Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
27 online now:
dwise1, jar, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,697 Year: 16,733/19,786 Month: 858/2,598 Week: 104/251 Day: 57/24 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 100 (357727)
10-20-2006 12:16 PM


The red shift that we associate with the Big Bang is not caused by the motion of receding galaxies. That notion was extrapolated from regarding that red shift as a doppler effect. If that were truly the case, those distant peripheral galaxies would eventually fall off the edge of your universe to be followed by more galaxies until eventually, ours would be the only one left.

Doesn’t that remind you of the flat earth theory. That was ridiculous and, so is this one. There are other reasons for a red shift in the light of those far flung galaxies. Tired light??? No! How about--

How about the cause being just the result of that galaxy's relative mass which is related to the fact of it’s very great distance from us. How about having a good look at this possibility.

As I sit here, my body’s mass of ugly fat has a 209 pound interaction with this immense ball of matter we call the earth. I can tell that because my chair is sitting on a scale in a very long elevator. I’m on this elevator because wiser men than I tell me that if I rise above the earth, my weight will change. Sure enough, when I press the up button, my weight changes because it’s center of mass is now located further from the center of mass of the earth and that this increase in distance is important in the gravity equation (thanks to those wiser men again).. Now comes, the surprise (to me, if not to those wiser men). When I push the down button so that I start dropping below the surface of the earth, my weight also starts dropping. I’m amazed at this because now, I’m now closer to the center of mass of the earth and this shortened distance should have increased my weight. What has changed. The gravity formula couldn’t have changed. What’s changed is that the center of mass of the earth relative to my new position has changed. Since I’m now immersed within the earth, some of it’s mass is now above me and, some of it is on the side of me. Because of this, it’s mass relative to me seems to have changed. Since mass does not ever change, what has happened is that and it’s distance from me has changed and my weight has changed accordingly.

Let’s get my chair and me back to the surface where I can breath better.

Here, when I look around, I realize that I am an integral part of the earth’s mass. As part of the earth’s mass, our gravitational relationship can be associated to that of our solar system. Strangely, the earth interacts with all the parts of the solar system but, not as individual bodies. It
cannot. There is no such thing as a gravity shield so, no body can gravitationally interact only with one or more bodies, it can only gravitationally interact with all other bodies in it’s interactive universe. Since the earth’s solar system neighbors are so close and their gravitational attraction so strong, they apparently disregard the weaker interactions with the rest of their universe. Woops, there goes the multiple body problem. There is never anything but a two-body problem.

A little while ago, I mentioned that the value of a body’s mass never changes. Weight really does not either. It seems to because it moves around and, it’s gravitational relationship to the center-of-mass of the earth can vary. Mass cannot vary because it represents the value of that body’s gravitational relationship to it’s entire interactive universe. All bodies in the universe are attracting that body. This attraction holds that body in one place and provides it with what we call inertia. The value of this inertia is identical to the value of the mass of the body.

Getting back to the earth’s relationship to the solar system, we find that the earth revolves around the center-of-mass of the solar system. This center-of-mass is not fixed at the exact center of the sun. Since the bodies revolving around the sun are not fixed and are of difference masses which are in different orbits, the center of mass of the solar system is always on the move. This is a complex motion which rotates around the center of the sun and does not tend to be perfectly circular. It’s somewhat spiky because of difference orbits and varying locations of the planets. The sun itself also revolves around this center of mass and, because of it’s great mass, it cannot follow these spiky motions. For this reason it tends to regulate the motions of the planets This has a significant affect on the orbits of all members of the solar system. These affect are left to better minds to interpret.

The solar system itself is buried within a galaxy of solar systems. It must also revolve around the center-of-mass of the galaxy.

Getting back to the subject, we live in a universe where our location in it allows us to interact with other objects depending on their relative mass from our point of view. Our local part of our universe can only interact (receive radiation) from remote objects until their relative mass approaches a point where that mass approaches the point where no radiation is allowed to leave it for other locations (us).

As we have learned, gravitational interactions occur between the centers of mass of systems. For instance, the earth's center of mass interacts with not solely with the sun but, with the entire center of mass of the entire solar system. Our solar system's center of mass interacts with our entire galaxy's center of mass. Electromagnetic interactions which have some relation to mass are also sensitive to these relative masses differences. For example, the center of mass of our galaxy and the center of mass of a close galaxy both interact with the center of mass of their interactive universes which nearly occupy the same space. As we compare our galaxy to further and further galaxies, their respective interactive universes start diverging more and more. The greater the divergence, the more the further galaxies center of mass are encompassing parts of the universe with which our galaxy cannot interact.

The parts of the universe with which our galaxy cannot interact with, add apparent mass to the further galaxies. The greater their apparent mass, the greater the red shift caused by this apparent increase in mass. When the relative mass gets too great, no more radiation can be transmitted in our direction.

This red shift is the same in every direction we look in--so I've been told. This fact tells us that there is no apparent end to our universe. It just seems to go on and on.

If there is no doppler affect red shift but instead, we have a relativistic cause to the red shift, then, it's apparent to me that we did not have a Big Bang. Those far-off galaxies are not falling off the edge of our universe. They are just lying there as lazy as ours is.

So, where did everything come from or has it always been there?

We do know that matter particles are able to pop out of nowhere in pairs (particle and it’s anti-particle). This can be happening everywhere in the universe all the time. It could have been happening since–forever. This type of creation could be likened to a gentle whisper relative to that Big Bang. Besides, it does not need any fancy explanation, we already know it happens. We also know that particle pairs ( a particle, such as an electron, and it’s antiparticle, the positron) can also annihilate each other and, they do. Could this mean that we have a universe which is recycling itself?

Before we start recycling, we’d better get the creation part done.

Popping out of nowhere is not the way it happens. There is no such thing as ‘nowhere’. What we think of as ‘nowhere’ is a realm, a somewhere where energy exists. In this realm there are no dimensions or time. When some of this energy is converted to a pair of particles, the forces associated with these particles are also created, the spacial dimensions associated with these particles and the time also associated with the particles.

In this gentle whisper of creation or the SOFT BANG, a pin point source is not assumed because the energy released by came from an infinite source. In that case, matter would start to be transformed from energy at all point in the physical universe. Also, this transformation would still be going on because the source is also timeless or eternal. This would mean that the beginning is not over but will continue forever. Then, time would continue to flow (if flow is what time does) and space would continue to expand to make room for the newly transformed energy to matter. This would entirely make sense in an equation–if you change anything on one side of an equation, the other side has to change to compensate. Isn’t time still flowing? Are we still detecting red shifts in far away galaxies which seem to indicate that space is expanding?

A little bit of Occam’s Razor can help reduce the utterly complex to a more understandable simpler solution.

We should all try to remember that all these posits are theories. Whose right or whose wrong will be contested for a long time to come. Does it really make any great difference to you and I?

Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : Edited to continue posted message.

Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : To add more data.

Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : No reason given.

Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : Asked for by Administrator & to improve readability

Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : Had to find some sort of closure to this initial thread that has wound up into an entire spool. Reading all of these responses has and is providing me with much worthwhile rocking time down here at the foot of the Rockies.


baloneydetector#zero
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 10-25-2006 10:36 AM baloneydetector#zero has responded
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2006 1:07 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2006 3:24 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 100 (358753)
10-25-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by baloneydetector#zero
10-20-2006 12:16 PM


I'll read this if you organize it into readily apparent paragraphs.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-20-2006 12:16 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-25-2006 10:40 AM Admin has responded

    
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 100 (358757)
10-25-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
10-25-2006 10:36 AM


Will do


baloneydetector#zero
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 10-25-2006 10:36 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 10-25-2006 3:35 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 4 of 100 (358803)
10-25-2006 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by baloneydetector#zero
10-25-2006 10:40 AM


The last comment that begins with "woops" implies you're not done editing. The thread proposal is already more than long enough, and in fact includes several unnecessary and long digressions. You're just proposing that the sum of the mass of distant galaxies is so great that light doesn't reach us from them, so you could shorten it a lot. But I'll promote it as is if you'll add a summary paragraph that draws all the arguments together and shows how they support your hypothesis.

You've actually set out to find a solution for a problem that isn't perceived to be a problem by science, and your proposal doesn't apply because the mass of distant galaxies on one side of us is balanced by the mass of distant galaxies on the opposite side of us. Your proposal requires a massive asymmetry in the distribution of matter in the universe, for which there is no evidence. But if you'd still like to go ahead with this thread proposal then just add the summary paragraph and I'll promote it.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-25-2006 10:40 AM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-26-2006 10:42 AM Admin has not yet responded

    
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 100 (358980)
10-26-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
10-25-2006 3:35 PM


Response to Admin's message
Hi Percy. Your right that I wasn't done editing. I've never done this before and I guess i didn't have all my ducks in order when I started.
I hope you realize that expanding something is much easier that abridging it. Shortening something requires me to guess what information is not required for the majority of the readers to understand. Guessing is not my forte.
I will try to add a summary paragraph to explain the first part of the "thread proposal" --No Big Bang-- and leave the second part (Just gentle whisper) till later.
As to trying to find a solution to a non-existant problem--I've got the problem and it sticks in my craw and I've got to assume that others (since I'm not the swiftest fish in the ocean) have too.
Next, I don't think that you understood me either because of your statement:
"and your proposal doesn't apply because the mass of distant galaxies on one side of us is balanced by the mass of distant galaxies on the opposite side of us. Your proposal requires a massive asymmetry in the distribution of matter in the universe, for which there is no evidence"
The mass of the galaxies on the opposite side of us do not enter into the problem. We are talking of an interaction that is strictly between us and a specific far distant galaxy. We are at the almost-extreme edge of that galaxy's interactive universe. It cannot sense the opposing galaxies since we are at the limit of their interacitve range. There could be assymetry but, if there is, it would only mean that we have no way of knowing how far a re-shifted galaxy is from us. It sould be a varyable depending on any mass assymetry.
Thank you for taking the time to read and judge the value of my "thread" (whatever that is).....Bob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 10-25-2006 3:35 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12620
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 6 of 100 (359018)
10-26-2006 12:19 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15375
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 7 of 100 (359030)
10-26-2006 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by baloneydetector#zero
10-20-2006 12:16 PM


Gravity varies with the square of distance. So it seems to me that if red shift was purely due to distance we shoudl see the following things:
1) Sunlight should show a significant red shift. The major contribution should be from the star where the light originates.

2) For the same reason we should see stronger red-shifts from more massive stars.

3) The red-shift within a distant galaxy should also vary - the stars nearest us on the rim should show less red shift than stars near the core.

To the best of my knowledge, none of these are true. Instead red shift is strongly correlated with distance.

How would you answer these points ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-20-2006 12:16 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-26-2006 4:12 PM PaulK has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16101
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 100 (359077)
10-26-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by baloneydetector#zero
10-20-2006 12:16 PM


The red shift that we associate with the Big Bang is not caused by the motion of receding galaxies. That notion was extrapolated from regarding that red shift as a doppler effect. If that were truly the case, those distant peripheral galaxies would eventually fall off the edge of your universe to be followed by more galaxies until eventually, ours would be the only one left.

Doesn’t that remind you of the flat earth theory. That was ridiculous and, so is this one.

That was your argument against Einstein? "It's ridiculous"?

It's strange, isn't it, how physicists and astronomers have never noticed how ridiculous it is. That's funny, isn't it? They spend their lives studying physics, which you haven't, and they can do the math, which you can't, and some of them have Nobel Prizes, and they don't see how "ridiculous" it is.

I guess ... I guess you must be smarter than them. You're certainly smarter than me, because I can't see why it's "ridiculous". Would you care to spell it out for us? Skip the tensor calculus and just put it into layman's terms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-20-2006 12:16 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-26-2006 4:27 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 100 (359086)
10-26-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
10-26-2006 1:07 PM


Answer for PaulK
Hi PaulK. Thank you for the message.
First, I didn't say that the red shift is just due to distance. Red shift can be caused by the doppler effect when a light source is moving away from you. Another reason for the red shift is relativistic and was proposed by Einstein. Like you mentioned in 2.

The shift of light within distant or nearby galaxies mentioned in 3, do show a shift but not by the closest, core or furthest parts of the galaxy but in the left and right parts that are rotating towards or away from us. Of course this is a doppler effect.
Did I miss anything Paul? If I did, please let me know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2006 1:07 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2006 4:37 PM baloneydetector#zero has not yet responded

  
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 100 (359089)
10-26-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2006 3:24 PM


Reply to Dr Adequate
Hi Dr. Adequate

Thank you for the message.

I'm having a hard time determining what you want me to explain that is ridiculous. Is it the "Flat Earth Theory"? Is it the idea that the red shift of extrememly distant galaxies are caused by a dopper effect of receding galaxies? Is it Einsteins's theory that massive objects cause radiation to be red shifted. Or, is it my explanation of why light from far distant galaxies are red shifted.

Please clarify my mis-interpretation of your message....Bob


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2006 3:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 10-26-2006 5:55 PM baloneydetector#zero has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2006 6:32 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15375
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 11 of 100 (359090)
10-26-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by baloneydetector#zero
10-26-2006 4:12 PM


Re: Answer for PaulK
I know that you didn't say that the red shift is CAUSED by distance - as I saiid you attribute it to gravity. I mentioned the fact that red-shift IS correlated with distance. WHich wouldn't be expected if it were simply due to gravitational interactions.

The problem as I have said is that gravitational force decays with an inverse square law. Closer objects have a far greater effect than more distant ones. So the effects I noted shoudl be seen if gravity is the main factor.

And as I understand it we can measure the mass of a galaxy by looking at the motion of the stars within it. There doesn't seem to be enough mass for the effect that you suggest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-26-2006 4:12 PM baloneydetector#zero has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 12 of 100 (359108)
10-26-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by baloneydetector#zero
10-26-2006 4:27 PM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
baloneydetector#zero writes:

I'm having a hard time determining what you want me to explain that is ridiculous.

Dr Adequate quoted the portion of your post he was inquiring about, here it is again:

baloneydetector#zero in Message 1 writes:

The red shift that we associate with the Big Bang is not caused by the motion of receding galaxies. That notion was extrapolated from regarding that red shift as a doppler effect. If that were truly the case, those distant peripheral galaxies would eventually fall off the edge of your universe to be followed by more galaxies until eventually, ours would be the only one left.

Doesn’t that remind you of the flat earth theory. That was ridiculous and, so is this one.

Wasn't your appellation of ridiculous applied to the notion of the red shift as a Doppler effect? To me, and to Dr Adequate, too, that's what you appear to be saying, and I believe Dr Adequate was inquiring about the criteria you were using to judge it ridiculous.

The shift of spectrum toward the red can be caused by Doppler effects, but the cosmological red shift observed for distant galaxies is primarily due to the expansion of space and is not a Doppler effect at all. In other words, distant galaxies are not receding from us because of inherent motion, which would result in a Doppler type shift toward the red, but because of the expansion of the intervening space, which causes the wavelengths of photons to become stretched out during the journey.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-26-2006 4:27 PM baloneydetector#zero has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16101
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 100 (359112)
10-26-2006 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by baloneydetector#zero
10-26-2006 4:27 PM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
What you seem to be objecting to as "ridiculous" is the notion that the expanding universe has a horizon and that other galaxies, from our point of view, will drop over it.

In the first place, I don't find that ridiculous, and in the second place, even if I did, as you evidently do, that would scarcely be an argument against it. Many things are true and ridiculous: the existence of the hippopotamus, for example.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-26-2006 4:27 PM baloneydetector#zero has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 10-27-2006 4:51 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 18 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-27-2006 2:09 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 14 of 100 (359226)
10-27-2006 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2006 6:32 PM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
Dr Adequate writes:

What you seem to be objecting to as "ridiculous" is the notion that the expanding universe has a horizon and that other galaxies, from our point of view, will drop over it.

The phrase that Baloney used was "fall off the edge of your universe". Unless this is just a euphemistic way of referring to regions of the universe too distant to affect our own region due to the expansion of intervening space, this is not a current cosmological view. I do find the view that distant galaxies would fall off the edge of the universe to be ridiculous, but that is not part of current theory.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2006 6:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by baloneydetector#zero, posted 10-27-2006 9:48 AM Percy has responded
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2006 1:44 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
baloneydetector#zero
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 100 (359281)
10-27-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
10-27-2006 4:51 AM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate
Hi Percy. I'm trying to put together an apology for Dr. Adequate. It's taking me a little longer than I thought. I also want to respond to your messages--coherently. Right now it's more doctors visits. When you reach 76 that's where most of one's time is used for.
Nice to speak to a man from New Hampshire (where)--came from Maine Westbrook) myself....Bob
P.S. Do you involve yourself with all responses to messages?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 10-27-2006 4:51 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 10-27-2006 10:26 AM baloneydetector#zero has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019