cyrels reply to JS and Chip:
To say there is no center to the BB is equating it to sphererical two dimentional space. That is one of the great problems with the BB besides the others.
The current concept of the BB is not cosmology but instead is COSMOGONY.
Examples are:
Creation out of nothing, disembodied force fields, the above problem and many others.

No, in fact, we don't know what the overall topology of the universe is. What we do know is that it is not necessary for us to observe any fiducial center of the expansion. There is no problem making analogues to 3D space. Did you read my previous post?

Again, look up COSMOGONY. You are using the word improperly and making yourself look strange by continuing to repeat it in such a context.


Not a necessary feature of the big bang (see above)

what is "disembodied" about them?

The above problem being you don't understand how 3D and 2D geometry can be related? That's your problem not science's.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2003-02-18 09:59 ]</font>

A cosmogony is a theory/model describing the origin and evolution of the universe.

A cosmology goes into history, structure, and dynamics of the universe but not necessarily the origin.

Thanx. I understand all this.
that's not my question.

a small space, that expands. I can understand the change in wavelength, if space inner properties ( eg. index, vacuum energy ...) are changing while expanding.
otherwise, nothing is going to cause wavelenght to redder.
do we have evidence, that space properties are changing while expanding ??

Well, one interesting observation that has been made is that the ambient temperature of the universe (today about 3 K) is getting cooler. We know this by measuring the emission and scattering of photons from molecules way back when. When we look at such things we see that the temperature was higher in the earlier universe. Since there doesn't seem to be any "new physics" going on the only solution would be that the CMB is getting cooler which requires an expanding universe.

cable: "I can understand the change in wavelength, if space inner properties ( eg. index, vacuum energy ...) are changing while expanding. otherwise, nothing is going to cause wavelenght to redder."

I don't understand this, cable. It seems to me that it is precisely because the properties of space are not changing that we can draw conclusions about the way the expansion of space affects light. If two galaxies are 2 billion lightyears apart and, much later, are 4 billion lightyears apart due to the Hubble expansion of the universe, every bit of the 4 billion lightyears of space separating them has exactly the same fundamental properties as every bit of the original 2 billion lightyears. At least, we have no evidence that the fundamental physics of space and time are changing in any drastic way. (As JS Princeton wrote, "There doesn't seem to be any new physics going on.") Therefore we can feel reasonably sure that the behavior of light traveling from one galaxy to the other has not been affected by unevenness in the physical properties of space during its transit--and so we can feel reasonably sure that any reddening is due to effects of the general expansion and not due to variations in the fundamental properties of space.

I'm not sure if that is what you're getting at. Does it clarify anything?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-02-18 15:05 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-02-18 15:06 ]</font>

DStahl,

FINE. no change in space properties while expanding.
my opinion is, wavelengh may change only if space inner properties change.
expansion means light may travel longer distance, that's all.

JS,
CMB is a fair indication of space xpansion.
there still a possibilty that light is redding not due to xpansion itself but due to change in space inner properties, eg. index.

cable: "expansion means light may travel longer distance, that's all."

Ah, I think I understand. But the electromagnetic waves we call light have a wavelength, a finite, linear length. Some electromagnetic radiation has wavelengths of several hundred meters.

So, visualize this: take a large, flat rubber band and cut it so you have one long length of rubber. Take a permanent marker and make a 1-centimeter-long mark on the rubber band. Now, stretch the rubber to 2 times it's original length. Just as you wrote, the mark is now farther from the end of the rubber band--but the mark itself is also longer! It is, I predict, exactly 2 centimeters in length instead of 1.

Thus, in an analogous way, the wavelength of light is stretched as the space through which it travels stretches.

A couple of notes on this: First, the rubber band trick is an analogy; space is NOT made of rubber! When you stretch the rubber band it pulls back, and the tension on the band rises. That doesn't happen in the expansion of space. Second, one might ask, if a meteorite were traveling through empty space between the galaxies, would it stretch just like the light? But nay, nay! The meteor is held together by electromagnetic forces and, on the subatomic level, by the strong force. These forces completely overpower the 'stretching' effect of expanding space. But these forces do not hold the wavelength of electromagnetic waves--light, photons--against the expansion. The four forces known to physics do not oppose the stretching of light, and so only the light--and not things made of matter--stretches with the expansion of space.

And you were absolutely right in saying that the light, and the hypothetical meteorite, must travel farther to reach a distant galaxy as a result of the expansion of space.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-02-18 19:51 ]</font>

What you seem to be advocating, then, is a change in the speed of light. The "index of refraction" for propagating light in a vacuum is generally defined to be 1 because we assume that there is no attenuation or absorption effects due to the vacuum. If this is not the case, then the speed of light through the vacuum must be changing. There are definite constraints we can place on such a statement. Read, for example, of the work Paul Davies has done asking how much fundamental constants can very through cosmological epoch? The answer? Not very much!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2003-02-18 17:26 ]</font>

When we move away at velocity v, from a source emitting light at velocity c, the relative motion is detectable using the Doppler effect. How can we explain logically that these photons appear to reach us at velocity c and not (c-v)? Relativity does not give a rational explanation. A rational explanation is given in this paper using Newton physics.
Abstract.
When the velocity of light is measured with the Global Positioning System (GPS), we find that it is (c-v) or (c+v), in which v is the rotation velocity of the Earth where the cities are located. We know that the Lorentz transformations and special relativity are unable to provide a realistic physical explanation of the behavior of matter and light. We show here that all these phenomena can be explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without space contraction or time dilation.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Illusion/index.html

This explanation cannot be right because then Maxwell's Equations defining a speed of electromagnetic waves independent of reference frame would have to be wrong. The authors of said paper therefore would be denying the following:

1) that Maxwell's Equations are the correct form for classical electromagnetism.

2) that Michelson and Morley was done correctly

3) that special relativity must be right and so, for example, all the particle physics using special relativity for calculating decay rates and reactions confirm it.

This is yet another example of the shoddy and downright bad science advocated by "newton physics". Sham!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2003-02-18 18:06 ]</font>

This paper demonstrates a serious mathematical error in the Lorentz transformation. It is shown that independent predictions using the Lorentz model become now identical to the ones predicted previously, using quantum mechanics and mass-energy conservation. We show how all phenomena can be explained logically.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Lorentz/lorentz.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/M...on-Morley.html

Michelson-Morley Experiment Revisited:
Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Different Experiments
and Compatibility with Absolute Space.

Your statements are attempting to negate the "Big Bang" theory (but without knowing much about the actual theory,) and therefore by your statements, you're also denying the cosmological principle, as well as aspects of Newtonian and Relativity physics, and a huge host of other observations and characteristics of the known cosmos. Stand back and notice that you are at odds (via naiveté) with recognized and measured concepts that have been proven through observations and independent verifications. If there's one thing just looking at the cosmos teaches us, it is to be humble.

Perhaps if you visited astronomer Ned Wright's tutorial page. Here's a very simple graphic explanation as to why we don't need a center to the universe -- from his website: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

Check out his FAQ page too: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Try this too: http://sciastro.astronomy.net/

The primary problem I see in your past posts is a denial of actual, proven scientific conclusions that were born out of systematic research, and that this denial is founded not on science, but on your own preconceptions rather than any independent systematic research that you can specify.

Try this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

And this one: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...146710-7423325

Good luck!

Those papers are non-answers, Orion. Do you honestly believe they hold any content?

Marmet is saying the following: Michelson & Morley error bars are too large to determine whether the speed of light is changing. This I know to be nonsense. There are ways you yourself can set up the experiment to prove it to yourself. In fact, it's a common sophomore physics lab in many major universities. Advocating that Michelson and Morley was a flop is like advocating that Galileo's measurement of constant acceleration due to gravity doesn't work. Marmet proves himself a whacko in some other frame of mind other than scientific. Perhaps we can speculate on what it is.

As far as his "errors in Lorentz transformation" work, Marmet comes up with what he thinks is a reasonable approach without appealing to basic electrodynamics. He finds a factor that looks like the Lorentz factor and then shows that the parallels between SR and his "new" system are legion. However, he states that this does not allow for a constant speed of light.

Excuse my French, but b******. If you start from simple arguments from electrodynamics it's impossible to come up with Marmet's claims. Therefore they are dismissable out-of-hand. You do know about Maxwell's Equations, right Orion?

Of course I know them.And you?

Well, orion, what is the dynamical solution of Maxwell's equations in absense of a source term? and more importantly what is the speed of the propagation? and even more important, what is the dependence upon reference frame?

Nothing to do with the material presented by Marmet.What are you trying to do?A kind of knowledge test?Do try to play that game.

Actually, orion, it has EVERYTHING to do with Marmet because the motivation for relativity is the reference frame invariance of the speed of light that necessarily follows from Maxwell's Equations. Unless this fact of nature is dealt with (it is a direct consequence of the mathematics) then there is no way his analysis holds in the least.

Your attempt to be argumentative doesn't make any sense. I did as you asked and read Marmet's drivel and concluded that it did not address this very fundamental motivation. Now it's your turn to either put up (and show how it does) or shut up.

JS, there's a glaring error in Marmet's critique of Lorentz transformations. Marmet chooses to forget that directions of light are physically different in the "moving" and in the "rest" frames and instead attributes that difference in direction to some "rotational transformation" that he promptly devises from thin air. Thus he arrives at the basis for his further blunders on that route.

ither put up (and show how it does) or shut up.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...#20020506.9:14

Math Hour 5:26 A.M. Pst