cyrek1 reply

Taibak
You have not kept up with the current BBT. The bb started with the creation of time and space.

Regarding the temperature pressure relationship: What explosions do NOT produce high temperature? Give an example.

Regarding center of gravity: Spherical bodies have a central point of gravity.

In mathematics, there are only 3 dimensions for space known as x, y, and z. In astronomy, there are only 3 known as hours, degrees (latitudes) and parsecs (distances).
My definition of time is a measure of motion, not space.

regarding light, as I have said on other threads, light is an effect (enegy)
generated by an electron transition. The electron has a EM field that surrounds it and it extends to infinity. Normally, this field is in an undisturbed state. When the electron transits, it creates a disturbance in this field. This disturbance travels in this field to infinity. It is not intertwined with space. It expands because these disturbances 'smooth' out to eventually disappear because of the intrinsic repulsion within these disturbances to normalize within the whole field.
Nuff said.

The BB cooled from extremely hot to cold as it expanded. Don't explosions do that?

Dark matter and dark energy.
I will post later

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

To Cyrek1:

I'm pretty sure Taibak has kept up quite well with current BBT.

Your statement about when the BB 'started' should clue you in on the problem you're having with visualization. The creation of time and space.

Have you ever had a can of soda, ice cold, blow up in your hand? Although the soda does heat up due to the rapid reduction in pressure (more conservation) it is a realitivly small increase in temperature. Nothing too sneaky about that, is there?

Actually the universe is thought to be more of a euclidean grid. It might be a square or a triangle, or even a circle. I like the circle best. But it could turn out to be a perfect dodecahedron or even a squiggly aomeba shape. (Everyone check my bad speeling... #-o )

I never did like 'Dark Energy' but have come around some what in the recent past. I feel better knowing Einstein came up with it because his math wouldn't work without it. He called it the 'Cosmological Constant' and set it to = 0 (he thought the heavens were static, not moving, never changing... etc... ) Later, when Hubble figured out the universe was in motion, Einstein called his choice of 0 his biggest mistake and the biggest missed prediction of his theory.

Dark Matter was ill defined to me the first time I heard of it. Now I think it is known as "All the crap that don't shine." So, that could be every asteroid in the belt I can't see with my naked eye (all of `em.) And there has to be some rocks somewhere else in space around some other stars in a few other galaxies (most of `em. ) These rocks have mass. Not enough mass by themselves to explain the 'aparent' angular velocities of spiral galaxies, but we're gettin' closer.

There is no one great analogy to convince someone of the 'truth' or 'beauty' in the BB. The mathematics work to give astoundingly accurate results. Only astounding because they match observations.

More than enough said.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

I believe the qualified here is "as we know them." There are several theories concerening the origin of the BB that involve nergy/matter existing in different states than we now see. One involves virtual particles; these are allows to exist by QM, and their coversion to "normal" particles does not rquire a violation of QM or thermodynamics.

Another holds that if you sum all the energy/matter in the universe, the toal is zero. So, there is no violation of thermo because no energy or matter were created.

Explosions usually involve an exothermic reaction, so the temperature rises. But, in BB, the temperature started out high (an indication of the high energy density) and went down. This is a property of an expansion... PV=nRT, remember?

If you insist that the BB was the result of an explosion, what was the exothermic reaction that triggered it?

Oh, example... If you mix crystals of barium hydroxide octahydrate with crystals of ammonium nitrate you get an endothermic reaction (the temperature goes down) and the evolution of ammonia gas. The ammonia will expand outward, generating a "pressure front." This could be classified as a "low temperature explosion." (You can freeze water with it.)

You forgot to speciy the dimensions. In general, every n-dimensional body has a COG within its spatial dimensions. It seems you are implying a 3D spherical body; what if the universe isn't 3D? Where is the COG of a 4D (or higher) hypersphere? How do you represent this in a 3D model?

But, the universe is composed of a "space-time continuum." Space and time are intimately linked. Even in your "definition" of time as motion; motion is a change in position with time... space-time.

Sorry, this reads like something out of Alice.

Don't expansions do that?

Take a balloon. Fill it with air (blow into it). Measure the temp of the air inside the balloon. Now, open the neck of the balloon and let the air escape. As it leaves the balloon and expands, measure the temp again. Bet it's cooler than before. Hot to cold.

Where's the explosion?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Why couldn't time and space have existed within the original singularity?

Jim and TravisM answered this quite well.

You're assuming two things about the universe here that we don't know conclusively. Regardless of how many dimensions the universe has, we don't know for certain that it's spherical. There are other possible geometries. We also don't know if the universe is finite or not - in fact many of the leading cosmological theories say that the universe is infinite in space. How would you define the center of gravity for an infinitely large object?

Again, you've over simplified a concept WELL past the breaking point. Mathematically, you can deal with any number of dimensions you want. Three is by no means restrictive. In physics, at very least you have to consider time. Relativity proves that space and time are inextricably linked. Even basic astronomy requires you to keep track of WHEN an object was sighted so that you can track its motion. And, if string theory is correct, those four dimensions only just scratch the surface.

Except you can produce light without an electron transition. Particle/antipartical annihilation and Hydrogen fusion come to mind.

Unless you're Tom DeFalco, not even close.

So don't lots of things. Study the second law of thermodynamics and tell me what you find.

I challenge you again to explain how and why these don't fit into the Big Bang.

cyrek1 reply

To TravisM, Jim and Taibak

Rather than answer your criticisms, I will try another tactic.

You are all familiar with Arp's anomolies of the redshift?
Arp's sample of NGC 7603 is his best. It proves his point.

Your support of the BB would refute his explanation and portray these two galaxies as a 'chance alignment'.
What are your opinions about this?

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Nope, no way, no how. Address the criticisms successfully, then we'll move on.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

cyrek1 reply

How about you travisM and Taibak?
Would you rather answer individually or agree with Jim?

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

I'd rather you respond to the criticisms first. Then, if you want, we can discuss Arp's redshift anomalies.

Cyrek1 reply

TravisM
How about you?
I want your answer also before I resond to the other massages.
This creates a lot of work but I have no choice.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

The problem is that asteroids are baryonic matter and BBT nucleosynthesis considerations require that the dark matter be non-baryonic. Also, asteroids would follow the stellar light distribution while the dark matter needs to be a halo that extends beyond the luminous disk.

cyrek1, We've been over this one before .

Cyrek1:

Go ahead. Waiting on the criticizm reply from you. Then we'll proceed with the switch of topics and begin the dazzling hand waving.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

dgruss23

I'm not disagreeing with you, I think. I believe I forgot we have a way to get a graph of concentrations of different isotopes for any luminous object. (Even reflected light?) Anyway, I've seen graphs that show concentrations of silicates and hydrocarbons, etc... Where is a good place to get a hold of that data?

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

cyrek1 replies

TravisM
A can of soda is a poor example for gas behavior.
Another example of a universe as a square, triange or circle are also
poor examples. Is that the best you can do?
Dark matter in the form of rocks? Ha Ha. This mass is supposed to be
TEN times greater than the observed mass. Baryonic mass like rocks
and etc would have been seen. See my posts on Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Click below:

&lt;http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3406&amp;highlight=> (s, c, paste)

Practically all data in support of the BB is not standaed physics.

Jim
These virtual particles disappear as fast as they appear. During their
life span it is so brief that you could say they are non existing.
Do you know how long quantum time is?
I cannot give you the length right now but it is infinitesimally small.
Your statement on the sum of all matter/energy is ludicrous. Look about
you. Do you see anything?
Whether you call the BB an expansion or an explosion does not matter.
There is no reason given for the creation out of nothing. Remember?
Your example of an endothermic reaction does not apply to the BB
because those chemicals did not exist yet.
The SSU I believe in is 3 dimensional. I consider time to be a
measure of motion, not space. The closest thing to spacetime is the
lightyear(?). Astronomers prefer to use the parsec.
The balloon analogy to 3D space is a false analogy. It may apply to a
3D expanding space when viewed laterally to the radial expansion but
cannot be applied when viewing the radial expansion. I hope you
understand what I am saying here. I am referring to an expanding
sphere filled with matter, not air.
About light, read my post on TravisM's replies regarding Dark Energy.

Taibak
The beginning started from zero time and space expansion. There was no
singularity.
When I think of physics, I think of being realistic. The most logical
form of the Universe is that it is a sphere. Those other forms are
ludicrous.
The universe is not infinite space. The latest data says the universe
is 13.7^9 years old. Therefore, the expansion of space is limited to
13.7^9 light years in extant.
You are talking about abstract math. Be realistic. There are only
3 space dimensions. They are x, y and z. Also hours, degrees and
parsecs.
Regarding light, stars are fusion sources but that is in the very
center of stars. But by the time those photons reach the surface,
it is ordinary atomic radiation. Practically all light is atomic
radiation from gamma rays to infrared.

About Dark Matter and Dark Energy, see the website I posted on TravisM
replies above.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

All light is electromagnetic radiation, including radio waves.

If there were more than three spacial dimensions, we wouldn't know it. Hyperspace theories are currently very hard, if not impossible, to prove. (Note that I said "currently"!)

Photons are electromagnetic radiation, period. If it's not EMR, it's not a photon.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Dopplar shifts not standard? Did astronomy and cosmology turn into voodoo while I was gone? Did PX swing by while I wasn't looking?

I'm gonna refrain on responding in kind to the 'that's the best I could do' remark... Shame cyrek1, shame. There are other ways to win an argument without resorting to childishness. But, then again, you may be a young fella, and have every right to behave that way...

A can of soda is a GREAT example of the behavior of a gas under pressure and its sudden release would be indicitive of that COLD explosion you vehemently deny. If you don't believe this is a good example of a cold explosion, explain why. Your question was about 'cold explosions', not behaviors of gasses. Lemme know when you ask about that...
The geometry of the universe on the largest scales is determined by energy density. The density will define how flat the universe is and identify it as one of these three different models:
1. Spatially Closed, Infinite, Unbounded - i.e.: hyper-spherical
2. Spatially Open, Infinite, Unbounded - i.e.: hyper-saddle
3. Spatially Open, Infinite, Unbounded - i.e.: hyper-euclidean 'grid'
(all unbounded because we haven't 'found' enough mass to bring it back to a big crunch...)

This is it for the moment...

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Actually, it's a great example of gas behavior. The explosion in that case is caused by the rapid expansion of carbon dioxide gas. Boyle's Law in action.

Actually, it could be cylindrical, hyperbolic, or many other possible shapes as well.

Agreed. Whatever dark matter is, it's not baryonic.

Well, so far the data in support of the Big Bang consists of matter/energy conservation, the motion of galaxies, and the cosmic microwave background. We're talking gravity, motion, and thermodynamics here - you don't get much more standard.

Incredibly short.

I cannot give you the length right now but it is infinitesimally small.
Your statement on the sum of all matter/energy is ludicrous. Look about
you. Do you see anything?
Whether you call the BB an expansion or an explosion does not matter.
There is no reason given for the creation out of nothing. Remember?
Your example of an endothermic reaction does not apply to the BB
because those chemicals did not exist yet.


The light year is just as good as the parsec in some situations.

More importantly, spacetime and lightyears are two very different concepts. The lightyear is a way to measure distance - nothing more. Spacetime IS time and space - distance and duration. It exists independent of our ability to measure it.

I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't fit the evidence. General relativity, on the other hand, postulates that the universe is a four-dimensional surface - which isn't necessarily a solid shape in four-dimensions. Amongst other things, the model allows for dark energy, explains the motion of galaxies, and describes how objects move through spacetime.

Actually, if you think about it, if you accept the idea of the singularity, it solves your problem. That is, if matter and energy always existed within the singularity, no matter and no energy was created thanks to the Big Bang.

What's your evidence?

ONLY if you limit the universe to three-dimensions.

Relativity says otherwise. At very least, time is another dimension. And while you're right that it's not the same as space it is inextricably linked to space.

Forgive me for being blunt, but you claim to support 'standard' physics when statements like this make it obvious that you don't understand standard physics at all. ALL light is atomic radiation. Period. The photons don't change into another type of radiation when they travel through a star - they are still photons.

Well, gosh, yes. It is. 10^-43 seconds. So what?

The concept of the universe coming out of a "virtual foam" isn't mine, but I do like it (among other possibilities). It is something from nothing (as you noted); all it requires is for the energy state of something to be lower than that of nothing - that is, it requires more energy to maintain a state of nothing than a state of something - and entropy does the rest. It makes the universe inevitable. Unavoidable.

Oh, wow! I am floored by your counter-argument. How can I possibly respond?

Well, first, it's not my idea. It comes from people much more versed in such things than me - or you. And it's based on a very simple principle. If you consider energy that moves outward or separates things as positive and energy that moves inward or pulls things together as negative, then it's possible that the two cancel each other (I think matter is treated as positive energy.). So, the sum of energy in the universe is +1-1=0.

Again, an interesting, and elegant in its simplicity, solution to something from nothing. Basically, there's still nothing.

Yes, it does matter. You have made it essential. You keep insisting that the BB was an explosion and that the "results" don't support that. However, you have yet to show that those same results don't support an expansion.

Why does the universe owe you a reason? I did offer you a couple of explanations.

You asked for an example of a "cold explosion" and I provided one. Apparently, your only response is to change the rules. Now the "cold explosion" must be from whatever existed before the BB.

Please provide a list and I'll work on it.

Believe what you will, that doesn't make it fact.

I never said time was a measure of space. I said it seems to be a dimension of spacetime.

The lightyear is not a measure of spacetime, but rather of space alone... ie, distance, 5.88 trillion miles or 9.46 trillion km or about 63,240 AU. You could as easily use furlongs per fortnight and call that the horseday.

I think you miss the point. The balloon is being used only wrt its surface... its two dimensional surface. This demonstrates how everything on that surface can be moving away from everything else on that surface, and how there is no discernable center to that expansion. The center is located inside the balloon, in the third dimension, separate and unreachable from the 2D surface "universe."

Applying the analogy to a 3D universe, eveything is moving apart as the universe expands, but there is no discernable center to that expansion because it's located in another, 4th dimension.

(Uh, air is matter.)

I still think you have a problem with the basics, as others have pointed out.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Well, I'm glad I linked over to that thread... :roll:
Cyrek1, you didn't make your point there either. I don't know why you linked to this page. Lemme know what I was supposed to be looking at: Your logical fallicies or your lack of comprehension for the multi-dimensional...
I am not hip to DARK anything. I don't like the thought of it, it bugs me, but that don't make it false.
I am not qualified to comment on any dark matter or energy. Let me make my prior statements clear: The last time I checked, dark matter included baryonic sources. It isn't the sole source of the proposed mass for said dark matter... But...

I don't rule the universe, sorry everyone. :-? Big let down, I know.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

I forget who explained it to me very similar to this that finally helped me wrap my mind around the concept of an infinite universe expanding without a centerpoint.

There are some elements which people have finally helped me get a handle on that still don't make a lot of sense to me for various reasons, but its still enough that I can see the basic premise pretty clearly.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

As long as its understood that such a conclusion is largely dependent upon BBT nucleosynthesis. In fact, if the dark matter is entirely baryonic then the most likely candidate is molecular hydrogen which is consistent with the discovery of elliptical galaxies without dark matter .

Cyrek1 reply

TravisM
I wrote those two articles (dark matter and dark energy) because the BBer's have no solutions for same.

The important thing here is that since they do not exist, they do not add any baryonic mass to the universe or energy for that matter.
So, where is this missing mass to fill the void that portrays the BB space to be flat?
To me, this is a major problem for the BBer's to justify their concept.

Incidentally, I give empirical evidence for my dark matter article and a good explanation for dark energy.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

"BBers" can't be lumped into one category. There are "BBers" who believe there is no dark matter or energy and that the universe is spatially infinite, and will continue to expand forever... It's called negative curvature. It doesn't have to be flat, although it looks like it is locally. Did you ever look out side and think, gee, the world is looking awfully spherical today...? Although, that would be positive curvature...

I don't think I'm 'helping'. I always thought helping people understand the depths of ignorance would bring me a good feeling... instead of .

Sorry cyrek1, I don't agree with you. That's as far as we'll get it seems.

I think a math course would do me some good. Now that I don't have any money I can go back to school! Don't you just love the US?

[edited to remove massive sarcasms...]

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

cyrek1 reply

All 3 of you critics (Taibak, TravisM and Jim) still did not answer my question.

Repeat - What is your opinion about NGC 7603? Is it a chance alignment or is Arp right about the redshift anomoly?

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

I'm not familiar with it. Could you please give me a citation?

And, in all fairness, you never answered my followups either. ;-)

NGC 7603 and you might also check out NEQ3 .
(click on "pdf")

dguss23

Thanks for the new data.

Another example that is indisputable is AM 2054 2210(/)
I believe I have it right but am not certain.

cyrek1

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

How can we tell that those galaxies are actually linked? Overlapping might cause them to appear to be linked from our viewpoint...

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

I'm still waiting for you to finish with my original post.

You need to provide me a list of whatever existed before the BB so I can show you an example of a "cold explosion." (Note: If you can't do this, don't worry. No one else can either. But then, if you can't say for certain what existed before the BB, how can you say for certain that there could not have been a "cold explosion" of it?)

And you need to clarify if you hold that the BB is an explosion or an expansion. It seems central to your criticism of the BB, yet you say now it doesn't really matter. Are you willing to accept it as an expansion, no explosion required/involved?

Also, I'd like to know if you still feel the lightyear is "the closest thing to spacetime" and not simply a measure of distance.

And what about the balloon analogy? Does it make sense now?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

In the case of NGC 7603, there was no doubt they were linked until the redshifts were measured. The standard argument against them being linked is simply that they are chance projections of fore and background objects. However, the system really strains the "chance alignment" argument.

First, the filament curves right out from Ngc 7603 and stops at Ngc 7603B. Why doesn't it extend farther or pass off to the side just a bit? But then there are the z=0.24 and z=0.39 objects aligned within 1 arcsecond of the center of the filament.

Second, in traditional views, such filaments are pulled out by interaction. There is no other candidate for interaction - unless of course someone wants to propose 100% dark matter galaxies as JS Princeton did.

Third, the z=0.24 and 0.39 galaxies have characteristics of small dwarf galaxies which they are if at the distance of NGC 7603 as opposed to the characteristics they would have as very large galaxies at their redshift distances.

Basically, the only reason not to think these objects are associated is their differing redshifts.

One other good example is NGC 1232/NGC 1232A/NGC 1232B

The small galaxy on the left side of the picture is NGC 1232A and has a redshift of ~6400 km/sec compared with a redshift of ~1600 km/sec for the lare galaxy. But notice how the features of both galaxies show the same resolution of features - an indication that they are at the same distance. In addition, NGC 1232A is the same type of dwarf galaxy as the LMC. At its redshift distance it would be isolated - which LMC types are not - and it would be too large for its morphological type - nearly as large as the Milky Way!

But there is more in this image. Straight up from the nucleus is a small galaxy on the edge of a spiral arm with a redshift of ~28000 km/sec. If it was a true background galaxy, then its light should be severely reddened from passing through the disk of NGC 1232. But Arp showed that is not the case. It shows up brighter on the blue plates than the red plates.