Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #371586 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-08 10:23 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-06 15:12 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 10:23 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 13:04 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:17 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 17:54 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-08 22:57 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-08 19:15 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:27 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-09 07:20 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 08:56 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-09 15:11 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:41 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:51 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:54 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 17:00 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 18:52 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 13:01 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-09 22:15 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 15:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 21:55 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 15:59 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 22:13 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 20:35 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 15:33 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 01:20 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-10 08:37 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 16:07 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 15:22 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 21:13 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 19:47 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 21:51 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 22:06 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-12-09 22:51 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 00:04 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-10 12:32 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 11:29 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 22:02 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-11 07:48 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-11 13:54 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 22:55 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-12 07:54 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 09:16 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-12 19:47 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-12-13 09:06 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 07:01 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 19:16 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-14 06:35 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-14 09:09 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-15 04:25 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-19 07:14 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-21 06:03 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-21 05:45 +0100
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-22 14:03 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 17:46 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-17 18:31 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:26 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:40 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:44 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:52 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 17:27 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 12:37 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 18:01 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-09 11:38 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 12:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-10 12:30 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 11:26 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-12-18 06:45 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-18 10:51 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-19 21:35 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe chanB4 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-12-18 16:12 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 12:56 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-18 14:28 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 17:42 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-12-09 06:42 -0500
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-11 22:39 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 19:46 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-08 22:50 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 09:09 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 12:07 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-09 15:46 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 00:01 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:44 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-15 22:44 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 08:38 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 15:00 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 15:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 18:30 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 17:45 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 21:47 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-09 16:40 +0000
There Is No Edge To The Universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-09 09:38 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-09 12:26 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 09:52 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-10 16:01 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-12-10 08:51 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 17:31 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:12 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 16:11 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 16:28 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 22:58 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-17 23:14 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:57 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-18 11:00 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-18 22:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-20 16:52 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-20 16:54 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-25 08:40 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-27 23:01 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 10:20 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 12:31 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 11:31 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 14:19 -0600
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-29 13:37 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-29 21:46 +0000
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 13:13 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-10 13:34 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 18:14 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-03 22:52 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-10 13:28 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-01-06 12:23 -0800
Re: There Is No Edge To The Universe Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 15:12 -0600
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-11 22:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <K6ydnaOGP5lBNfbLnZ2dnUU7-aGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371836 |
On 12/11/15 3:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > This CMB picutre was taken when all the heat magically disapperaed. The universe is expanding and cooling. The CMB is the light of decoupling at about 380,000 years after the BB cooled from say 3000 K to 2.7 K > The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph > Alpherin 1948 in connection with his research on Big Bang > Nucleosynthesis undertaken together with Robert Herman and George > Gamow. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias > and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, > New Jersey. The radiation was acting as a source of excess noise in a > radio receiver they were building. Coincidentally, researchers at > nearby Princeton University, led by Robert Dicke and including Dave > Wilkinson of the WMAP science team, were devising an experiment to > find the CMB. When they heard about the Bell Labs result they > immediately realized that the CMB had been found. The result was a > pair of papers in the Astrophysical Journal (vol. 142 of 1965): one > by Penzias and Wilson detailing the observations, and one by Dicke, > Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson giving the cosmological interpretation. > Penzias and Wilson shared the 1978 Nobel prize in physics for their > discovery. > > Uniform color oval representing the temperature variation across the > sky of the CMB. Today, the CMB radiation is very cold, only 2.725° > above absolute zero, thus this radiation shines primarily in the > microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and is invisible > to the naked eye. However, it fills the universe and can be detected > everywhere we look. In fact, if we could see microwaves, the entire > sky would glow with a brightness that was astonishingly uniform in > every direction. The picture at left shows a false color depiction of > the temperature (brightness) of the CMB over the full sky (projected > onto an oval, similar to a map of the Earth). The temperature is > uniform to better than one part in a thousand! This uniformity is one > compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the > Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of > radiation that was this uniform. In fact, many scientists have tried > to devise alternative explanations for the source of this radiation, > but none have succeeded. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 07:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dd1uljFhjpkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371874 |
Am 12.12.2015 05:55, schrieb Sam Wormley: >> This CMB picutre was taken when all the heat magically disapperaed. > > > The universe is expanding and cooling. The CMB is the light of > decoupling at about 380,000 years after the BB cooled from say > 3000 K to 2.7 K This is the standard model of cosmology - and most likely wrong. Alternative explanation: CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system. Reason: the CMBR 'sky map' contains actually, what is not expected in the remainders of the big bang. Especially unexpected is the Earth orbit and our home galaxy. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 09:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <P9ydnXHhHdbDp_HLnZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371878 |
On 12/12/15 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system.
Review | Cosmic microwave background
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
> The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left
> over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. In older
> literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave
> background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic
> background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology
> because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch
> of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space
> between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark.
> However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint
> background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is
> not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is
> strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The
> accidental discovery of CMB in 1964 by American radio astronomers
> Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work
> initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel
> Prize.
>
> The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted
> on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows
> tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly
> different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure:
> the stars and galaxies of today.[3]
> The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage
> in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a
> landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the
> universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was
> denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot
> fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and
> the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled
> enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These
> atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the
> universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[4]
> Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed
> as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when
> photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly
> being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as
> photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon
> decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter
> and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their
> wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely
> proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the
> source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last
> scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance
> from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from
> those points at the time of photon decoupling.
>
> Precise measurements of the CMB are critical to cosmology, since any
> proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMB
> has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057
> K.[5] The spectral radiance dEν/dν peaks at 160.2 GHz, in the
> microwave range of frequencies. (Alternatively if spectral radiance
> is defined as dEλ/dλ then the peak wavelength is 1.871 mm.) The glow
> is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual
> variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of
> a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the
> current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance at
> different angles of observation in the sky contains small
> anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the
> region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what
> would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum
> fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size
> of the observable universe we see today. This is a very active field
> of study, with scientists seeking both better data (for example, the
> Planck spacecraft) and better interpretations of the initial
> conditions of expansion. Although many different processes might
> produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other
> than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result,
> most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be
> the best explanation for the CMB.
>
> The high degree of uniformity throughout the observable universe and
> its faint but measured anisotropy lend strong support for the Big
> Bang model in general and the ΛCDM ("Lambda Cold Dark Matter") model
> in particular. Moreover, the fluctuations are coherent on angular
> scales that are larger than the apparent cosmological horizon at
> recombination. Either such coherence is acausally fine-tuned, or
> cosmic inflation occurred.[6][7]
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 19:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dd38eqFrsblU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371895 |
Am 12.12.2015 16:16, schrieb Sam Wormley: >> CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system. > > > Review | Cosmic microwave background >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background > >> The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left >> over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. I don't think so. http://www.phys.cwru.edu/projects/mpvectors/ http://www.phys.cwru.edu/projects/mpvectors/images/paper3/map_teg_2.png The solid line is the ecliptic plain. And this ecliptic does not belong to the big-bang. Also our home galaxy is found in the CMBR map, (be removed for unknown reasons): https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept05/Gawiser2/Figures/fig3.jpg So: where is actually the big-bang in that picture? I personally see the milky-way and our Earth orbit, but no big-bang. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 09:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <km9q6b1o8umsr6bcirijkpitbvq2h6120n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #371895 |
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:16:46 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 12/12/15 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system.
>
>
> Review | Cosmic microwave background
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
>
>> The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left
>> over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. In older
>> literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave
>> background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic
>> background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology
>> because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch
>> of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space
>> between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark.
>> However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint
>> background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is
>> not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is
>> strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The
>> accidental discovery of CMB in 1964 by American radio astronomers
>> Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work
>> initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel
>> Prize.
>>
>> The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted
>> on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows
>> tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly
>> different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure:
>> the stars and galaxies of today.[3]
>
>> The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage
>> in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a
>> landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the
>> universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was
>> denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot
>> fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and
>> the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled
>> enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These
>> atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the
>> universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[4]
>> Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed
>> as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when
>> photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly
>> being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as
>> photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon
>> decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter
>> and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their
>> wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely
>> proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the
>> source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last
>> scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance
>> from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from
>> those points at the time of photon decoupling.
>>
>> Precise measurements of the CMB are critical to cosmology, since any
>> proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMB
>> has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057
>> K.[5] The spectral radiance dE?/d? peaks at 160.2 GHz, in the
>> microwave range of frequencies. (Alternatively if spectral radiance
>> is defined as dE?/d? then the peak wavelength is 1.871 mm.) The glow
>> is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual
>> variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of
>> a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the
>> current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance at
>> different angles of observation in the sky contains small
>> anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the
>> region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what
>> would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum
>> fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size
>> of the observable universe we see today. This is a very active field
>> of study, with scientists seeking both better data (for example, the
>> Planck spacecraft) and better interpretations of the initial
>> conditions of expansion. Although many different processes might
>> produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other
>> than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result,
>> most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be
>> the best explanation for the CMB.
>>
>> The high degree of uniformity throughout the observable universe and
>> its faint but measured anisotropy lend strong support for the Big
>> Bang model in general and the ?CDM ("Lambda Cold Dark Matter") model
>> in particular. Moreover, the fluctuations are coherent on angular
>> scales that are larger than the apparent cosmological horizon at
>> recombination. Either such coherence is acausally fine-tuned, or
>> cosmic inflation occurred.[6][7]
There is no edge to FLAT EARTH!
The edge always moves away from you.
w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 07:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p6dby.269550$MN.136378@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #371931 |
On 12/13/2015 03:06 AM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:16:46 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/15 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system.
>>
>>
>> Review | Cosmic microwave background
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
>>
>>> The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left
>>> over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. In older
>>> literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave
>>> background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic
>>> background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology
>>> because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch
>>> of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space
>>> between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark.
>>> However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint
>>> background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is
>>> not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is
>>> strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The
>>> accidental discovery of CMB in 1964 by American radio astronomers
>>> Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work
>>> initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel
>>> Prize.
>>>
>>> The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted
>>> on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows
>>> tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly
>>> different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure:
>>> the stars and galaxies of today.[3]
>>
>>> The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage
>>> in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a
>>> landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the
>>> universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was
>>> denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot
>>> fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and
>>> the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled
>>> enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These
>>> atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the
>>> universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[4]
>>> Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed
>>> as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when
>>> photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly
>>> being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as
>>> photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon
>>> decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter
>>> and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their
>>> wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely
>>> proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the
>>> source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last
>>> scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance
>>> from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from
>>> those points at the time of photon decoupling.
>>>
>>> Precise measurements of the CMB are critical to cosmology, since any
>>> proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMB
>>> has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057
>>> K.[5] The spectral radiance dE?/d? peaks at 160.2 GHz, in the
>>> microwave range of frequencies. (Alternatively if spectral radiance
>>> is defined as dE?/d? then the peak wavelength is 1.871 mm.) The glow
>>> is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual
>>> variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of
>>> a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the
>>> current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance at
>>> different angles of observation in the sky contains small
>>> anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the
>>> region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what
>>> would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum
>>> fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size
>>> of the observable universe we see today. This is a very active field
>>> of study, with scientists seeking both better data (for example, the
>>> Planck spacecraft) and better interpretations of the initial
>>> conditions of expansion. Although many different processes might
>>> produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other
>>> than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result,
>>> most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be
>>> the best explanation for the CMB.
>>>
>>> The high degree of uniformity throughout the observable universe and
>>> its faint but measured anisotropy lend strong support for the Big
>>> Bang model in general and the ?CDM ("Lambda Cold Dark Matter") model
>>> in particular. Moreover, the fluctuations are coherent on angular
>>> scales that are larger than the apparent cosmological horizon at
>>> recombination. Either such coherence is acausally fine-tuned, or
>>> cosmic inflation occurred.[6][7]
>
>
> There is no edge to FLAT EARTH!
> The edge always moves away from you.
You are wrong Helmut!
The flat Earth HAS an edge, obviously!
The answer is the edge of the Earth is EVERYWHERE!
It's simple physics thinking!
Just BELIEVE and repeat, Helmut. This is the "thinking" of modern physics!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-13 19:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <39fb81f5-0b99-4ad8-b9ad-b15543e9fdec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371931 |
On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 2:06:16 AM UTC-6, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:16:46 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 12/12/15 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> CMBR is generated in real time and close proximity to our solar system.
> >
> >
> > Review | Cosmic microwave background
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
> >
> >> The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left
> >> over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. In older
> >> literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave
> >> background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic
> >> background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology
> >> because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch
> >> of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space
> >> between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark.
> >> However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint
> >> background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is
> >> not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is
> >> strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The
> >> accidental discovery of CMB in 1964 by American radio astronomers
> >> Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work
> >> initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel
> >> Prize.
> >>
> >> The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted
> >> on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows
> >> tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly
> >> different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure:
> >> the stars and galaxies of today.[3]
> >
> >> The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage
> >> in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a
> >> landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the
> >> universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was
> >> denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot
> >> fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and
> >> the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled
> >> enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These
> >> atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the
> >> universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[4]
> >> Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed
> >> as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when
> >> photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly
> >> being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as
> >> photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon
> >> decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter
> >> and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their
> >> wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely
> >> proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the
> >> source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last
> >> scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance
> >> from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from
> >> those points at the time of photon decoupling.
> >>
> >> Precise measurements of the CMB are critical to cosmology, since any
> >> proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMB
> >> has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548ą0.00057
> >> K.[5] The spectral radiance dE?/d? peaks at 160.2 GHz, in the
> >> microwave range of frequencies. (Alternatively if spectral radiance
> >> is defined as dE?/d? then the peak wavelength is 1.871 mm.) The glow
> >> is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual
> >> variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of
> >> a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the
> >> current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance at
> >> different angles of observation in the sky contains small
> >> anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the
> >> region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what
> >> would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum
> >> fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size
> >> of the observable universe we see today. This is a very active field
> >> of study, with scientists seeking both better data (for example, the
> >> Planck spacecraft) and better interpretations of the initial
> >> conditions of expansion. Although many different processes might
> >> produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other
> >> than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result,
> >> most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be
> >> the best explanation for the CMB.
> >>
> >> The high degree of uniformity throughout the observable universe and
> >> its faint but measured anisotropy lend strong support for the Big
> >> Bang model in general and the ?CDM ("Lambda Cold Dark Matter") model
> >> in particular. Moreover, the fluctuations are coherent on angular
> >> scales that are larger than the apparent cosmological horizon at
> >> recombination. Either such coherence is acausally fine-tuned, or
> >> cosmic inflation occurred.[6][7]
>
>
> There is no edge to FLAT EARTH!
> The edge always moves away from you.
>
>
> w.
No, the edge is way too far away to see by our primitive scopes, so far.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 06:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dd72q0Fq3njU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371979 |
Am 14.12.2015 04:16, schrieb John Gogo: >> >> There is no edge to FLAT EARTH! >> The edge always moves away from you. >> >> >> w. > > No, the edge is way too far away to see by our primitive scopes, so far. Actually we receive light from the past. Further away is also older. Extremely far away is the big bang and further on it can't go. (According to the standard model of cosmology) The questions are: does it make sense? is it a valid assumption? I would say, no, it is both: untrue and stupid. The reason is, that if big-bang-cosmology would be true, we would see kind of milky soup along the 'edge', what is about 13.5 billion light-years away. But we see galaxies that far away. This does not fit to the big-bang theory, since galaxies need time to form (particles first, than dust, than stars, than stars building structures). And it would most likely take a LOT of time. So galaxies are not expected near the 'edge'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-14 09:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <170db2a2-2f3e-4201-b921-1f07a919e5d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371985 |
The edge of the universe is "time", the edge of "Now". http://i64.tinypic.com/14dlx6t.jpg http://i42.tinypic.com/35bbjna.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 04:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dd9fh5Febo5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372013 |
Am 14.12.2015 18:09, schrieb fuller.david@hotmail.com: > The edge of the universe is "time", the edge of "Now". > Well, the closer 'edge' is called 'here and now'. But on the far side we would expect to see the big bang´. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 07:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab6992aa-233b-4452-81ef-cb68c2a33c6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372050 |
fuller...@hotmail.com: > The edge of the universe is "time", the edge of "Now". > Well, the closer 'edge' is called 'here and now'. But on the far side we would expect to see the big bang´. TH That is the past, there is "No Place" to see on the far side. What does time look like, what kind of telescope can be made to see "time? What will be noticed is space being changed like a dark matter like time dilation. Space for you to move around in exists because time is receding away @ beyond c Space time is kinetic energy Gravity is spacetime dropping in kinetic energy Kinda looks like one day, every particle will slam into itself at 2*c If Suskind is right and all information entering a black hole is stored holographically on the surface we could already be "Falling through a previous COPY of past that already happened" Attempting time travel would destroy the copy by changing the template. Or the "holographic template" could be just one instant in time that when reached after the universe cools to say quark confinement , time will proceed "exactly in the same steps" as last time. The holographic copy would only need to store the information on the surface, compressing the necessary required data by c^2 One byte on the surface becomes c^2 bytes and we always relive the same future echoing forever
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 06:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddpfhgFfrkpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372374 |
Am 19.12.2015 16:14, schrieb David Fuller:
> fuller...@hotmail.com:
>> The edge of the universe is "time", the edge of "Now".
>>
> Well, the closer 'edge' is called 'here and now'.
> But on the far side we would expect to see the big bang´.
>
>
> TH
>
> That is the past, there is "No Place" to see on the far side.
> What does time look like, what kind of telescope can be made to see "time?
???
We see light. This is a certain kind of em-radiation and of a certain
frequency range.
Light move with c, hence we receive light from the past.
Further away is also further in the past.
Since the 'big-bang' is the assumed beginning of everything, there is no
further past than the big-bang (in big-bang-cosmology).
So: the 'edge' of the universe should be identical with the 'edge in
time' ('the big-bang'), since 'beginning' implies the idea of a border
(between before and after).
So we would actually see the big-bang in 13.8 billion light-years
distance. But in fact we don't see anything similar.
Question: why?
One reason: the estimated distances are based on Hubble's law and that
on big-bang cosmology.
But the idea, that red-shift correlates to distance is not well proven.
In fact a A.F. Meyer proved in his book 'Geometry of Time', that the
Hubble law is wrong.
Then we experience something called absorption, what make dark objects
look dark: they simply swallow em-radiation.
There is also a lot of time to do so (13.8 billion years). And usually
we expect radiation to disappear without significant traces, once the
emitter is shut off.
Then 'there is no edge' (as the title says), what is in direct violation
of the big-bang-theory.
So in total I would call 'big-band-theory': wrong assumptions stacked on
top of other wrong assumptions.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 05:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddpeg3FfkplU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371895 |
Am 12.12.2015 16:16, schrieb Sam Wormley: > >> The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage >> in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a >> landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the >> universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was >> denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot >> fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and >> the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled >> enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These >> atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the >> universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. Let's assume the 'big-bang' would have been a light-bulb, switched off 13.8 billion years ago. The remaining light cooled down to micro-waves and that is now received from all direction, since the universe expanded. And this is actually, what they teach in schools and universities. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 14:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5679C8C1.283B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #372472 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 12.12.2015 16:16, schrieb Sam Wormley: > > > >> The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage > >> in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a > >> landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the > >> universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was > >> denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot > >> fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and > >> the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled > >> enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These > >> atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the > >> universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. > > Let's assume the 'big-bang' would have been a light-bulb, switched off > 13.8 billion years ago. > > The remaining light cooled down to micro-waves and that is now received > from all direction, since the universe expanded. > > And this is actually, what they teach in schools and universities. > > TH space is a refridgerator...it cools down the hot suff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-12 17:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a31436c2-59f5-4c2c-85ef-a59b1a34370d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371878 |
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:54:48 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 12.12.2015 05:55, schrieb Sam Wormley: > > > >> This CMB picutre was taken when all the heat magically disapperaed. > > > > > > The universe is expanding and cooling. The CMB is the light of > > decoupling at about 380,000 years after the BB cooled from say > > 3000 K to 2.7 K > > > This is the standard model of cosmology - and most likely wrong. > > Alternative explanation: CMBR is generated in real time and close > proximity to our solar system. > > Reason: > > the CMBR 'sky map' contains actually, what is not expected in the > remainders of the big bang. > > Especially unexpected is the Earth orbit and our home galaxy. > > > TH At least, our pictures are unified!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 18:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5c7715b5-1bc1-46e8-b991-70ca316c494e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371922 |
On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 7:46:58 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 12:54:48 AM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 12.12.2015 05:55, schrieb Sam Wormley: > > > > > > >> This CMB picutre was taken when all the heat magically disapperaed. > > > > > > > > > The universe is expanding and cooling. The CMB is the light of > > > decoupling at about 380,000 years after the BB cooled from say > > > 3000 K to 2.7 K > > > > > > This is the standard model of cosmology - and most likely wrong. > > > > Alternative explanation: CMBR is generated in real time and close > > proximity to our solar system. > > > > Reason: > > > > the CMBR 'sky map' contains actually, what is not expected in the > > remainders of the big bang. > > > > Especially unexpected is the Earth orbit and our home galaxy. > > > > > > TH > > At least, our pictures are unified! http://www.popsci.com/james-webb-space-telescope-books-ride-on-european-rocket?src=SOC&dom=fb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-08 21:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <AYGdne66PrjHAvrLnZ2dnUU7-VudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371602 |
On 12/8/15 4:17 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> If the light seen coming from the edge of the Universe, is the old light
> generated at the time of Big Bang, then that light must be travelling
> outside this Universe, at least as far as it is from here to that edge.
> Just toward the opposite direction. This is remarkably, but exceedingly
> and surpassingly.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49ldh$4ni$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371625 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/8/15 4:17 PM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> If the light seen coming from the edge of the Universe, is the old >> light generated at the time of Big Bang, then that light must be >> travelling outside this Universe, at least as far as it is from here to >> that edge. Just toward the opposite direction. This is remarkably, but >> exceedingly and surpassingly. > > > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Does not matter, prafessar. Nobody mentioned any center any particular place. However the selfcontainess of this Universe is obvious (see the theory of Big Bang). Hence a Normal vector oriented outside must be present. And in fact there are proofs and indicators that it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 10:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WOWdnav325cXxPXLnZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #371660 |
On 12/9/15 10:38 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: > Hence a Normal vector oriented outside must be > present. There ain't no "outside", Bubba. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-09 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n49lon$4ni$5@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #371663 |
Sam Wormley > On 12/9/15 10:38 AM, Plexippus Kritikos wrote: >> Hence a Normal vector oriented outside must be present. > > There ain't no "outside", Bubba. Since you are snipping the juicy stuff, you must be fucking stupid. And apparently you really are, even without snipping stuff considered to be juicy. You are weak in Tensors and Manifolds. Proceed an upgrade immediately.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web