michel123456

I was wondering what was the Observable Universe in the old times : If we were the inhabitants of a young Galaxy, only 600 million years after the Big Bang, what would have been our Observable Universe look like? On the basis of standard cosmology.

It is not obvious from the way your blog is presented. The lists of subjects is immense. you should at least mention clitoridectomy.

Thank you for the hint. You're right again, I was pissed. But there is something else if my post. Correct me but gravity don't seem to work on the basis of positive/negative concept. Everything is positive.

You are right. I am a Neanderthal and I can only understand reality in terms of bones and sand. I don't even understand what positive and negative means (negative bone???) and "negative charge" has no meaning to me. A "positive bone" being attracted by a "negative bone" ??? In my world, all bones are positives (or simply they "are") and attract each other. Don't bother, I' am returning in my cave.

In some other thread, I assumed it could happen if you turn Time backward. If you take a movie of a particle hitting another one, and then look at the movie backward, what would you see? But the idea was debunked. Gravity is attractive under time reversal everybody say. So I agree with you I cannot see how it is possible to have an attractive particle.

Max.

If it is a bot, it is intelligent. If it is a person, it is not.

Agree. My opinion is: _It is a huge problem for science. Each gap in knowledge is an open door to imbecility. So scientists are too many times obliged to fill the gaps with "serious nonsenses", instead of declaring simply "we don't know, still searching". The 'still searching" is not politically correct. You can say it between scientists, but not to the outside world. _the other "politicaly correct" problem is that scientific investigation should not care a dam about what "politically correct" is or not. It may happen that scientific evidences are awful. If Evolution theory show that life is a jungle where the strong eat the weak alive, I see no reason why we should act in such a way, or why we should blindly the stupid fellow that makes us act following some "scientific truth". Mr hawking would be dead now, and who knows how many Archimedes, Newtons & Einsteins have been killed stupidly along the innumerable wars & treatable diseases humans have endured so far. The rest of the discussion has absolutely no interest to me, but it may have for other members. Go on.

For a reason I cannot recall, the thread about suspended & banned users is in my personnal "My content". That's the reason I was informed & looked at what happened.

Helloo-ho. Cabin cannot answer. Although I disagree completely with his opinion(s), it is not fair to continue this thread since he cannot answer. Point 1 of dragon's made me laugh.

"Frenchman invents anti-Photoshop to detect digital deceit"

In any case it is rather stupid to throw opinons on a book you have not read. Mea culpa, I acted stupidly too.

The 'cause" of the universe may simply be its irreducibility: less than the universe is nothing, nothing cannot exist, there is the Universe.CQFD (QED)

I noticed today a member has been banned. It should be useful to mention it in threads open by this member. Specifically Cabinintheforest has been asked to answer a question in "atheistic intelligent design" under Speculations. He won't be able to answer. The active members of the thread should be informed. I don't know if it is possible to do that without an immense headache...

Cabin has been banned.

IMHO "nothing" is an abstract, not a physical reality. The void that we encounter in the Universe is far from being "nothing". The void is full as an egg. What we call "nothing" has never been observed anywhere, since we always observe "something". The concept of "nothingness creating something" is the search of physical reality arising from an abstract (IMHO again), and IMHO againagain, it is not the right way to go. The right way to go consists IMHO againagainagain to examine exactly what are the properties of this "nothingness" and to exclude it defenetly from the physical world, stating for example that "nothingness cannot exist" for α.β.γ... reasons. This would erase the word 'creation' once for all from the scientific language. At the risk of course to change actual cosmological explanations. IMHO againagainagainagain.

Emphasis mine on our point of divergence. This point is in the past, not in the present time. I quit.

Sorry Martin for not using the right terminology. I am seriously trying to find a grip somewhere, a base you would accept for you to consider my arguments, at least a little bit. Insisting on Sisyphus, basis on standard cosmology terms: On the left; the Earth. (call it "E") On the right, the Observer 45 billions LY away (call it "O"). E & O are on mutual simultanate present time, as stated by Sisyphus who made the diagram. The red circle around the Earth is supposed to represent CMBR from Earth's perpective. Michel is asking: how is it possible that O stands on E's CMBR? If O stands on Earth's CMBR, then O is in the past of E, not in the present of E, as originally stated.

There is no 'present time" in any of those diagrams. What each observer sees is in the past. Once you talk about distance, you talk about time as well. There is no distance without time, and there is no time without distance. And I still consider there is a problem in Sisyphus's diagram. It may be understandable (i did understand what he meant, until I compared with Spyman's). _look: 2 observators in the same present cannot observe each other: they can only observe each other's past. It is a basic of spacetime. The Alien waving hand on UDFy-38135539 cannot see us: we are in his future. He is waving to another planet in his past. And in order to see planet earth, another distant galaxy must be in our future: they can see us (supposition), we can't see them. Don't ask me what I think CMBR is. We won't agree. For me it is a horizon: each observator no matter his place, no matter his time, will observe the same CMBR., or in other words, CMBR is relative to the observator. For all of you it is an event that happened at a specific time after the BB. It is an absolute event that happened "everywhere" at the same time. And I am trying desesperatly to show the problems that arise from considering CMBR as an absolute event. Shoot me. You disagree with the "small CMBR". It is not my invention. from post #46 (sketch missing, too bad) from post #56 Emphasis mine. I understand that, following BBT, CMBR appears small (small radius) for objects close to it (in time), and large for objects far away from it(in time).

And I added "And a very young Earth was observing a smaller CMBR." In other words, when the great CMBR circle is centered on the Galaxy, the second circle centered on the Earth is small. And inversely when the big circle is centered on the Earth, the galaxy observes a small CMBR. There exist no situation with 2 big circles as presented on the sketch. If I understand correctly.

could you re-post your sketch here?

That is the reason why I wrote that your sketch on post # 30, page 2 of this thread, was not compatible with Spyman's diagram. I hope I am not the only one here to be confused with this post.

At the risk of sending this thread in another direction: the same, and worse, goes for the image in the mirror. If you look in a mirror not in front of you, but at an angle, in such manner that you can see another person, a friend of yours, you will see the image of your friend upon the mirror, and your friend will see your image upon the same object at the same time. Which of the image is "real"?

So, as I can understand, following the Theory, an observer located at some point of our sphere of CMBR (i.e. UDFy-38135539 in the past) would not see CMBR at our location, but much closer to him. That observer would be in our past, obligatory. An observer located on the same Galaxy today would observe the same CMBR as we do and would observe a very young Earth as it was 13billions years ago if the Earth existed at this time. And a very young Earth was observing a smaller CMBR. Correct?

I learned something today.