Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357178

Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS?

Show all headers | View raw

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 9:00:28 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 15.07.2015 00:48, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:19:01 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 7/14/2015 3:04 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would say: it's not only not convincing, but also violates certain
> > > > observations.
> > > >
> > > > E.g. an expanding universe would have stars predominantly at its
> > > > surface. That is a roughly two-dimensional arrangement we would expect
> > > > after big-bang-expansion.
> > >
> > > Maybe YOU expect that, but it certainly is not a feature of the big bang
> > > model. I think such a observation would only be implied if you thought
> > > of the universe as having a roughly spherical surface and a geometric
> > > center. That is NOT the model of the universe in the big bang. The big
> > > bang universe has no boundary and no center.
> > >
> > > So I think the mismatch is that you just aren't thinking of the same big
> > > bang model that physicists are thinking of, and so maybe the validity of
> > > assumptions you are questioning are just not the right assumptions.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > But this is not observed. Instead the universe looks quite homogeneous
> > > > in all directions.
> > > >
> > > > TH
> >
> > And Heger is not thinking about the universe properly:  the finite speed
> > of light means that we are looking backward in time, and that means that
> > we can't see the present "spherical surface" even if there were one.
> >
> > So no matter where we look, we see galaxies at earlier and earlier times
> > in the universe the farther they are away from us.
> >
> 
> In fact I have mentioned this effect on several occasions. I wanted to 
> point out, that what we call 'universe' is actually our (Earth bound) 
> view on the universe.
> 
> This is in fact a very distorted picture: there are 'spherical shells' 
> of different age, that do not really belong together, that we see as one 
> thing.

So why did you make the naïve claim that OBSERVATION conflicts with the
naïve "shell" idea?  You aren't making sense here.

Gary

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-13 07:29 +0200
  Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-07-13 07:35 +0000
    Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-14 22:04 +0200
      Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 15:18 -0500
        Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-15 05:00 +0200
          Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-15 03:52 -0700
          Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-16 22:34 +0200
            Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-16 17:03 -0400
            Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:14 -0700
            Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-17 02:30 +0200
              Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-17 07:14 -0500
                Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-07-18 07:43 +0200
      Re: EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY OR QUANTUM MECHANICS? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-07-14 16:19 -0400

csiph-web