 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Oldest Object In Universe - Massive Star Exploding -... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Morpheal... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm BBC news: in
the journal Nature, two teams of astronomers report their observations
of a gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion light-years
away. The massive star died about 630 million years after the Big
Bang.
UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation as "a step back in
cosmic time".
I suggest that the giant star must be older than the "Big Bang" and
that it does not violate existing models of such objects burning out
as they age... as the BBC writer describes.....
"Models assume GRBs arise when giant stars burn out and collapse
During collapse, super-fast jets of matter burst out from the stars
Collisions occur with gas already shed by the dying behemoths
The interaction generates the energetic signals detected by Swift
Remnants of the huge stars end their days as black holes."
What is significant is that either the existing model concerning such
events must be discarded as wrong, or it must be accepted, and if so
either the Big Bang pushed back and redefined or acceptance given that
stars and other matter do pre-exist the Big Bang that gave rise to the
largest portion of what we see in our portion of the universe. There
is too much evidence against pushing back the Big Bang to accommodate
such anomalous events so we are left with the theory that some things
that we see in the distant universe did in fact pre-exist the Big
Bang. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Morpheal" <bobezergailis at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4a0355b5-0d09-4f18-81b0-e5cd9d0415bf at (no spam) f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]In http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm BBC news: in
the journal Nature, two teams of astronomers report their observations
of a gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion light-years
away. The massive star died about 630 million years after the Big
Bang.
UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation as "a step back in
cosmic time".
I suggest that the giant star must be older than the "Big Bang" and
that it does not violate existing models of such objects burning out
as they age... as the BBC writer describes.....
"Models assume GRBs arise when giant stars burn out and collapse
During collapse, super-fast jets of matter burst out from the stars
Collisions occur with gas already shed by the dying behemoths
The interaction generates the energetic signals detected by Swift
Remnants of the huge stars end their days as black holes."
What is significant is that either the existing model concerning such
events must be discarded as wrong, or it must be accepted, and if so
either the Big Bang pushed back and redefined or acceptance given that
stars and other matter do pre-exist the Big Bang that gave rise to the
largest portion of what we see in our portion of the universe. There
is too much evidence against pushing back the Big Bang to accommodate
such anomalous events so we are left with the theory that some things
that we see in the distant universe did in fact pre-exist the Big
Bang.
[/quote]
I suggest the Big Bonk model was created by dorks who cannot grasp
the concept of infinity and "a step back to Neanderthal intelligence".
You've managed to say "Big Bang" four times in nine lines. Pretty soon
you'll believe it, along with dork holes, dork matter and black energy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| glird... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 8:50 am, Morpheal wrote:
[quote]Inhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stmBBC news: in
the journal Nature, two teams of astronomers report their observations[/quote]
of a gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion light-years
away. The massive star died about 630 million years after the Big
Bang.>
Present theory says that nothing can go faster than the speed of
light in vacuo. A "light-year" is the distance light can travel in one
year. If the universe began 13.73 billion years ago and expanded at
maximum possible speed ever since, it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYTHING to
have been 13.1 billion light-years from Earth in 630 million years!
[quote]UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation as "a step back in cosmic time".
[/quote]
It's more like a backward step in human reason.
glird |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gordon Stangler... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 6:01 pm, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
[quote] Present theory says that nothing can go faster than the speed of
light in vacuo. A "light-year" is the distance light can travel in one
year. If the universe began 13.73 billion years ago and expanded at
maximum possible speed ever since, it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYTHING to
have been 13.1 billion light-years from Earth in 630 million years!
[/quote]
[snip]
[quote]glird
[/quote]
Wait, what?
He is saying that the star lived and died 630 million years after the
big bang. Thus, that is 13.1 billion years ago, since the BB was 13.7
billion years ago. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| glird... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 1:41 am, Gordon Stangler wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 6:01 pm, glird wrote:
[snip]
Present theory says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light in vacuo. A "light-year" is the distance light can travel in one year. If the universe began 13.73 billion years ago and expanded at maximum possible speed ever since, it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYTHING to have been 13.1 billion light-years from Earth in 630 million years!
[snip]
glird
Wait, what?
He is saying that the star lived and died 630 million years after the[/quote]
big bang. Thus, that is 13.1 billion years ago, since the BB was 13.7
billion years ago. >
If a star died 63 years ago and we saw it die when its light reached
us 13 million years later, then it had to be at least 13 million times
c away from us when it died.
As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing
happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-
years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even if the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded.
glird |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ilja... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
[quote] As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing
happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-
years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even if the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded.
[/quote]
This is a classical example of somebody being misguided by the usual
"expanding universe" language.
All what happens is that the distance between far away galaxies is
increasing as measured by our rulers. There does no have to be any
movement at all - it is sufficient to have shrinking rulers.
If one insists that this increasing distances are caused by some
motion, then this relative motion between far away galaxies exceeds
the speed of light as much as you like: The relative motion is
proportional to the distance, thus, double the distance and the speed
will double too.
Instead, the picture with decreasing rulers is much less misguiding:
Everything remains on its place, and there is also no reason to
speculate about a center at rest where the big bang starts.
In fact, the picture of having a single point where everything comes
out is extremely misleading also in another connection: It makes it
hard to explain that in the standard GR scenario (without inflation)
there are regions which cannot have been in causal contact (the
horizon problem). This is problematic because the fluctuations on the
CMBR have sizes much larger than these causally connected regions,
which is a strong argument for inflation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:25 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3253
|
On Oct 31, 3:31 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing
happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-
years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even if the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded.
This is a classical example of somebody being misguided by the usual
"expanding universe" language.
All what happens is that the distance between far away galaxies is
increasing as measured by our rulers. There does no have to be any
movement at all - it is sufficient to have shrinking rulers.
If one insists that this increasing distances are caused by some
motion, then this relative motion between far away galaxies exceeds
the speed of light as much as you like: The relative motion is
proportional to the distance, thus, double the distance and the speed
will double too.
Instead, the picture with decreasing rulers is much less misguiding:
Everything remains on its place, and there is also no reason to
speculate about a center at rest where the big bang starts.
In fact, the picture of having a single point where everything comes
out is extremely misleading also in another connection: It makes it
hard to explain that in the standard GR scenario (without inflation)
there are regions which cannot have been in causal contact (the
horizon problem). This is problematic because the fluctuations on the
CMBR have sizes much larger than these causally connected regions,
which is a strong argument for inflation.
[/quote]
There might be some small stars around since the Big Bang's first star
formation.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| glird... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 6:31 am, Ilja wrote:
[quote]On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird wrote:
As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even IF the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the[/quote]
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded. >>
[quote]
This is a classical example of somebody being misguided by the usual "expanding universe" language.
[/quote]
Note the word "IF" in my prior statement! If OTOH, the universe is
not expanding, and a star was "on the other side of it'" when it had a
radius of 630 million light-years, then it remains impossible for its
light to have taken 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million
miles away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death
to
finally be seen and recorded.
[quote]In fact, the picture of having a single point where everything comes out is extremely misleading also in another connection: It makes it hard to explain that in the standard GR scenario (without inflation) there are regions which cannot have been in causal contact (the horizon problem). This is problematic because the fluctuations on the
CMBR have sizes much larger than these causally connected regions,[/quote]
which is a strong argument for inflation. >
If bullshit stinks it smells just as bad if you call it ambrosia.
glird |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:31 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3253
|
On Oct 31, 2:20 pm, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 6:31 am, Ilja wrote:> On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird wrote:
As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even IF the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded.
This is a classical example of somebody being misguided by the usual "expanding universe" language.
Note the word "IF" in my prior statement! If OTOH, the universe is
not expanding, and a star was "on the other side of it'" when it had a
radius of 630 million light-years, then it remains impossible for its
light to have taken 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million
miles away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death
to
finally be seen and recorded.
In fact, the picture of having a single point where everything comes out is extremely misleading also in another connection: It makes it hard to explain that in the standard GR scenario (without inflation) there are regions which cannot have been in causal contact (the horizon problem). This is problematic because the fluctuations on the
CMBR have sizes much larger than these causally connected regions,
which is a strong argument for inflation.
If bullshit stinks it smells just as bad if you call it ambrosia.
glird
[/quote]
Small dwarfs could be the oldest stars because the idea of a massive
star is the opposite: it expires quick. The title of this thread is
misleading.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Polasek... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Ilja
<ilja.schmelzer at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing
happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-
years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even if the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded.
This is a classical example of somebody being misguided by the usual
"expanding universe" language.
All what happens is that the distance between far away galaxies is
increasing as measured by our rulers. There does no have to be any
movement at all - it is sufficient to have shrinking rulers.
If one insists that this increasing distances are caused by some
motion, then this relative motion between far away galaxies exceeds
the speed of light as much as you like: The relative motion is
proportional to the distance, thus, double the distance and the speed
will double too.
Instead, the picture with decreasing rulers is much less misguiding:
Everything remains on its place, and there is also no reason to
speculate about a center at rest where the big bang starts.
In fact, the picture of having a single point where everything comes
out is extremely misleading also in another connection: It makes it
hard to explain that in the standard GR scenario (without inflation)
there are regions which cannot have been in causal contact (the
horizon problem). This is problematic because the fluctuations on the
CMBR have sizes much larger than these causally connected regions,
which is a strong argument for inflation.
Isn't it customary to report the red shift to justify the 13.1GLyr[/quote]
figure? They must have used red shift, which is about the only
reliable parameter there is in cosmology. Then let us argue about how
old it is. Just because it's red, as shown in the photograph, is not
enough to go on. I think the story indicated that it was also viewed
from the ground where you can take spectrographic readings if it can't
be done from a satellite.
I can argue for a z of 20, with H0=1/13.7Gyr
v = H0*D
v = 13.1/13.7*c = .95*c v/c = .95
1+z = 1/1-.95 = 1+19.
But there are no emission or absorption lines that can be seen when
stretched 20 times. In other words, the original emission lines would
have had to be 20 nm before you expand them up to 400 nm where you can
see them.
John Polasek |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:07:59 -0500, John Polasek <jpolasek at (no spam) cfl.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Ilja
ilja.schmelzer at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing
happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-
years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even if the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded.
This is a classical example of somebody being misguided by the usual
"expanding universe" language.
All what happens is that the distance between far away galaxies is
increasing as measured by our rulers. There does no have to be any
movement at all - it is sufficient to have shrinking rulers.
If one insists that this increasing distances are caused by some
motion, then this relative motion between far away galaxies exceeds
the speed of light as much as you like: The relative motion is
proportional to the distance, thus, double the distance and the speed
will double too.
Instead, the picture with decreasing rulers is much less misguiding:
Everything remains on its place, and there is also no reason to
speculate about a center at rest where the big bang starts.
In fact, the picture of having a single point where everything comes
out is extremely misleading also in another connection: It makes it
hard to explain that in the standard GR scenario (without inflation)
there are regions which cannot have been in causal contact (the
horizon problem). This is problematic because the fluctuations on the
CMBR have sizes much larger than these causally connected regions,
which is a strong argument for inflation.
Isn't it customary to report the red shift to justify the 13.1GLyr
figure? They must have used red shift, which is about the only
reliable parameter there is in cosmology.
[/quote]
It isn't reliable at all.
For one thing, photons slow down as they travel....(could be proportional to
distance)
For another, there is ADoppler....or Wilson's Acceleration SHift (WaSH)
[quote]Then let us argue about how
old it is. Just because it's red, as shown in the photograph, is not
enough to go on. I think the story indicated that it was also viewed
from the ground where you can take spectrographic readings if it can't
be done from a satellite.
I can argue for a z of 20, with H0=1/13.7Gyr
v = H0*D
v = 13.1/13.7*c = .95*c v/c = .95
1+z = 1/1-.95 = 1+19.
But there are no emission or absorption lines that can be seen when
stretched 20 times. In other words, the original emission lines would
have had to be 20 nm before you expand them up to 400 nm where you can
see them.
John Polasek
[/quote]
Big Bang Big BULL.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:a8k1f51nu6vcsj3t83t6ea80pijblvfuk3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:07:59 -0500, John Polasek <jpolasek at (no spam) cfl.rr.com
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Ilja
ilja.schmelzer at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing
happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-
years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even if the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded.
This is a classical example of somebody being misguided by the usual
"expanding universe" language.
All what happens is that the distance between far away galaxies is
increasing as measured by our rulers. There does no have to be any
movement at all - it is sufficient to have shrinking rulers.
If one insists that this increasing distances are caused by some
motion, then this relative motion between far away galaxies exceeds
the speed of light as much as you like: The relative motion is
proportional to the distance, thus, double the distance and the speed
will double too.
Instead, the picture with decreasing rulers is much less misguiding:
Everything remains on its place, and there is also no reason to
speculate about a center at rest where the big bang starts.
In fact, the picture of having a single point where everything comes
out is extremely misleading also in another connection: It makes it
hard to explain that in the standard GR scenario (without inflation)
there are regions which cannot have been in causal contact (the
horizon problem). This is problematic because the fluctuations on the
CMBR have sizes much larger than these causally connected regions,
which is a strong argument for inflation.
Isn't it customary to report the red shift to justify the 13.1GLyr
figure? They must have used red shift, which is about the only
reliable parameter there is in cosmology.
It isn't reliable at all.
For one thing, photons slow down as they travel....(could be proportional
to
distance)
[/quote]
There is no evidence of that being the case, of course.
[quote]For another, there is ADoppler....or Wilson's Acceleration SHift (WaSH)
[/quote]
Which is just made-up crap and nonsense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:18:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:a8k1f51nu6vcsj3t83t6ea80pijblvfuk3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:07:59 -0500, John Polasek <jpolasek at (no spam) cfl.rr.com
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Ilja
ilja.schmelzer at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing
happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-
years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even if the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded.
This is a classical example of somebody being misguided by the usual
"expanding universe" language.
All what happens is that the distance between far away galaxies is
increasing as measured by our rulers. There does no have to be any
movement at all - it is sufficient to have shrinking rulers.
If one insists that this increasing distances are caused by some
motion, then this relative motion between far away galaxies exceeds
the speed of light as much as you like: The relative motion is
proportional to the distance, thus, double the distance and the speed
will double too.
Instead, the picture with decreasing rulers is much less misguiding:
Everything remains on its place, and there is also no reason to
speculate about a center at rest where the big bang starts.
In fact, the picture of having a single point where everything comes
out is extremely misleading also in another connection: It makes it
hard to explain that in the standard GR scenario (without inflation)
there are regions which cannot have been in causal contact (the
horizon problem). This is problematic because the fluctuations on the
CMBR have sizes much larger than these causally connected regions,
which is a strong argument for inflation.
Isn't it customary to report the red shift to justify the 13.1GLyr
figure? They must have used red shift, which is about the only
reliable parameter there is in cosmology.
It isn't reliable at all.
For one thing, photons slow down as they travel....(could be proportional
to
distance)
There is no evidence of that being the case, of course.
For another, there is ADoppler....or Wilson's Acceleration SHift (WaSH)
Which is just made-up crap and nonsense.
[/quote]
In other words, it is far too hard for you.
The fact is, dear lady, the evidence is there.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:hsj2f5tfhf4pn96m0s69saqbq10mmdckm8 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:18:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:a8k1f51nu6vcsj3t83t6ea80pijblvfuk3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:07:59 -0500, John Polasek <jpolasek at (no spam) cfl.rr.com
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Ilja
ilja.schmelzer at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
As I said, if we and the star were together when the big bing
happened, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to have been 13.1 billion light-
years from Earth in 630 million years!
Even if the universe were expanding at c, if the star was on the
opposite side of it 630 million years ago, it could not have taken
light another 13.1 BILLION years to reach us about 1,260 million
miles
away when the light began toward us; thus for the star's death to
finally be seen and recorded.
This is a classical example of somebody being misguided by the usual
"expanding universe" language.
All what happens is that the distance between far away galaxies is
increasing as measured by our rulers. There does no have to be any
movement at all - it is sufficient to have shrinking rulers.
If one insists that this increasing distances are caused by some
motion, then this relative motion between far away galaxies exceeds
the speed of light as much as you like: The relative motion is
proportional to the distance, thus, double the distance and the speed
will double too.
Instead, the picture with decreasing rulers is much less misguiding:
Everything remains on its place, and there is also no reason to
speculate about a center at rest where the big bang starts.
In fact, the picture of having a single point where everything comes
out is extremely misleading also in another connection: It makes it
hard to explain that in the standard GR scenario (without inflation)
there are regions which cannot have been in causal contact (the
horizon problem). This is problematic because the fluctuations on the
CMBR have sizes much larger than these causally connected regions,
which is a strong argument for inflation.
Isn't it customary to report the red shift to justify the 13.1GLyr
figure? They must have used red shift, which is about the only
reliable parameter there is in cosmology.
It isn't reliable at all.
For one thing, photons slow down as they travel....(could be
proportional
to
distance)
There is no evidence of that being the case, of course.
For another, there is ADoppler....or Wilson's Acceleration SHift (WaSH)
Which is just made-up crap and nonsense.
In other words, it is far too hard for you.
[/quote]
No .. its just crap and nonsense
[quote]The fact is, dear lady, the evidence is there.
[/quote]
Nope |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:08 pm
|
|