Prev: An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
Next: Choosing time dimension in FT with symmetric energy density causes Lorentz invariance
From: Ilja on 31 Oct 2009 06:31
On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird <gl...(a)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.
From: BURT on 31 Oct 2009 14:25
On Oct 31, 3:31 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 31 Okt., 01:42, glird <gl...(a)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.

There might be some small stars around since the Big Bang's first star
formation.

Mitch Raemsch
From: glird on 31 Oct 2009 17:20
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


From: BURT on 31 Oct 2009 18:31
On Oct 31, 2:20 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> 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

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

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
Next: Choosing time dimension in FT with symmetric energy density causes Lorentz invariance