Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #566595 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-29 22:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-04-12 08:07 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 139 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-29 22:18 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 08:09 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-30 00:48 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 10:04 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 02:30 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 07:08 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 10:54 -0400
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 07:20 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory trudi.schwander@gmail.com - 2016-03-30 02:50 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 03:05 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 13:42 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 14:21 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 07:21 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 07:18 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-30 05:55 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 08:27 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-30 17:40 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 08:09 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 10:25 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 15:53 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-30 17:37 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 08:05 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 06:02 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 12:12 -0400
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-02 16:24 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:26 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 07:11 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 08:09 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 22:30 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-31 00:18 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 09:41 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 11:35 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-31 21:11 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:02 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 07:20 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:43 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-01 18:55 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 22:35 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-01 22:50 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 07:56 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 20:21 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-02 19:59 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 15:01 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 17:13 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 19:18 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 18:02 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 20:22 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-04 00:07 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 07:45 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-04 11:59 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 08:50 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-04 19:08 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 11:40 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-04 11:34 -0700
Re: SpaceTime is "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 20:09 +0000
Re: Gravity/eXergy ( energy that can do work ) is dying off. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 23:29 +0000
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 21:31 -0400
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 05:55 +0000
Re: Even stars _must_ evaporate. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:03 -0400
Re: Even stars _must_ evaporate. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-05 16:15 +0000
Re: Hawking Radiation, Heat Death of the Universe. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-04-05 16:26 -0400
Re: Hawking Radiation, Heat Death of the Universe. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 18:59 +0000
Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 16:59 -0700
Re: Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 20:38 -0400
Re: Many organisms would consume you. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-04-06 21:05 -0400
Many organisms would consume you. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 06:35 -0700
Re: Many organisms would consume you. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 10:22 -0400
Many organisms would consume you. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 13:00 -0700
Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 13:16 -0700
Re: Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 21:18 -0400
Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 06:57 -0700
Re: Science doesn't cater to your foolish dreams. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:31 -0400
Re: Eventually, everything evaporates away, including gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-07 13:52 +0000
Re: Your pet theory of the universe. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-07 20:48 +0000
Re: It takes energy to separate objects. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-08 13:43 +0000
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-05 18:57 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:57 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:25 -0400
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-06 10:01 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-06 20:23 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:05 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-07 18:01 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 20:26 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:09 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-08 06:32 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 09:16 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:32 -0500
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 19:23 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-11 17:54 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-11 21:00 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 00:02 -0700
Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-12 00:35 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 22:12 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:28 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:35 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-01 19:03 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 09:19 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 00:40 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 08:40 +0200
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-01 03:25 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 07:31 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-01 19:32 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:07 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-04 19:02 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 06:55 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-05 18:35 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:18 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:01 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 06:00 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-06 20:25 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 08:09 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-07 17:43 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 19:58 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 20:19 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-07 23:02 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 07:18 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-08 12:09 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:20 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:26 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 23:26 -0400
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-08 13:06 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:31 -0500
theoretically noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 22:03 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:46 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-08 13:07 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:28 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:31 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-08 19:28 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 10:26 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-10 14:36 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-10 17:59 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 08:21 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-11 17:56 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 20:58 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-11 19:44 -0700
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:09 -0500
Re: Riedt's monocentric universe theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 08:07 -0500
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 16:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28c9a7f4-0983-45a0-9733-81355cbafb9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567426 |
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 8:56:36 PM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/2/16 12:50 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > Stars A B C are in a straight line. A sees B receding towards C. C > > sees B receding towards A. B moves towards A and C at the same time? > > > > > A sees B receding at velocity v. A sees C receding at velocity 2v, > etc., as shown in the diagrams: > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > Good attempt to explain the absurdity of stars retreating from one another. In the third diagram of the reference B moves from A on paper and A moves from B on another paper. If the two papers are superimposed they combine into the illusion of A and B moving away from one another and also towards each other. But, as per Hubble, stars 'retreat from one another' in the real world simultaneously and not after a two step operation superimposing papers. > > 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 | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 20:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nLCdnVC2ocWo7Z3KnZ2dnUU7-dGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567581 |
On 4/2/16 6:56 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 8:56:36 PM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: >> A sees B receding at velocity v. A sees C receding at velocity 2v, >> etc., as shown in the diagrams: >>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html >> > > Good attempt to explain the absurdity of stars retreating from one another. In the third diagram of the reference B moves from A on paper and A moves from B on another paper. If the two papers are superimposed they combine into the illusion of A and B moving away from one another and also towards each other. But, as per Hubble, stars 'retreat from one another' in the real world simultaneously and not after a two step operation superimposing papers. > Distant galaxies, not stars > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html Hubble's Law > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law > Hubble's law is the name for the observation in physical cosmology > that: > > 1. Objects observed in deep space (extragalactic space, 10 > megaparsecs (Mpc) or more) are found to have a Doppler shift > interpretable as relative velocity away from Earth; > 2. This Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding > from the Earth, is approximately proportional to their distance from > the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away.[1][2] > Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the > expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of > evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model. Tests of the Big Bang theory > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.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 | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 19:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41141c31-93a8-442d-b145-12722d90315e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567582 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 9:22:00 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/2/16 6:56 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 8:56:36 PM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > > >> A sees B receding at velocity v. A sees C receding at velocity 2v, > >> etc., as shown in the diagrams: > >>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > >> > > > > Good attempt to explain the absurdity of stars retreating from one another. In the third diagram of the reference B moves from A on paper and A moves from B on another paper. If the two papers are superimposed they combine into the illusion of A and B moving away from one another and also towards each other. But, as per Hubble, stars 'retreat from one another' in the real world simultaneously and not after a two step operation superimposing papers. > > > > Distant galaxies, not stars > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > > Hubble's Law > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law > > > Hubble's law is the name for the observation in physical cosmology > > that: > > > > 1. Objects observed in deep space (extragalactic space, 10 > > megaparsecs (Mpc) or more) are found to have a Doppler shift > > interpretable as relative velocity away from Earth; > > > 2. This Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding > > from the Earth, is approximately proportional to their distance from > > the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away.[1][2] > > > Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the > > expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of > > evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model. > > Tests of the Big Bang theory > > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > > > Nasa: "The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang". Question: Does CMB diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 15:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hdCdnShRbOEG65zKnZ2dnUU7-UmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567591 |
On 4/2/16 9:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Nasa: "The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang". > > Question: Does CMB diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? Because the universe is expanding, it is also cooling. The early universe had cooled to ~3000 K after the first 380,000 years. This is the time that the the universe was cool enough for radiation and matter to decouple, creating the CMB. Now 13.8 billion years later it has cooled to 2.725 ± 0.002 K -- 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 | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 17:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69265d41-a3dc-46fa-9a5b-58e05233ba39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567723 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 4:01:35 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/2/16 9:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > Nasa: "The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang". > > > > Question: Does CMB diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? > > > Because the universe is expanding, it is also cooling. > > The early universe had cooled to ~3000 K after the first 380,000 > years. This is the time that the the universe was cool enough for > radiation and matter to decouple, creating the CMB. > > Now 13.8 billion years later it has cooled to 2.725 ± 0.002 K > Question: Does CMBR diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? > 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 | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 19:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yrGdnfnIUJB-L5zKnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567743 |
On 4/3/16 7:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 4:01:35 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 4/2/16 9:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> Nasa: "The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang". >>> >>> Question: Does CMB diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? >> >> >> Because the universe is expanding, it is also cooling. >> >> The early universe had cooled to ~3000 K after the first 380,000 >> years. This is the time that the the universe was cool enough for >> radiation and matter to decouple, creating the CMB. >> >> Now 13.8 billion years later it has cooled to 2.725 ± 0.002 K >> > > > Question: Does CMBR diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? All the CMB photons were created 380,000 after the BB. You receive one and it gone. The universe is getting bigger and the majority of the photons are still roaming freely. -- 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 | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be5318fd-79db-4bbf-be72-a64e4a0fa01c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567744 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:18:47 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/3/16 7:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 4:01:35 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 4/2/16 9:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> Nasa: "The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang". > >>> > >>> Question: Does CMB diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? > >> > >> > >> Because the universe is expanding, it is also cooling. > >> > >> The early universe had cooled to ~3000 K after the first 380,000 > >> years. This is the time that the the universe was cool enough for > >> radiation and matter to decouple, creating the CMB. > >> > >> Now 13.8 billion years later it has cooled to 2.725 ± 0.002 K > >> > > > > > > Question: Does CMBR diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? > > > All the CMB photons were created 380,000 after the BB. > Seconds or years? > You receive one and it gone. Means what? > 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 | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 20:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yrGdnfjIUJBQXJzKnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567746 |
On 4/3/16 8:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:18:47 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 4/3/16 7:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 4:01:35 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/16 9:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>>>> Nasa: "The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang".
>>>>>
>>>>> Question: Does CMB diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because the universe is expanding, it is also cooling.
>>>>
>>>> The early universe had cooled to ~3000 K after the first 380,000
>>>> years. This is the time that the the universe was cool enough for
>>>> radiation and matter to decouple, creating the CMB.
>>>>
>>>> Now 13.8 billion years later it has cooled to 2.725 ± 0.002 K
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Question: Does CMBR diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe?
>>
>>
>> All the CMB photons were created 380,000 years after the BB.
>>
From the quantum mechanical perspective:
1. photons, including CMB, are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons, including CMB, propagate at c (no exceptions)
3. photons, including CMB, are absorbed (by charged particles)
Photon Momentum (decreases as the universe expands)
p = hν/c = h/λ
Photon Energy (decreases as the universe expands)
E = hν = hc/λ
--
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 | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 00:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b03ccb3c-a804-4c25-98b0-4834069a6a47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567753 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:22:24 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/3/16 8:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:18:47 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 4/3/16 7:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 4:01:35 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > >>>> On 4/2/16 9:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>>>> Nasa: "The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang". > >>>>> > >>>>> Question: Does CMB diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Because the universe is expanding, it is also cooling. > >>>> > >>>> The early universe had cooled to ~3000 K after the first 380,000 > >>>> years. This is the time that the the universe was cool enough for > >>>> radiation and matter to decouple, creating the CMB. > >>>> > >>>> Now 13.8 billion years later it has cooled to 2.725 ± 0.002 K > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Question: Does CMBR diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? > >> > >> > >> All the CMB photons were created 380,000 years after the BB. > >> > > > > From the quantum mechanical perspective: > > 1. photons, including CMB, are emitted (by charged particles) > 2. photons, including CMB, propagate at c (no exceptions) > 3. photons, including CMB, are absorbed (by charged particles) > > Photon Momentum (decreases as the universe expands) > p = hν/c = h/λ > > Photon Energy (decreases as the universe expands) > E = hν = hc/λ > > > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. Thanks
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 07:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vb2dnX26tb59_J_KnZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567813 |
On 4/4/16 2:07 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:22:24 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 4/3/16 8:02 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:18:47 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> On 4/3/16 7:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 4:01:35 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>> On 4/2/16 9:59 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>>>> Nasa: "The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Question: Does CMB diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the universe is expanding, it is also cooling. >>>>>> >>>>>> The early universe had cooled to ~3000 K after the first 380,000 >>>>>> years. This is the time that the the universe was cool enough for >>>>>> radiation and matter to decouple, creating the CMB. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now 13.8 billion years later it has cooled to 2.725 ± 0.002 K >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Question: Does CMBR diminish with time or increase to inflate the universe? >>>> >>>> >>>> All the CMB photons were created 380,000 years after the BB. >>>> >> >> >> >> From the quantum mechanical perspective: >> >> 1. photons, including CMB, are emitted (by charged particles) >> 2. photons, including CMB, propagate at c (no exceptions) >> 3. photons, including CMB, are absorbed (by charged particles) >> >> Photon Momentum (decreases as the universe expands) >> p = hν/c = h/λ >> >> Photon Energy (decreases as the universe expands) >> E = hν = hc/λ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated >> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics >> community, and physics-related social issues. > > Thanks > You are welcome, Peter. -- 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 | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 11:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fba2bc92-18c2-4ee4-96d3-361c8af634b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567581 |
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 7:56:51 PM UTC-4, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 8:56:36 PM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 4/2/16 12:50 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > Stars A B C are in a straight line. A sees B receding towards C. C > > > sees B receding towards A. B moves towards A and C at the same time? > > > > > > > > > A sees B receding at velocity v. A sees C receding at velocity 2v, > > etc., as shown in the diagrams: > > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > > > > Good attempt to explain the absurdity of stars retreating from one another. > In the third diagram of the reference B moves from A on paper and A moves > from B on another paper. If the two papers are superimposed they combine > into the illusion of A and B moving away from one another and also towards > each other. No they don't. Both A and B agree they move AWAY FROM EACH OTHER. Even if you superimpose the two images, A has a motion vector toward the left and B has a motion vector toward the right. > But, as per Hubble, stars 'retreat from one another' in the real world > simultaneously and not after a two step operation superimposing papers. The "papers" are just showing the view from two of those stars. And the "papers" agree with Hubble's observation. You may not realize it but you are trying to impose an absolute coordinate system on the situation. Problem is: in the real world, there is no absolute coordinate system. We cannot step out of the universe and observe it in an absolute reference frame as if we were God. You really need to understand this concept: There is no absolute reference frame. Hope that helps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 08:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ndtreq$1lq3$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567387 |
On 4/2/2016 12:50 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Can empty space grow into more empty space without a cause? Yes. That is a behavior of spacetime that it can expand spontaneously. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 19:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4620eec3-f167-4808-b614-398d02cb1cb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567838 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:50:23 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/2/2016 12:50 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > Can empty space grow into more empty space without a cause? > > Yes. That is a behavior of spacetime that it can expand spontaneously. > Spacetime is a proper fairy tale where anything is possible. > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, fables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 11:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fbednV0SCfgEd57KnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #567982 |
On 4/4/16 9:08 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Spacetime is a proper fairy tale where anything is possible. Well, it is true that all event occur in spacetime. Peter, you are moving through spacetime at the speed of light, as is everything else. -- 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne1d4u$1m6v$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567982 |
On 4/4/2016 9:08 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 9:50:23 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/2/2016 12:50 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> Can empty space grow into more empty space without a cause? >> >> Yes. That is a behavior of spacetime that it can expand spontaneously. >> > Spacetime is a proper fairy tale where anything is possible. Why do you think so, Peter? Momentum non-conservation is not possible in spacetime. Faster-than-light travel is not possible in spacetime. Absolute synchronization between spatially separated clocks is not possible in spacetime. Spacetime makes a number of definitive predictions, which means it declares what WILL be measured under certain circumstances and what WILL NOT be measured. > > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, fables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <84f2369d-9b63-4256-8d24-87e9182c5f7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567387 |
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 1:50:40 AM UTC-4, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 11:35:57 AM UTC+8, Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 4/1/16 8:55 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: [] > > > Agree but you missed the point. The difference between the black > > > hole in the centre of the universe and other black holes is size. > > > It is a super black hole, not an ordinary one. > > > So what. If it exists, you should be able to calculate it's location. It still obeys the law of gravity. > > > > > > Since observation shows the expansion of the universe is the > > expansion of space, everywhere is the center of expansion. > > Within the universe there are big black holes an little black > > holes--their only difference being their mass. > > > > No Center > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.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 > > > Hubble's law states that every observer in an expanding universe > will see objects receding from him. > > Stars A B C are in a straight line. A sees B receding towards C. > C sees B receding towards A. B moves towards A and C at the same time? from different observers on A and C Yes. What part of Relative motion don't you understand? Actually you may be confusing yourself because your description is incomplete. An observer on A sees B receding away from A on the line ABC at rate P C receding away from A on the line ABC at rate Q, where Q>P To make things simple we'll do the case where Q=2P An observer on C sees B receding away from C on the line ABC at rate P A receding away from C on the line ABC at rate Q From the view of C, while B is moving toward A, A is moving away from both B and C A is moving away from C faster than B is moving away from C. Both observers agree they are both moving away from B. Don't get excited. from this we cannot conclude that B is the center. Beyond C is D. B looks toward C and sees C receding away from B on the line ABC at rate P D receding away from B on the line ABC at rate R>P B and D have the same discussion that A and C had. To them C looks like the center. But this contradicts what A and C concluded. Together the four of them realize none of them can be the center. > > If on the other hand the empty space between A B and C increases > into a larger empty space what force pushes A B and C apart or what > force pumps empty space into the space between A B and C? Can empty > space grow into more empty space without a cause? That seems to be what we observe. Who said there was a force? > > Of course, the speed of light is constant and it follows that > empty space can be created out of nothing! Nothing from nothing leaves nothing... Even pop song writers get it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 20:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: SpaceTime is "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ). |
| Message-ID | <nduhm4$64h$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #567885 |
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes: >As eXergy is consumed away, never to return, gravity dies off. >What remains might be "enough", depending on your point of view. Actually the opposite. As the universe expands and galaxy clusters move farther apart, more of their kinetic energy of motion (or dark energy, if it exists and is driving the expansion) becomes gravitational potential energy. The universe won't get this gravitational energy "back", unless the universe collapses and the potential gravitational energy becomes kinetic energy of motion, or other forms of energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 23:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Gravity/eXergy ( energy that can do work ) is dying off. |
| Message-ID | <ndutcd$dei$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #567917 |
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes: >Gravity/eXergy ( energy that can do work ) is dying off. >Eventually, the cosmos will have (near) zero density/gravity/eXergy. >"Dark Energy" is entropy. "Dark Matter" is unseen mass. You're just making up crap. The gravitational potential energy I mentioned will exist in the gravitational fields between the galaxy clusters. The process of converting kinetic energy (or dark energy) to gravitational potential energy likely does increase entropy. But the gravitational energy remains until extracted somehow, and that would mean the star clusters move to a lower gravitational state. It may be that this energy may never be extractable/convertable, an infinitely expanding universe. This energy would exist for all time, barring something that causes the universe to collapse. If the universe expands forever, its density does decrease on average. The gravitational potential energy will asymptopically approach a certain value, related to the original escape velocity from each other. Entropy will continue to increase, or at least never decrease. We don't know what dark energy is yet. We just know that it seems that "something" is accelerating the expansion of the universe. We certainly know that gravity is not getting weaker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 21:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. |
| Message-ID | <AzEMy.7$kQ1.4@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #567962 |
On 04/04/2016 08:45 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
>
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > We certainly know that gravity is not getting weaker.
>
> Wong, Gravity/eXergy ( energy that can do work ) is dying off.
> "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular.
>
> When the cosmos (nearly) hits thermodynamic equilibrium,
> all motion ceases, whereupon gravity is (nearly) dead and burried.
>
> Once "Dark Energy" (Entropy) wins, gravity/eXergy is gone.
>
Have you read any HVAC? He's into lies and fantasy too. You two should
be fine butt buddies!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 05:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: "The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. |
| Message-ID | <ndvk03$74a$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #567962 |
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >> We certainly know that gravity is not getting weaker. >Wong, Gravity/eXergy ( energy that can do work ) is dying off. Evidence (for gravity)? >"The Heat Death of the Universe" is like evolution, but less popular. >When the cosmos (nearly) hits thermodynamic equilibrium, >all motion ceases, whereupon gravity is (nearly) dead and burried. >Once "Dark Energy" (Entropy) wins, gravity/eXergy is gone. Sounds like you're making things up as you go along.. As two objects get further apart, more energy goes into the gravitational field between them. As the strength of gravity in inverse to the distance squared, it gets weaker with distance so the energy stored reaches a limit, even at infinite distance where it is a maximum. For this energy to be retrieved, the gravitating objects must somehow approach each other and it becomes kinetic energy. If the universe is infinitely expanding, then this can never happen, this energy is forever locked away in the gravitational field. This is high school physics.
[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
csiph-web