Ivan, Everyone-
Some questions:
G-man,
Hi J___, G-man, what great questions you raise.
Ivan, Gman,
J___,
Hi J___,
Eds. - Ivan,
Olber's Paradox redshifted to one photon per minute: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3546803.stm
BACTERIA LIFE CLONED INTO HUMANS?
MARTIAN LEADER?
Schizomycetes magnus universal would find a gift of Swiss cheese an appropriate token of good will, a token of neutrality. Sulfides would be inapropriate, as our world is rich in these. ;)
Ah yes, from botulinum pathogens to E. coli to Swiss cheese and yogurt, to penecilin, we humans could not live without it. What a wonderful building block of life is the bacterium.
MARS A WATER WORLD?
THEORIES OF MASS EXTINCTION -- Deccan Traps Volcanoes and Yucatan Asteroid, the same?
MARS "Berry Bowl"
WHO REMEMBERS the first man, or woman, who gave us the compass? Who was it who first used the wheel? Who discovered how to use fire? These names are lost to our collective memory, forever. Many deserving are forgotten, as many more will be in the future.
Cosmos 'a billion years older'
ON UNIVERSAL DUALITY
Question for J_: I recently reread a book by British physicistJulian Barnes called
G-man767-
NOTES FROM TAHITI
Hubble's Best pictures of all time.
BIG BANG IS BUST.
Big Bang paradox, revisited?
SPITZER IMAGES PUSH BACK COSMIC TIME
Hubble Approaches the Final Frontier: The Dawn of Galaxies
A. Nothing can come of nothing
1. The universe is a closed system
2. The universe is infinite
B. There are only three dimensions
1. Past
2. Present
3. Future
C. Time does not exist
1. Only life exists
2. Life is energy
3. Energy is matter
---------
To move modern science from more than 100 years of mostly folly, and return to logical implementation of provable facts will take a concerted effort by people who are not willing to continue expending $Trillions on wasted research.
Can such a movement take hold, and expand?
Not without your help and participation.
J____
By G-man767 on Monday, February 9, 2004 - 03:49 am:
Re: dimensions. Length, width, height & (duration)...as travel/lag 'time' in between points. If "time does not exist," how can past, present, future--as temporal designates--be 'dimensional,' per se?
Re: 'Energy is matter.' That all matter is in flux, it must indeed be energeaic. Indeed, all matter = potential E, for sure. Yet equating E &w/potential E (as M) absent some process algorithm falls short.
Consider: Big Bang theorems, inferentially, tend to rely on heat dispersion/decay readings. Accordingly, in terms of applied logic, a subnegatory stasis is postulated as a beginning point.
Question: Is it at all even remotely conceivable that...in order for x-qua cosmos to 'start,' said x must first be presumed to 'stop', or to have already stopped, or to be in some stasis? In other words, if (conceivably) a 'cosmos' were in a youthful burgeoning expansive 'beginning,' how to accurately assign a history or past tense to its explosiveness?
This said, inasmuch as such epistemic systems (i.e. physical sciences) rely on structural historicizations, doesn't the focus of
'what' we know ultimately skew further questions of 'how' we come to know?
Finally, don't reliances on heat decay rates for age determinations rely on some hypothetical source with scenario...first cause? Which ultimately must lead us to rely on speculations. Yet, empirically, we see a universe in variously described motion. Questions of Order v. Randomness abound. Can it be said, surely, that a defined starting point occurred?
Van Gogh once said to his brother, "It's a work-in-progress, never to be fully known until it's done." Such said points to so many enduring questions surrounding nature's factuality and our abilities to knowledgeable grasp it.
See this week's "Economist" magazine (Feb. 7, '04)
pg. 75. The science section discusses Cosmology, New Physics, M-Theory, dark matter, etc.
Also, any feedback on the fairly recent book, "The Elegant Universe"? :-)
G-man767
By J____ on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 02:16 am:
Dimension in the context used is a reference only to human ability to order events as they occur. Dimension in the conventional sense refers to length, width, height, and is used for measurements.
Is all matter in flux? That statement cannot be validated; moreover, algorithms fall short of reality as we experience it, e.g. in nature numerical equations are absent. What is, is, and what is not – is not; therefore relevant theories abound with invalid conclusions that continue to push the envelope of bad science beyond logical rationale to the extent there now exists – what cannot possibly exist … usually identified as “virtual” (read – fantasy) entities.
If the universe is infinite, and I believe it is – there is no beginning point, and as such, only local regions can be tested using currently in vogue methods of dispersion/decay; therefore, how distant are the measured readings of temperature, dispersion and decay? Moreover, with recent light experiments we can conclusively prove light cannot move (radiate) without a “medium” to move through; neither can gravity propagate without a medium; therefore, present theory cannot explain – the absence of nothing, for you see nothing is a human conceived concept that merely denotes the absence of a detectible thing, of which, there is not one place in the universe that is not totally filled with the basic building block (read – particle) common throughout the universe. The interstice between an orbiting electron and the nucleus of an atom is completely filled with the single basic particle that science will never discover; bye~ search for the Higgs Boson.
You wrote: “This said, inasmuch as such epistemic systems (i.e. physical sciences) rely on structural historicizations, doesn't the focus of 'what' we know ultimately skew further questions of 'how' we come to know?”
In the case of present theory, I don’t think what we know, is the truth of reality as it is portrayed to us; instead, what we supposedly know is hypothecation of theory that has been accepted as being true, without being proven true, which is responsible for many people becoming involved and teaching bad science without valid supporting evidence.
Think- supposedly it takes approximately eight minutes for sunlight to reach earth once radiated by the sun. If the sun were extinguished, would the light released prior to that extinguishment ever make it to earth? I suggest you ask that question of your favorite physicist.
You wrote: “Finally, don't reliances on heat decay rates for age determinations rely on some hypothetical source with scenario...first cause? Which ultimately must lead us to rely on speculations. Yet, empirically, we see a universe in variously described motion. Questions of Order v. Randomness abound. Can it be said, surely, that a defined starting point occurred?”
Undoubtedly you are correct, that using decay rates to establish duration of specific orbs in the universe demands hypothesis that includes … first cause. I do not believe that any defined starting point is even theoretically justifiable.
Thanks for the info to the Economist article.
I bought the book, opened it, read the first three paragraphs, and then gave it away.
J____
By Ivan A. on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 09:09 am:
Two points raised are really one:
"To move modern science from more than 100 years of mostly folly, and return to logical implementation of provable facts will take a concerted effort by people who are not willing to continue expending $Trillions on wasted research." - J__.
"This said, inasmuch as such epistemic systems (i.e. physical sciences) rely on structural historicizations, doesn't the focus of 'what' we know ultimately skew further questions of 'how' we come to know? " -G-man
In both there is a 'historization' effect, where what we knew in the past has to serve as foundation for what we can know in the future. In most instances, this serves well, that knowledge and understanding is built up on layers of what great minds had thought before us. The trouble creeps in, in a chaos theory sort of way, when what we thought we knew was somehow in error, no matter how subtle this error, so that what continues to be built on the shoulders of the great men and women who preceded us now gets more and more chaotic. The ultimate outcome of this is that at some point our knowledge becomes absurd. And this is where I think we are today in understanding the physics of Big Bang Cosmology, M-Theory, Strings, etc. The interesting development of this, in a kind of fractal manner, is that because the ends are so strange and far removed from the beginnings, that the theory demands more and more that it rest on some solid origin, say some true root cause. This turns out to be the need for the Big Bang, where at that imagined singularity some 14 billions years ago, all of physics made sense, was united into a total theory, a kind of 'golden age' of the universe. What happened after? Well, it probably never happened that way in the first place, so what we have is what it always was. Only our understanding of it got thrown off into some structural chaotic dimensions incapable of being reconciled into a meaningful whole. So we end up with an "Elegant Universe" that in truth is nothing but our 'string-like' chaotic, unelegant understanding of what is. :-)
It is not for a lack of love of knowledge that Science sometimes gets lost in its theorizations. I believe truly dedicated people are trying to find answers. However, as was said: "relevant theories abound with invalid conclusions that continue to push the envelope of bad science beyond logical rationale to the extent there now exists – what cannot possibly exist … usually identified as “virtual” (read – fantasy) entities", it is the 'virtual' sciences of the minute that dominate research, mostly in the Quantum physics arena, while we only 'guess' at what the natural macro world is doing at great distances away from us. Our cosmology is totally dominated by the trails of virtual particles in atom smashers, trying to equate that with what happens billions of light years away from us, and billions of years(?), with what we see happening as the destroyed forces within the atom smashed. Is this good Science? I suspect it has reached its limits of what it can describe of reality, and possibly even done damage to that description. We do not have a truly unified theory of physics, so what happens at the quantum level is not translatable to the astrophysical level, at this time. Why not? Because I suspect that we do not have a firm grasp on what it is we are describing. The reason we are not successful is primarily because we had been led to believe in 'Time' as being something akin to the length dimensions of three dimensional space, which it is not.
As said earlier, time does not exist, except in how we perceive change, but not as a separate dimension of reality. I firmly agree with this. But Lorenz-Einstein's relativity took us into a different dimension of Time, as something relative to the accelerating frames of what is being observed. This gave us an exceedingly exotic geometry of space-time, but it has no real value in understanding how the universe works, except as an exercise in fantasy mathematically derived. It teases, it urges on its own existence, it drags countless university students into tortuous paths of 'counterintuitive' understanding, nay 'beliefs', and it superimposes its flawed logic on Science. Relativity as an 'observational' science is valid, but not as a real description of cosmological reality. That is the error that has 'structurally historicized' itself into academia for the past 100 years. How do we undo this? Remember, there is $$$ bucks involved in research funding, not to mention very big egos, Nobel Prizes, and a whole army of scientific 'priests' who teach this, and who would be disenfranchised if proven wrong.
They will be proven wrong, no doubt, in time. However, it is the goal of the spirit of Human Cafe to do this in some sensitive way where the least damage will be done. I suspect the moment of truth will arrive when we realize that perhaps gravity is not at all described by General Relativity, and rather is something more fundamental to how is structured the universe, namely that is is a basic force unto itself relative to the electromagnetic energy that powers all of reality. Very likely, we will discover that gravity is not a universal constant. Of course, this will destroy much of what we think we know right down to its foundations. That is very threatening to most people. The good side of all this is that once we understand it better, we will have a new source of energy at our disposal. That, I believe, is the ultimate brass ring, and the redemption of Science.
Finally, how does Love fit into all this? Humanity is powered by a living force that has Love as its root core. A true Science will see the Universe not as some cold, random, systematic collection of forces, but rather as a living organism that is Conscious as levels we still cannot imagine... But now I speak as a 'priest'. :-)
Ivan
By J____ on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:22 am:
The following link reveals the shift in physics at the grass-roots level.
EAS
This might help where I am coming from.
J____
By Ivan A. on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 04:50 pm:
Thanks for the link, very interesting paper by Robert S. Fritzius, on the possibility that Gravity is a 'push' effect rather than 'attraction' effect. Spin may be the culprit. I remember seeing something once on 'inertia' being the sum total of all the gravitational forces on matter, though this is an old theory that got lost in time, and I forget where I read it. More work to be done for sure, since Gravity still remains something of a mysterious non-shielded force. Also, interesting concepts on why dual charges repulse or attract.
By Eds. on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 01:42 pm:
Here is another paper, by Toivo Jaakkola, a Finnish physicist, in his paper at: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO3PDF/V03N3JAA.PDF , published posthumously, he also talks of "push gravity", FYI. We think it is a very interesting paper postulating gravity in non-relativity terms. See what you think. J You may be on track.
By J____ on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 04:12 am:
I have a copy of the Jaakkola paper on file since it references Push Gravity.
It appears that Gravity Probe B is a go for sure this time around. Scheduled for launch from Vandenberg AFB - a time has been set for liftoff.
April 17, 2004 at 10:09:12am
Graivty Probe B should forever put to rest the concept of "spacetime."
Once that is accomplished, perhaps real science without all the "virtual everythings" that now abound can emerge from the ashes of nearly 100 years of nonsense.
J____
By Eds. on Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - 10:23 am:
In this BBC artile "Hubble's deep view of the cosmos" the image allegedly takes us to the beginning of the "Big Bang" where light is Doppler shifted to infrared near invisibility. See the illustration at end of article.
Another possibility is that Olber's Paradox is answered, as to why space is dark, that the redshift of light renders most of space invisible. It does not mean there was a Big Bang either, nor that space ends there, but it does mean we are unable to see beyond the limit where light ceases to be light as we know it. It took Hubble four months of catching the light coming from that point in space, at about one photon per minute, to capture the image of the most distant objects in the visible universe. The rest may remain invisible until we can get closer to the "edges" of space. Of course, there are many galaxies there already... there was no 'beginning'...
Some more on the same, New Scientist's "Hubble delivers best ever view of early universe" at: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994756
By Martian on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 09:19 am:
Okay, this is really crazy, I know. Bear with me while I share my strange idea. Can it be, mostly unlikely, that we are the clones of bacteria? We share most of the same molecular chemicals, DNA, and the same environment of life. Bacteria had been here on the planet for maybe 3.8 billion years, where we had been as a human species for about 3.8 million years. They are much older in the evolutionary game. So why not bacteria as the evolutionary masters of all living things on the planet, of which we as humans are the latest addition to their portfolio. We are the androids, the clones, of what bacteria had created for itself - as an extension of their intelligence. Bacteria colonized Earth from space, terraformed the planet, so we are the end result of that colonization. Now we are being urged - by them! - to colonize more of space. Is this a strange idea? That bacteria are our masters and creators? We are only the clones? What if this is our ignoble beginning as life from the stars?
-a Martian
By Ivan A. on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 02:56 pm:
Dear Martian, no it is not so crazy, if we already share a common ancestry of 3.8 billion years ago. I presume this makes us distant cousins?
Of course, it does complicate things for when we arrive on Mars, and say "take us to your leader." I presume we should be asking for a bacteria? Any specific one? Some special protocol we should observe, so as not to offend?
Did you purposely show this image of Mars so we'd have a clue?
Truly, I can say with all honesty we look forward to meeting you, and our eventual contact with our very distant cousins! :-)
Ivan
By Martian on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 08:40 pm:
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~weinberg/mars/
By Ivan A. on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 09:18 am:
So we should conclude that if you put the right bacteria on an otherwise dead world, life will come? Martian "Swiss Cheese", and the "cottage cheese" of the North pole, water and bacteria are an inspiration to lifeform future colonies.
Now, about the moon... brie? J
By Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 06:10 pm:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3520232.stm
Water is Life. Why not windborne hard shelled "barnacles" that are dormant until they hit water moisture, sprout open, copulate, and become windborne again?... wonder if they sing... like our frogs after a rain?
By Ivan A. on Friday, April 2, 2004 - 06:31 pm:
Do we have a theory of mass extinctions, or are we still balancing doubts between an asteroid collision on one hand and super massive volcanic action on the other?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/asteroid1.htm /BBC: The Extinction Files
Could it be that they are both right, and both interconnected? If you look at the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, where there is good evidence of a massive asteroid strike about 65 million years ago, you will notice it is about 90 degrees longtitude and 20 degrees latitude. Now, look at the other side of the planet, and what do you have in approximately the same latitude and longtitude? The Deccan Traps of India. Was there not a massive Deccan volcano there about the same time? Take a large soft massive object and strike it had from one side, and the other side will show the blow... So both theories may in fact point to the same extinction phenomenon, as they may be related to the same Jurassic Extinction.
http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/cretcause.html / End-Cretaceous Extinction (circa 65 million years ago) of the dinosaur Jurassic Period.
Ivan
By Anonymous on Monday, April 5, 2004 - 02:23 pm:
Blueberry 'triplet'
Space.com images
By Anonymous on Sunday, April 18, 2004 - 03:50 pm:
By Biga-banga on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 12:14 pm:
Looks like they're 'cooking' the numbers to make the Big Bang fit, now that we've been able to look deeper into the universe than ever before, and the galaxies at the 'birth' of the universe are already fully formed... so move the date back. An Italian-German astrophysics team has recreated a star's 'cooking' rate from hot to a slow simmer, which is okay, since who doesn't like delicious Italian cuisine, washed down with good German beer? Of course, if the Big Bang is really bunk, we remain merely amused.
J
By Ivan A. on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 02:33 pm:
Philosophy-Duality by Karl Ericson discusses Duality in the universe, and Elecrical Charges by Ron Kurtus illustrates how opposite charges either attract or repel. Both are examples of how our reality is fundamentally structured in Dualistic fashion, philosophically where opposites exist, and electro-magnetically where opposites either attract or repel, or are balanced out as neutral. Now there can be an additional Duality, as described by the Axiomatic Equation, where there is an inverse relationship between Gravity and Energy, so the two are opposing forces in how the modifying effects of energy counterbalance the inward pulling effects of gravity. This gravity-energy duality may yet be the most fundamental of all forces in the universe, since it is at the bottom of all interactions of existence.
From the Beginning... and there was no beginning we can possibly understand, the Universe has functioned as a polarity of opposites, not merely as registered in our brains, the hot-cold or up-down observations, but also as an interaction of competing dual forces that have a real effect on how reality functions. There truly is a push-pull, or light-dark reality. Gravity, as a function of cold space, is a dark force, only in that it exists at its greatest in the absence of light; Light, as a function of electromagnetic forces, is what relieves the darkness of space, and in so doing, if the Axiomatic is correct, also relieves the gravity potential of the region of space affected by it. In our region of a hot star, our Sol, we experience a very weak gravity, which would be much greater around a cool star. Thus such interaction between dark and light is fundamentally at the source of all dual interactions. The result is that there then also exists a plus-minus electric charge relationship between the two, as represented by the flow of electrons from positive to negative charge, or from the proton, a positive, to the electron, a negative charge. Why is this important?
This is how is structured the universe, that at bottom of all possible relationships, and their ultimate infinity totality of interrelationships, exists a fundamental duality that begins with gravity and ends with energy. The mystery remains in physics as to how this fundamental dark-light relationship results in the positive-negative electric charge. We do not know. However, with a new perspective on 'gravity-energy', one can equate the proton to maximum 'gravity', and positive in charge, while the electron to electrical 'energy', and with a negative charge. The Axiomatic equation begins with E = Em*c..., which is electrical energy times lightspeed, to show how gravity and energy are inversely proportional: hc/L(proton mass) = (m - g)c^2, where mass = 1, and g = gravitational constant, ~5e-39, h is Planck's constant, and L is electromagnetic lambda, and c = lightspeed, to ... = (Bm)c^2, where Bm is the magnetic moment. This leads to an inversely proportional ratio, so the equation predicts that where there is low electrical energy, there is great gravity, and vice versa. This is the same gravity that then manifests in our region of space as a very weak remainder, as exhibited by all mass, because of the very great energy present here. If so, then the positive-negative charge is inherently built into the atom mass resulting, where mass = 1, from the inverse proportions interacting, with the maximum gravity inside the positive proton, where g = 1 (please see conversion from g to Newton's G in the Axiomatic Equation above) is offset by the electrical energy of the negative electron, to leave behind a small remainder force of gravity. This is origin of Duality at its simplest, where the product of two imperfectly inverse functions equals one, minus a remainder.
Can a case be made in physics that the proton gravity value, which also equals one, but the same as maximum gravity? If mass is equal one, which represents a unity of duality, a gravity-energy neutrality of one, then gravity is of necessity one if there is no energy present. Therefore, the answer is 'yes', conditional upon such a total lack of energy can exist. Because we live in a universe where energy is forever present, even in the microwave background radiation of cold space, then we never have the condition of maximum gravity, except as a potential within the atom, or as a function of canceled energy on the central axis of spiral galaxies, where gravity is so total as to exclude light. So I think there can be a case made for the universal Duality starting with Gravity and ending with Energy, since these two are the root cause of all other positive-negative relationships, all the way up to our philosophical awareness of Duality as understood by our minds.
There is one flaw in this reasoning, however, unless we do not understand what Maximum Gravity is all about: How can two proton-positive charges repel? Conversely, how can two negative charges repel? This is a mystery which as yet cannot be understood, except to leave it open for study of future clues. One hint would be what happens in a galactic black hole: positive charge ions shoot out both ends of the black hole axis, in opposite directions away from each pole. This may be the clue that positive charge is a product of electromagnetic energy absorved by the black hole, and then broken down, per the Feynman model, into positive and negative charge, with negative absorbed and positive repelled by the maximum gravity of the black hole. If so, then a black hole is where this charge duality is first evident, as attractive if opposites, and repelling if the same. This may mean that positively charged ions streaming from the polar axii of black holes are already programmed to repel, since charge value of proton = g = 1, being a maximum value, is already incapable of absorbing more of this energy. As a maximum value, at least philosophically, it must repel, if 'one', per g = 1, is the greatest possible totality of this event.
Ivan
By G-man767 on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 09:56 pm:
"The End of Time." I sort of grasp what you mean when you suay there's no
'beginning,' in terms of a precise space-time point. In other words, it must rely on
our epistemic attribution, which can only rely on arbitrary designates. However,
I'm curious of your take on "Backward Causality"?:) G-ma
By J____ on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 02:50 am:
Methinks Backward Causality to some extent is so deeply metaphysical in context it is impossible to comprehend such a mechanism; however, rooted deep in theory as was derived by Feynman in 1948 with his antiparticle demonstration suggested that antiparticles could be viewed as particles traveling backward in time.
Frankly, I don’t buy into Backward Causality since for such a phenomena to occur at first demands Time be considered as an entity. There is much ballyhoo today about light traveling faster than c, and arriving at a location forward of its origination point before it departed the origin … although curious I do not foresee such demonstration as relevant whereas pertaining to reality. The past is gone the future is yet to come, and we are evermore trapped inside of a perpetual never ending now. The past has become artifacts within our memory as we move forward into the future now waiting to manifest before us, which it never does.
Back to Feynman – what I honestly believe he observed was an illusion.
J____
By Ivan A. on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 12:53 pm:
1. the universe is so incredibly complex that it appears both chaotic and simple, as the living coral of Tahiti, or white beaches, coral sands, infinite yet understandable, inviting.
2. smiles on human faces are deeper than mere intelligence, and the Tahitians smile a great deal.
3. not all sensible things are smarter, some heart things are better.
4. distant deep blue sapphire waves over the coral of aqua blue lagoon, under a hot sun in a great cloud painted sky, while just lying in the water, while manta rays glide by, makes time stand still...
5. every fish guards his or her territory fiercely, except in times of stress, then they share it temporarily, uneasily until they claim it home alone again, just like humans.
6. money makes no sense in Polynesia, gift giving is better understood, and the prices are out to lunch, but they take it cheerfully.
7. lying on the beautiful beaches of Moorea is like dreaming, where love and beauty and truth and illusion are all rolled into a happy whole that makes no sense.
8. going home from paradise is difficult, but too much paradise is difficult too, for it is a place easy to fall in love with.
9. Cinzia got chased by a morey eel and grew wiser for it, but loved every moment in the blue lagoon waters, especially when the fishes gave eye contact through the mask.
...did we dream this, or were we really there?
Ivan
By Anonymous on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 11:52 am:
Is there any question this is a wonderful Universe?
By Hehe on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 12:51 pm:
This BBC Science article Galaxy has mystery star clusters may be the best evidence yet why a universe spawned of a Big Bang may be no more than myth. Here is why:
If light from 12 billions light years away is close to the origin of the Bang, then from that distance we are 12 billion light years away, which for 'them' we're at the origin of the Bang. This makes us 12 billion years old! This is indeed what the above article seems to say, that the globular clusters in a diffuse halo of our Milky Way are 12 billion years old. So if our end of space is 12 billion years old (at least), same as the light coming from 12 billion light years away, then what happened ? If both here and there, 12 billion light years apart, are the center of the universe (all points in a universe postulated by the Big Bang are its center) then using light as a measure of time makes no sense, since every point is already 12 billions years old, at least. In effect, if the universe expanded in the past 12 billion years by at least 12 billion light years, and we ride that same crest of expansion as do our most distant 'neighbors', then 'they' may be thinking that we are near the origin of the Big Bang (assuming they have postulated the same) just as we think they are.
So here is the paradox: We cannot be at the 'origin' region of the Big Bang because we are on the margin of space expanding from us, and conversely 'they' cannot be near the origin either, because for them we're the origin while they're on the margin of expansion. Interesting? The Big Bang would have to have started over 12 billion years ago at every point in space at the same time, so we're all at the point of origin, all are over 12 billion years old, and all are at the present margin of expansion. And this all at the same time! So what does it mean? Why bother to look 12 billion light years away for the early universe if it's already here? We're it! By this reason, the paradox boils down to this: If there was NO Big Bang, then we need to look at the most distant reaches of space to see the early universe; conversely, if there WAS a Big Bang, then we do not need to, since we're it. By this paradox, this makes the Bang Bust.
Hehe :)
By Ivan A. on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 04:25 pm:
Of course, the real crux of the problem is that we cannot see our past era from where we are located, except at a distance. However, what we do see at 12 billion light years away may not be so different fom what we see here, if the paradox is right and the universe had no expansion, no BB. The only real difference is that light reaching us from those distant places is so red-shifted-stretched that the images get a little blurry, and at some point fail altogether. We may think we're looking into our past, but this may be no more than an illusion of how light works over cosmic distances. Paradox aside, if the universe is infinite in both space and time, none of it matters anyway, and we are merely seeing what we want to see... hah ha!
:-))
By Hehe on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 11:20 am:
Though short on details, it looks like infrared Spitzer space borne telescope is finding fully formed stars just after the Big Bang, at an estimate 600 millions post BB. Does this push back the time of the postulated Big Bang, or is it the first domino to fall in a long string that will end in a Big Bust? My guess, if we used a microwave telescope, we would look into BB minus time, before the supposed origin of the universe. Should we coin a new cosmology term: BBBT, or Big Bang Bust Theory?
Space.com: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050405_first_stars.html
Spitzer Space Telescope:
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/spitzer/index.shtml
NASA Spiter photos:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_101_sirtf.html
eh he?
By Ivan A. on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 05:03 pm:
The question is, are we seeing what we think we're seeing? Or are those little red smudges only the brightest galaxies caught by infrared, at distances where such waves are already too thin to see instrumentally? There may be others at same distance now virtually invisible to us, and many more behind those totally invisible to us. If the universe is infinite, as I suspect is the case, and not constrained within the dimensions of a mythic BigBang, then there is no need to put a time or distance constraint on the galaxies, since they pre-existed the BigBang and stretch in all directions to infinity. The universe cannot collapse because it is not finite, so gravity is isotropically balanced in all directions, so no one direction dominates over another, and likely at levels in very deep space that have G at orders of magnitude greater than our Earth's 1G, at 1AU.
From the Beginning - there was no Beginning. Big Bang, WMAP, Dark Energy cum Dark Matter, deep space Strings, etc., they're all "pie in the sky."
Ivan