michel123456

You are describing as if the observer was in a dark room and opened his eyes. As if the room existed before its discovery. In other words, stars & galaxies have been there where there are, and we are discovering a universe that preexisted but was opaque. If that is the Big Bang Theory, then i have to fight more. So, No. I understand your point and under your assumption, your description is correct, but it's not o.k. so far. BTW, in this case, you must agree with sketch A. (I guess, because for expansion, the inside circle is the newer, and the outside circle is the older) And also, you description states that our cosmic horizon grows over time. I don't know if we have any evidence supporting this.

from "Here's a fun little fact for you. After clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky," look up at the url bar. You're no longer on google. A guy posted a false google page onto albinoblacksheep, and put "french military victories" in the code enough times that it will always come up as the top search when you look for those terms in google, hence why it comes up when you click "I'm Feeling Lucky." But don't let this ruin the fun, instead use it to appreciate the comical ingenuity of the guy who did it. BBoyFury"

O.K. O.K. O.K. Yes. And what we see is the actual event. We are looking at the large CMBR (on your last diagram, the one on the right), and you must label it "young universe". The "young " is not the left diagram. I'll try to explain my point otherwise: 1.In Euclidian geometry, there is a relation between inside and outside. Outside is bigger than inside. Take 2 concentric circles (the one inside the other). The outside circle is bigger than the inside circle(looks like tautology). 2.What I say is that the CMBR circle is outside us. Thus, CMBR circle is bigger than us (and not smaller than us). 3. What I say is that CMBR is not an old circle. What I say is that CMBR is a young circle.* 4.The only way to make statement1.false, is to turn Euclidian geometry inside-out. But IMHO it is a nonsense to turn Euclidian geometry inside-out for the sake of an observation based itself on Euclidian geometry: expansion. If you disagree with points 1 & 2 , I don't know what else to say... *after reading my own post, maybe this point needs an explanation. When we say "the age of the Universe is 13,7 billions years", it means that "our present time is 13,7 billions years old". In other words, 13,7 billions years is our age comparative to the time of the BB. What we are observing is not 13,7 billions years old. As much we look far away, as much we look in the past. What we see in the CMBR is not the picture of an old man. What we see is the picture of a young man. That's the reason why UDFy-38135539 is considered a young galaxy.

To be seen in tv serie Numb3rs, season 4, Tabu episode, at the end (time 39.19).

The succession of the 2 diagrams suggests that in some sort CMBR grew from one situation to the other as in the stone-in-the-lake analogy. This is not the way it goes. If CMBR was small (left side) 13,7 billion years ago, we should observe it that way today, because we observe today what was going on 13,7 billion years ago. And we are not observing a small CMBR ring. As I said above, the outer ring is younger than the inside ring. In Universe's history, the larger ring comes before the smaller ones. The story goes from the outside to the inside. The story goes from the larger ring to the smaller ring. Not from the small to the big.

There are other explanations: _this is not a 1928 movie. The panel announcing the Charlie Chaplin movie is inside an antique shop, from which the zebra has been placed in the foreground. The 2 people in the movie are today's actors. In other words, its a fake. _it is 1928 movie. The 2 people are figurants in front of a whole team behind the camera. It is shot nr118 and the director has lost his temper. After the previous shot, he smashed the lady on her left ear ( he used his right hand) because she don't follow his instructions. Shot 118 is a failure too, because the lady keeps her hand in an unusual manner upon her ear grumbling against the director, but it is the only shot saved. The director, furious, destroyed all the rest.

No. We have no representation of the "present universe". What we observe is the universe in the past.

Emphasis mine. Or it is a person who believes having a conversation. The partner is gone but she didn't realize that. But if you want delirium: 1.it is an alien. (from Mars) . Her other seven arms are hidden under her clothes, and the antennas are under her hat. She is chasing another alien (from venus, the man who walks before her. He has no face. 2.it is a human coming from Atlantida (deep in the middle of the Atlantic ocean). She is a spy speaking with her chiefs in a submarine out the coast of California. 3. It is a member of the CIA. As everybody knows, cellular phones have been invented in 1900 in a secret american laboratory hidden in a mountain in Washington State. It has been considered as a military secret for almost a century. My sources for this allegation are at the Municipal Library of Atlantida mentionned above. 4. It is a human from a civilization gone from Earth 35.000 years ago to Alpha Centauris, and coming back from time to time to see what happens. Note: none of the above need time travel.

"Phonophor (S&H) - 1913 The hearing device with telephone for wear in the ear. In the picture the hearing aid rests in the lady's handbag." From Here

A goat, right. In french, "boucher" (butcher) means etymologically "the one who kills goat (bouc)". The goat may be a symbol.(i found somewhere that the goat was a symbol used in the French 2nd Empire, but I lost my source...) The figure reminds also a soldier of Napoleonian epoch. Maybe the peculiar scheme means it was part of a bigger representation. Where does it come from? Nothing further to say.

1.Right. I am measuring the distance between A & B. Because as much as I can understand, A & B were close together at the time of the BB. (And C and E and Earth were together) 2. In all space-time diagrams I have seen, following the BB hypothesis, the Universe is smaller in the past: Galaxies A & B were closer together, and I think it is not what we are observing. 3.Hubble's Law says that the further are the galaxies, the more distanced they are. Right. So I am asking, how come that this observation (in which I agree) drives to a theory that says exactly the contrary, that galaxies were together in the past? 4. the average distance between E & B is an interesting feature, but I am not aware of such information, it does not come out of Spyman's diagram for example, and IIRC the Universe is considered homogeneous and isotropic at large scale. It has nothing to do with my objections on the BBT. Here we are. We do not see the same thing. Emphasis mine (counts for the followings too). I completely disagree with you. The movie do not show the Universe TODAY. It shows the universe that we are observing today from the Earth, as it was some time ago. The "time-ago" feature expands in the past as much we go far away in distance. When we reach the limits of our observable universe, at time 3,36 in the movie, we are closer to the Big Bang than we are today. It is a travel in the past, not only a travel in space. Or you have your eyes closed, or I cannot explain what I am seeing. In a single question, which is bigger, the Earth, or the entire Universe?----- Exactly. Here we agree. And here I understand that I cannot make myself clear. What you don't understand is exactly the same as my objection upon the BBT. I am claiming that observation is that the rings grow when we go back in time, and that the analogy of the rock throwned into a lake is exactly the contrary of observation. How to say it otherways? in the rock-in-the-lake analogy, the waves moving outwards are going forward in time, of course. Well, our observation don't go like that. Our observation go backward in time. I hope here below a simple way to explain my point of vue: in the rock-in-the-lake analogy, the outer wave is the oldest. In our observation of the Universe, the outer wave is the youngest.

Hm. So a single event, a singularity(???), happened "everywhere"(???) simultanitly(???), autocreating(???) itself together with space & time. That makes sense (to others, not to me). BB happened here where I sit, there where the galaxies go round, and there where you are, inside your brain. Most probably only there... To me it is not physics anymore, there are too many question marks. you didn't answer this one: That galaxies were once twice the distance we are observing far away from each other. And that happened a few moments after the supposed BB. And the farther we go in observation, the more far away from each other are such galaxies. To me, it is incomprehensible. The closer we get to the BB time, the more far away are objects from each other. It should be the contrary, isn't it?

Oh, I thought you knew everything. It's a joke. Of course. UDFy-38135539 is 13,1 billions years away from the earth. UDFy-38135539 is 0,6 billion year from the BB The BB is 13,7 billions years away from the Earth. That is what i call the BB range. BTW when you say "It's everywhere at once." speaking about the BB: I don't know what you mean by that.

The Big Bang has a range of 13,7 billion years.

Do it again. And again. And again. You'll be out of range of the Big Bang. (edit: I think you are already) I guess you ment billions, not millions. You can also draw UDFy-38135539 And many other UDFies out of range of the BB.

Take a sheet of paper and draw it.

Obviously, we don't understand each other. For example, how is it possible that the CMBR has a radius in the first place? Look back at sketch B. The past is outside. We are inside the bang (how to call it?). The past is always bigger than the present. Is that compatible with the BBT? That doesn't bother you. That galaxies were once twice the distance we are observing far away from each other. And that happened a few moments after the supposed BB. And the farther we go in observation, the more far away from each other are such galaxies. To me, it is incomprehensible. The closer we get to the BB time, the more far away are objects from each other. It should be the contrary, isn't it?

Things "are" not of different colors. Things have the color of the light that fall on it. If you take a red lamp and light an object, the object gets red. If the light is blue, the object gets blue. Only when the light is white (solar light that contains all visible wavelengths) the object reflects some color, and absorbs some other, as explained Swansont.

I can go back in time (virtually) in several directions. I can go back in time and encounter galaxy UDFy-38135539 3,1 billions LY away. And I can go back in time through another galaxy, also 3,1 billions LY away, in the opposite direction. Those 2 galaxies are not close together, although they belong to the same past. And the further I go in the past, the further away from each other will be such kind of galaxies. Are you claiming that if we could look at the "sphere" in an even further past, it was smaller and smaller? I am claiming that the sphere gets bigger as much we go in the past.

I'll tell you what i see. This video is a travel at inimaginable speed IN THE PAST, for the first half, ant then a travel FORWARD IN TIME for the second half. Back in time, what are we observing? An incommensurable sphere of about 13 109 LY radius. Something big. Nothing to do with a singularity or nothing getting smaller, but something getting bigger & bigger as much we go back in time. Inside this sphere (which is not really a sphere but only "perceived-by-us-as-a-sphere"), within, we have the laws of physics, gravity, interactions, speed of light: everything is "normal". And then suddenly, everything changes: _in order to put this "sphere" in place in only a few millions years, we need superluminal speed (according to inflation theory). _we also need a mechanism: repulsive gravity.(according to inflation theory). _and we need suddenly to "observe" this "sphere" shrinking" (because we go backward in time) till it becomes a "singularity". In other words, at the moment we lose any observation, laws of physics change, and better, observation itself changes. InMyVeryHumble opinion, the BBT is all pure nonsense.

This is observation. Look at this presentation made by the American Museum of Natural History (secure), make a stop in the middle, at 3min 36sec, it is a travel in the past, and it's the believed time of the Big Bang. What do you see?

It is quite difficult to prove the non-existence of something. It means if graviton does not exist, we can wait for centuries and still looking for it. The right way to deal with the problem should be (IMHO) to send a large part of scientists to find another path on a theoretical point of vue. Searching for a Theory where no graviton is needed.

Yes.

This is ridiculous.

What is the representation? As I see it at low analysis, the man is represented backside, keeping a deer in one hand, and a knife in the other, ready to kill it. It doesn't look like a hunter, I see no other weapon, and the tall hat suggests some kind of profession (soldier, but he wears no boots?). Does he wear an apron? Also the peculiar scheme makes me think of application on irregular surface. The hand of the device suggests it was heated before use. The horn is very intriguing. Maybe it was a lever for pushing harder. The whole makes me think of some butcher instrument for marking meat product, like gigot (lamb leg). Just a guess.