Radio Telescope Proves a Big Bang Prediction

[lithium.]

This is also really cool.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/02/020920.polarization-nyt.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/s...edu/citations/02/020920.polarization-nyt.html

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Cool,

Nice to know that we are getting alot closer with our ideas about the universe.

 

[Sinai]

Thanks for the post and the link, seesaw. That was quite interesting.

 

[Hank]

I don't believe in the Big Bang.

The radiation is polarized, fine. It should then identify the point where the Big Bang started. On the other hand our Universe expands equally between any given points; the expansion can not identify the Big Bang’s location. In fact Andromeda is moving towards us. - If that point, Big Bang, gave us those radiation signals, why do we still receive them? They should be billions of light years away from us. Or is this radiation is still active and identifies a given center of the Universe. Or, are those waves detected billions of light years away from us?

Any cosmologist out there, care to explain the paradox?

Also it says
At least a tenfold increase in sensitivity is needed to detect the signature of inflation in the cosmic background, so-called gravitational waves that would ripple space itself, according to Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Einstein never ever said anything about, that gravity exists let alone can be detected as a particle. Any gismo detecting this would be a miracle to say the least, or how do they expect to detect space-time affects in the first place?

 

[Live!]

Originally posted by Hank



Einstein never ever said anything about, that gravity exists

How can gravity not exist?

 

[Morat]

The radiation is polarized, fine. It should then identify the point where the Big Bang started. On the other hand our Universe expands equally between any given points; the expansion can not identify the Big Bang’s location

  SOMEONE doesn't know jack about the Big Bang. There was no "starting point" for the Big Bang, just as there is no 'center' to the universe or the expansion thereof.

   The Big Bang was an expansion of space-time itself. To locate a starting point would require you to locate a point unrelated to ordinary space-time. A massive violation of relativity.

   Imagine the surface of a deflated ballon. Mark several points on the balloon. Now inflate it. Each of those points moves away from the others at the same rate. Which one was at the center? How can you find the 'point where the balloon started expanding' when your reference system is locked to the surface of the balloon?

In fact Andromeda is moving towards us.

  So? And quite a few things are moving towards the Great Attractor. Do you think the ongoing expansion of the universe is the only force in existance?

 - If that point, Big Bang, gave us those radiation signals, why do we still receive them?

  It's the cosmic microwave background. It's the echo of the Big Bang, and it'll be everywhere you look at the same temperature, because it's the leftoever energy of the initial event.

They should be billions of light years away from us. Or is this radiation is still active and identifies a given center of the Universe.

  There is no center of the universe. Everything is expanding in every direction at the same speed. The CMB should be everywhere. That was the prediction, that was the verification.

Or, are those waves detected billions of light years away from us?

Any cosmologist out there, care to explain the paradox?

  Yes. You don't know jack about the Big Bang. It says a lot about how little you know that you are making these claims. You are taking a prediction of the Big Bang, and claiming it should be something else. To put it bluntly: Cosmologists working with just the Big Bang theory, worked out that if it were true you would see the CMB in every direction, at the same temperature. And that's what they found, years later.

  So, when you come along and claim the Big Bang should show something different, it's not hard to decide where the problem lies.

   I can point you to some excellent books, if you want.

 

 

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Live!
How can gravity not exist?

It's part of the equivalent statement from Einstein. Where we can observe acceleration only but not gravity, as expalined by Newton.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Morat
  SOMEONE doesn't know jack about the Big Bang. There was no "starting point" for the Big Bang, just as there is no 'center' to the universe or the expansion thereof.

   The Big Bang was an expansion of space-time itself. To locate a starting point would require you to locate a point unrelated to ordinary space-time. A massive violation of relativity.

   Imagine the surface of a deflated ballon. Mark several points on the balloon. Now inflate it. Each of those points moves away from the others at the same rate. Which one was at the center? How can you find the 'point where the balloon started expanding' when your reference system is locked to the surface of the balloon? 

  It's the cosmic microwave background. It's the echo of the Big Bang, and it'll be everywhere you look at the same temperature, because it's the leftoever energy of the initial event. 

  There is no center of the universe. Everything is expanding in every direction at the same speed. The CMB should be everywhere. That was the prediction, that was the verification. 

  Yes. You don't know jack about the Big Bang. It says a lot about how little you know that you are making these claims. You are taking a prediction of the Big Bang, and claiming it should be something else. To put it bluntly: Cosmologists working with just the Big Bang theory, worked out that if it were true you would see the CMB in every direction, at the same temperature. And that's what they found, years later.

  So, when you come along and claim the Big Bang should show something different, it's not hard to decide where the problem lies.


   I can point you to some excellent books, if you want. 

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So space-time is expanded by matter? Your balloon is a correct analysis at least that is how I also understand our universe. How did matter manage to expand space–time?

And yes, I do know jack poopoo about the Big Bang. Every time I start reading it I get a headache. Now is your chance to enlighten me. I know QM and Relativity 'cause I studied it. So your attempt is not totally hopeless. Before you give me more books to read, just answer me one question,
If the Big Bang was not a local event, and you inevitably will have to show me that matter expands space-time; which is that we observed already, - is cosmic radiation a result of the expansion or the Big Bang?

On one hand I have to accept matured galaxies and quasars at the outskirts of the cosmos; but expansion, radiation and the curvature of space in the same context as space time. The problem here lies that radiation is matter, it should be observed in the same way as other matter. In other words it seems radiation is used in a logical fallacy.

Also what exaclty does 'the Universe has no center' mean? To you mean space time or matter?

 

 

[Soul_Searcher]

Morat, one question. You said, "There is no center of the universe. Everything is expanding in every direction at the same speed. The CMB should be everywhere. That was the prediction, that was the verification." If there was a Big Bang, shouldn't there be a center where everything is expanding away from? I realize there are gravitational forces which will cause exceptions, but still, from a layman's perspective, there should be some kind of ground zero.

Oh, and try to be a bit less judgmental, ok? (Yes. You don't know jack about the Big Bang. It says a lot about how little you know that you are making these claims.)

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by Hank
I don't believe in the Big Bang.

I'm happy for you, but you do realise that not believing in a theory has no bearing on whether that theory is ture or not.

The radiation is polarized, fine. It should then identify the point where the Big Bang started. On the other hand our Universe expands equally between any given points; the expansion can not identify the Big Bang’s location.

You do realise that space as we know it did not exist before the BB and thus there is no point that we can point to as the "center" since everywhere is the "center". Again the BB is not, I repeat NOT, a standard explosion.

In fact Andromeda is moving towards us. -

You do realise that the Adromeda galixy is orbiting the Milkyway I hope. Infact it is in a decaying orbit and will eventualy hit us.

If that point, Big Bang, gave us those radiation signals, why do we still receive them? They should be billions of light years away from us. Or is this radiation is still active and identifies a given center of the Universe. Or, are those waves detected billions of light years away from us?

Again, the BB is NOT a standatd explosion at all. So these paradoxes only exist in your mind because you have never bothered to learn about the subject.

Also it says
At least a tenfold increase in sensitivity is needed to detect the signature of inflation in the cosmic background, so-called gravitational waves that would ripple space itself, according to Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Einstein never ever said anything about, that gravity exists let alone can be detected as a particle. Any gismo detecting this would be a miracle to say the least, or how do they expect to detect space-time affects in the first place?

And where did it say that they were looking for a gravity particle? They are looking for ripples caused by the effects of gravity. Again there only seems to be a problem here because you did not bother trying to understand the subject before you started babbling.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
I'm happy for you, but you do realise that not believing in a theory has no bearing on whether that theory is ture or not.

If a theory contains fallacies I opt not to believe the concept.

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
You do realise that space as we know it did not exist before the BB and thus there is no point that we can point to as the "center" since everywhere is the "center". Again the BB is not, I repeat NOT, a standard explosion.

That's why they call it the Big Bang, is it not?

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
You do realise that the Adromeda galixy is orbiting the Milkyway I hope. Infact it is in a decaying orbit and will eventualy hit us.

Thus the expansion of the universe is not to be mistaken with expansions known on earth.

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Again, the BB is NOT a standatd explosion at all. So these paradoxes only exist in your mind because you have never bothered to learn about the subject.

Morat made similar claims. Somewhere he suggested books. You or Morat name one or two books which I should study. The last time I earnestly reviewed the Big Bang was ten years ago. There is the remote possibility I missed something. Once I have reviewed those I make a post with my findings.

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
And where did it say that they were looking for a gravity particle? They are looking for ripples caused by the effects of gravity. Again there only seems to be a problem here because you did not bother trying to understand the subject before you started babbling.

Again without actually overcoming my statement you just say I don't understand. LOL How do you know? I wrote in the next sentence "Any gismo detecting this would be a miracle to say the least, or how do they expect to detect space-time affects in the first place?" Thus how can you detect a wave if it is not composed of particles? Think about it. What are gravity waves? How do we detect them now, and how do those scientist hope to detect them if their gismo is twenty times more sensitive?

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by Hank
Morat made similar claims. Somewhere he suggested books. You or Morat name one or two books which I should study. The last time I earnestly reviewed the Big Bang was ten years ago. There is the remote possibility I missed something. Once I have reviewed those I make a post with my findings.

G'day Hank,

I am a complete layman with regard to physics, so may I suggest a book that I have found invaluable in getting my head around this stuff?

Stephen Hawking's An Illustrated History of Time is an excellent book for the knowledge deficient, such as myself, and might be a good read for you. (Although perhaps your understanding of physics is a bit more advanced than mine).

Cheers,

Prax

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Sinai
Thanks for the post and the link, seesaw. That was quite interesting.

No Problem, i think its about time that they finally proved that the big band really happened.  Now that this is real people will have to get used to more discoveries like this, and i can't wait i love everything space.  But alot of people will still not believe that the big bang really happened they will only believe what is in the bible.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by seesaw
alot of people will still not believe that the big bang really happened they will only believe what is in the bible.

But seesaw, the big bang theory does not contradict the Bible. The scriptures tell us that in the beginning, God created the universe. The scientific evidence supporting the big bang confirms that there was a beginning--just as the Bible said thousands of years ago. Remember that until very recently, most scientists held to the steady state theory that the universe had no beginning.

 

[lithium.]

the big bang theory is a few 100 years old

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
G'day Hank,

I am a complete layman with regard to physics, so may I suggest a book that I have found invaluable in getting my head around this stuff?

Stephen Hawking's An Illustrated History of Time is an excellent book for the knowledge deficient, such as myself, and might be a good read for you. (Although perhaps your understanding of physics is a bit more advanced than mine).

Cheers,

Prax

1 - Forget you are a layman. It does not take much to read. If one can read the funny pages of a news paper one can read physics. There are only a few laws in Physics, everything else  is derived from those basics laws. The key is to follow methodically if those laws are correctly interpreted. It is the same as looking at the main character of a cartoon. If the people depicting the story are drawing the main character consistently you got a story. If the drawers alter the features of the main character: 'you ain't got no story no how'.

2 - I will read the book. It says here it's updated.

 

 

[Sinai]

The big bang theory was largely devised in the late 1920s by physicist Georges Lemaitre, who proposed that the universe had originated in a primeval atom. After World War II ushered in the atomic age with two atomic bomb blasts, physicist George Gamow (who had worked on the bomb project) proposed that the universe had originated in a similar original cataclysm. He reworked Lemaitre's original theory, and the Lemaitre-Gamow primeval atom theory began to be taken more seriously, though a large portion of the scientific community continued to follow the steady state theory, which argued that the universe had no beginning and had always existed. In fact, the term "big bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle (a leading proponent of the steady state theory) as a derisive jab at the primeval atom theory...and the label stuck.

The big bang theory did not become almost universally accepted in the scientific community until after 1964, which was when Penzias and Wilson stumbled onto what became known as cosmic background radiation.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by seesaw
the big bang theory is a few 100 years old

Oh

 

[Morat]

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So space-time is expanded by matter? Your balloon is a correct analysis at least that is how I also understand our universe. How did matter manage to expand space–time?

  No. That isn't true, nor is it what I said. In fact, I never mentioned matter at all. The Big Bang was an expansion of space-time. Originally, there was no matter (it was way too hot). When matter finally did show up, it was already moving at the same clip as the expansion of space.

If the Big Bang was not a local event, and you inevitably will have to show me that matter expands space-time; which is that we observed already, - is cosmic radiation a result of the expansion or the Big Bang?

  If you have read, you haven't understood, or have injected your own reasonings into it. As you have injected "matter expanding space-time" into my explanation. I said no such thing, yet you keep adding it in.

   The Cosmic Background Radiation is an the cooling heat from the initial high-energy state of the Big Bang. In other words, when the universe was small, hot, and dense. As it cooled, it would cool more or less uniformaly, but you could still see some of the original heat. If space-time were expanding as predicted by the Big Bang, then you should see the CMB radiating at 3k everywhere you look.

 The problem here lies that radiation is matter, it should be observed in the same way as other matter. In other words it seems radiation is used in a logical fallacy.

  Radiation is not matter. It is emphatically not matter. In fact, if you asked for the opposite of matter, radiation would be a good choice (well, other than anti-matter). Matter can only be seen by reflected or emitted radiation in the first place.

Also what exaclty does 'the Universe has no center' mean? To you mean space time or matter?

   No, I mean it has no center. Matter has nothing to do with a coordinate system. Expand a balloon. Can you point to the center of the balloon, restricting yourself solely to the two dimensional plane that is the surface of the balloon? No, you can't.

   There is no "center" of a balloon on the surface of a ballon.

Soul_Searcher:

If there was a Big Bang, shouldn't there be a center where everything is expanding away from? I realize there are gravitational forces which will cause exceptions, but still, from a layman's perspective, there should be some kind of ground zero.

  No. See directly above. Or, even better, my post before this one where I spoke about it at more length.

Hank:

If a theory contains fallacies I opt not to believe the concept.

  Has it occured to you that the fallacies most likely exist in your own flawed understanding? Or do you think cosmologists are merely too stupid to see them?

That's why they call it the Big Bang, is it not?

  Um, no. The phrase was coined by a Jesuit. It's a nice term, but not very descriptive, save on the roughest level.

Morat made similar claims. Somewhere he suggested books. You or Morat name one or two books which I should study. The last time I earnestly reviewed the Big Bang was ten years ago. There is the remote possibility I missed something. Once I have reviewed those I make a post with my findings.

  Where did you review it? It's obvious nothing stuck with you, if you continue to view the Big Bang as an actual explosion. I suggest The Five Ages of the Universe and Voyage to the Great Attractor.

 - Forget you are a layman. It does not take much to read. If one can read the funny pages of a news paper one can read physics. There are only a few laws in Physics, everything else  is derived from those basics laws. The key is to follow methodically if those laws are correctly interpreted. It is the same as looking at the main character of a cartoon. If the people depicting the story are drawing the main character consistently you got a story. If the drawers alter the features of the main character: 'you ain't got no story no how'.

  Oh sweet lord. You really believe this, don't you? Do you even know the Standard Model? How versed are you on relativity? If a car traveling at light speed turned on it's headlights, how fast would a motionless observer think the light is going? What's the difference between rest mass, relativistic mass, and intertia? Do GPS satellites have to adjust for time dilation, and, if so, why? What were the three big predictions of relativity? Which one was just recently verified?

 

 

 

[Hector Medina]

Hank,

I 100% agree with you.

The Big Bang is a BIG DUD!


In Christ,

Hector