universe. So I'd expect to see plenty of objects beyond any object. bonze: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />therefore, "gravity" is dependent upon the SIZE of objects primarily and not their masses, expanding outwardly from their centres of mass.<hr /></blockquote> By that token saturn should have nearly the same "gravity" as jupiter, but that is not what's observed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 30, 2006

kmar: ummm...I have no idea why you're introducing the terms nucleon and atom into this. First, obler's paradox deals with an infinite and eternal universe. So I'd expect to see plenty of objects beyond any object. And second, Olber's paradox assumes that the number of objects at radius r is proportional to the surface area of a sphere of radius r, so Olber's paradox assumes that the density of the universe is same everywhere. If the density decreases with distance, then Olber's paradox does not apply. If it increases with distance, then it it is still not a definition of Olber's paradox, because then that would mean the the surface area and number of objects on that surface are not directly proportional. But to solve Olber's Paradox, you have to get rid of the conditions set up by the paradox and have density decreasing with distance. Once you have that, you no longer have a sky that is infinitely bright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olber's_paradox Resolutions The paradox is resolvable in a variety of ways. If the universe has existed for only a finite amount of time, as the prevalent Big Bang theory holds, then only the light of finitely many stars has had a chance to reach us yet, and the paradox breaks down. Alternatively, if the universe is expanding and distant stars are receding from us (also a claim of the Big Bang theory), then their light is redshifted which diminishes their brightness, again resolving the paradox. Either effect alone would resolve the paradox, but according to the Big Bang theory, both are working together, although the finiteness of time is the more important effect. Some see the darkness of the night sky to be evidence in support of the Big Bang theory. Even without the Big Bang theory and its redshift evidence, we may establish the finite age of the

bonzelite · Apr 30, 2006

Also explain to me how the distance between the surface of the moon, and earth remains constant, if each is expanding from it's radius at 9.8 m/s/s for earth, and ~1.5 m/s/s for the moon. all proportional ratios are preserved. everything expands at the same rate, and the relative proportions of everything remain constant due to their relative expansions due to their sizes. So the night sky should, at least, be much brighter than it is, and calculations show that it should be as bright as day. hat is not true becaue it is not happening. even if finite, we would see far more stars in the sky that are currently obscured than we do anyway. deep field hubble images reveal far more stars than can actually be seen by human eyesight. this condition would not change regardless of finite or infinite. starlight fills far more gaps in the sky than is perceived right now. but we do not see this effect. the sky would not appear any different than it does now were it finite or infinite. the entire idea of Olber is so far overblown and entirely not true. it should be thrown out and no longer taught. it is like saying "the british all like warm beer." and you go to England and nobody there drinks warm beer.

Saiph · Apr 30, 2006

but if the distance is part of the expansion, then it's not just matter that's expanding, its space as well. on Olber's: I know the sky isn't really bright at night that's why one has to figure out ways for the universe not to be infinite and eternal. If it's infinite, and eternal there will be a single pinprick of light in all spots of the sky, due to a bright, close star, or tons of faint distant stars (like seeing a thousand galaxies, one through the next, all lined up pointing at us). So, if the universe is infinite and eternal, one has to give a reason why we don't see all this light. Kmar has done a decent job proposing some possibilities. Frankly, I think the easy solution is that the univserse isn't infinite and eternal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Apr 30, 2006

but if the distance is part of the expansion, then it's not just matter that's expanding, its space as well. no. the solar system expands as one object, as one "disk" of matter/mass, as do the planets and their moons in their requisite geometric relationships to each other. the orbital paths, "rings," if you will, of the planets about the sun, and moons about the planets, expand at constant rates, preserving the distances between orbits and bodies. empty space itself does not do anything. So, if the universe is infinite and eternal, one has to give a reason why we don't see all this light. Kmar has done a decent job proposing some possibilities. i already have. deep field and longer exposure photographs of the universe reveal a sky flooded with stars. and deeper field pics reveal even more stars beyond those. yet we cannot see all of these stars with our eyes. we already see far less starlight than is actually there. the effect that Olber's paradox implies simply does not happen. were it to actually work in "real life," we would then see all of the finite stars as pinpricks of light, and we cannot. to see more and more pin points of light, we need to take longer and longer exposed pictures at greater magnifications. this is very easy a premise to understand. in other words, the universe cannot be determined to be finte nor eternal based soley upon the starlight that is seen by the human eye or it's telescopes. such a premise is erroneous.

why06 · May 1, 2006

Undertand, If there an infinite amount of space there is infinite room for al those stars to spread apart. Or if space time infitintely expands the same applies. This is what your not realizing Space can be infitnite but matter does not need to be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

Saiph · May 1, 2006

but the hubble field shows a changing number of stars with distance, and less stars the further out you go (after a certain point). Which also indicates that the universe isn't eternal, as an eternal universe should have a highly consistent spread of stars, not a distribution that diminishes with distance. Also: but there is nothing to between the sun and planets to make it "one object", and it still doesn't explain orbits. And saying such a thing gives the same results as if space was expanding (at a higher rate than the hubble constant of course). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · May 1, 2006

why06: if space is infinite, but matter isn't you run into another problem: earth appears to be the center of the universe. In every direction we look we see the same relationships, the same general density of objects. If that's the case, and matter is finite, then we'd be in the center of the clump of matter, in an infinite volume of space...which is highly unlikely. But I will agree that such a setup is a solution to Olber's paradox, but it's one that isn't very satisfying. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

eloa · May 3, 2006

energy E=mc2 the mass and energy are not that way.the true value of electron is dirac,s possessing a magenetic moment of a very specific amount,namley where e is electron,s charge and u is it,s mass.h2e/4uc, the connect from quantum to relativity.i have made the great leap.show the people.,

Saiph · May 3, 2006

ummm...that post didn't make much sense. The true value of electron is.... which value for the electron? Mass, charge, what? That sentence alone doesn't make gramatical sense, so I can't even begin to fathom what else you're saying. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

harmonicaman · May 3, 2006

But Dirac did make some brilliant contributions to relativity and quantum mechanics! More on Dirac.

Saiph · May 3, 2006

true, but what was eloa's point? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

The Big Bang- It time to settle this once and for all!!!

Saiph

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Saiph

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

why06

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

eloa

Guest

Saiph

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page