0 Velocity?

[J.C.MacSwell]

The CMB was predicted, but before the group that predicted it had the opportunity to finish constructing the equipment they neede[/b']d to observe it, it was discovered by accident by AT&T when they launched the first microwave communication satellites and noticed an annoying crackling in the background. They hired Penzias and Wilson to locate the source of the problem, which they did using the Horn Antenna at the Crawford Hill Bell Labs, and the rest is history.

 

Gamow predicted it about 20 years earlier.

[Johnny5]

The CMB was predicted, but before the group that predicted it had the opportunity to finish constructing the equipment they needed to observe it, it was discovered by accident by AT&T when they launched the first microwave communication satellites and noticed an annoying crackling in the background. They hired Penzias and Wilson to locate the source of the problem, which they did using the Horn Antenna at the Crawford Hill Bell Labs, and the rest is history.

 

At first they thought it was bird crap messing it up. They never tell you these things in the history books.

[geistkiesel]

The experiments were done some time ago past Andromeda and we're expecting results soon. Any Millenium now.

So, you are saying that I must wait for the data to arrive? Ok.

geistkiesel

[geistkiesel]

Since you couldn't observe such light' date=' by definition, there really can;t be direct evidence for it. But AFAIK it's consistent with the rest if the observations and with the theory.

 

Recessional velocities and the cosmic microwave background are evidence. Recessional velocities were observed, the CMB was predicted and then measured.[/quote']

Why could one not oberve the light eventually? And what is AFAIK?

 

Geistkiesel

[swansont]

Why could one not oberve the light eventually? And what is AFAIK?

 

Geistkiesel

 

AFAIK = as far as I know

 

If "in expanding space emitted light would forever be excluded from reaching any arbitrary point in space" were true, the light would, by definition, not reach the arbitrary point in space. It was your question, for crying out loud! Did you not understand it?

[geistkiesel]

In inertial space, yes. But AFAIK expanding space does not qualify.

You are claiming here that space is expanding at a rate that prevents the arrival of light at recognizable points in the universe, ever? If this were true then space as we observe it has mechanical properties and ergo must be expanding at speeds greater than the speed of light.

 

The superluminal response sounds like an argument slipped out from the Physical Obfuscation File.

 

Geistkiesel

[geistkiesel]

AFAIK = as far as I know

 

If "in expanding space emitted light would forever be excluded from reaching any arbitrary point in space" were true' date=' the light would, by definition, not reach the arbitrary point in space. It was your question, for crying out loud! Did you not understand it?[/quote']

I understood it completely. I was being polite and giving you and opportuinty to correct your mistake. So which part of the universe gets expanded, is this preduictable? Certainly not that space immediately surrounding us. I suppose the space here and there falls into an accelerated expansion mode occasionally, so we miss it, just like "dark matter".

Hey, maybe this is the proverbial "black hole" we have all not seen? What do you think?

 

I also brought up the point of the mechanical nature of space in the superluminal expansion paradigm. I don't recall any discussion from AE regarding this space expansion mode, but am familiar with BB models that do.

 

I asked the question on the theoretical density of the mechanical space. Any calculatuions toi share with us here?

 

Geistkiesel

[J.C.MacSwell]

You are claiming here that space is expanding at a rate that prevents the arrival of light at recognizable points in the universe' date=' ever? If this were true then space as we observe it has mechanical properties and ergo [b']must be expanding at speeds greater than the speed of light.

[/b]

The superluminal response sounds like an argument slipped out from the Physical Obfuscation File.

 

Geistkiesel

 

I think this is considered correct. It's a bit of a stretch, if you'll excuse the pun, but seems to be the most acceptable answer.

[geistkiesel]

Is there some experimental result that confirms the statement that in expanding space emitted light would forever be excluded from reaching any arbitrary point in space?

 

Here is the complete statement above that you shortened. Here is the direct question that you responded to:

 

Why could one not oberve the light eventually?

And here is your reply.

If "in expanding space emitted light would forever be excluded from reaching any arbitrary point in space" were true' date=' the light would, by definition, not reach the arbitrary point in space. It was your question, for crying out loud! Did you not understand it?[/quote']

 

Was there some particular need for the "crying out loud" bit? It seems that you are trying a subtle mechanism to make me appear as though I am some kind of kook, which I may very well be, but there is not evidence for this in my reasonable and rationally offered question for experimental evidence that confirmed

your

statement regarding space expansion, superluminal activity activity and disappearing light.

 

I repeat the question: Is there any scientific evidence that supports, or verifies, your expanding space statement "why one would never see the emitted light?

 

Geistkiesel

[geistkiesel]

I think this is considered correct. It's a bit of a stretch, if you'll excuse the pun, but seems to be the most acceptable answer.

I never forgive puns, it is a sign of weakness.

 

Guth's "Inflationary Universe" discusses this issue in depth and makes the point that SRT is not violated here (expanding space at orders of magnitude in excess of c) because it is

space

that is expanding not matter or mass. Each mass unit can look in 6 directrions and see mass moving away at speeds much greater than the SOL yet not feel a ripple of acceleration. I wont ask you to define the attributes of space, but for space to have an affect on motion and physical reality, of which space is a fundamental element, then one must necessarily apply oor assign mechanical properties to the space, unless some entity or source has a bag of space he just dumps on us. But the expansion of "nothing" makes no sense in a scientific discussion. I have objections re SRT, but the expansion conundrum exceeds SRT problems by orders of magnitude; there isn't enough { } to hold all my objections.

 

Geistkiesel

[swansont]

I understood it completely. I was being polite and giving you and opportuinty to correct your mistake. So which part of the universe gets expanded' date=' is this preduictable? Certainly not that space immediately surrounding us. I suppose the space here and there falls into an accelerated expansion mode occasionally, so we miss it, just like "dark matter".

Hey, maybe this is the proverbial "black hole" we have all not seen? What do you think?

 

I also brought up the point of the mechanical nature of space in the superluminal expansion paradigm. I don't recall any discussion from AE regarding this space expansion mode, but am familiar with BB models that do.

 

I asked the question on the theoretical density of the mechanical space. Any calculatuions toi share with us here?

 

Geistkiesel[/indent']

 

Not my field, so I have no calculations.

 

There was no mistake to correct. Just a logical inference from your statement. However, I do recall reading that the physical size of the observable universe is something like 75 billion LY, while being about 13.7 billion years old. That's due to the expansion. Anything past the observable point is, by definition, not observable, and presumably due to expansion that has not permitted light to reach us.

[geistkiesel]

Not my field' date=' so I have no calculations.

 

There was no mistake to correct. Just a logical inference from your statement. However, I do recall reading that the physical size of the observable universe is something like 75 billion LY, while being about 13.7 billion years old. That's due to the expansion. Anything past the observable point is, by definition, not observable, and presumably due to expansion that has not permitted light to reach us.[/quote']

Very interesting point. I have seen reports analyzing the galactic super clusters formed in huge walls separated by vast empty spaces. Some analysts conclude that these walls could not possibvly have formed within evern the most liberal and extended estimates of the universe's age. Numbers in the many multi decade of billions of years (60, 80 100) have been offered. Would it be a fair statement suggesting that the reason the 'massive walls' have not been on evrybody' s lips is from the '20 billion year" max estimate placed on the universe's age?

 

Or if not from expansion, the 75 kbillion years it could have resulted from a process consioderable diofferent than the BB, perhaps? Not knowing where the universe started, BB or otherwise leaves the gates of speculation wide open doesn't it?

 

Maybe soem day we will see the answer on television and then we will all know the same answer. Just kidding about this!.

Geistkiesel

[Saint]

Geistkiesel,

I think the problem is that people really need to hang onto the idea that space is "nothing". I mean, the idea that space is expanding was introduced, as far as I can tell, to explain how physical objects could be separating at FTL speeds. Now, if space is "something", especially something physical, with some mechanical properties that tie it to physical objects, things change. The whole reason that the idea of space expansion was proposed would be moot because space itself would be a physical reality (can't be separating from itself at FTL).

 

Somehow, they'll find a way to link physical reality to something non-physical. And when they do, that non-physical "thing" will be expanding:)

[geistkiesel]

Geistkiesel' date='

I think the problem is that people really need to hang onto the idea that space is "nothing". I mean, the idea that space is expanding was introduced, as far as I can tell, to explain how physical objects could be separating at FTL speeds. Now, if space is "something", especially something physical, with some mechanical properties that tie it to physical objects, things change. The whole reason that the idea of space expansion was proposed would be moot because space itself would be a physical reality (can't be separating from itself at FTL).

 

Somehow, they'll find a way to link physical reality to something non-physical. And when they do, that non-physical "thing" will be expanding:)[/quote']

As I remember Guth, the rapid expansion was necessary to avoid the problem of losing the perfect state of the mass too early in the expansion process; otherwise the expanding bubble would sputter out and collapse before all the massive objects could form.. I can follow your description of the "space" problem, but "they" that generated the expanding space construct, methinks have more than the problem with explanming their disjointed physics. You have touched the sensitivity button that will rub a sore spot for a long time to come as long as the space is treated so crudely as it ("it" being nothing) is.

 

Eventually , some scientists are going to begin openly challenging those who contrived the expanding space ("the expanding nothing") model to justify the model on physical grounds, or to discard the model, or to get out of the club. I don't see many getting

thrown out

of the club though, do you?

 

I can live comfortably with the occasional "kook" tag that gets pinned on me, though these "scientists" who appoint themselves the scientific integrity police (like the ones who 'triangled ' your post to me) are blind to the silliness of nothingness expanding for the convenience of a number of authors who have committed themselves professionally to writing BB treatises.

 

But you basically described all this. All those physicists who thought they were learning physics when they were juggling their mathematical models around with such cleverness are going to be one pissed off bunch of very unhappy campers. I can see it now: wild gangs of disgruntled mathematical physicists sneaking around in the middle of the night, peeking intro ramshakled hovels, tracking down their onetime graduate advisors with only "revenge" on their minds, or what is left of their minds. What if SRT turns out to being iincurable?

 

I propose that SRT be extended to include the psychological dynamics of mental activity. For instance, if various parts of the mental activity processes are separated in "mentality space" then persons that are "rapid of mind" in solving complex mathematical problems, yet "slow" on the physical analysis, for example, would feel discomforting stress as a direct result of the the schisms in the mental states that are generated when asymmetric dilation and contractions imbalances are such that the mental states of equilibrium become disturbed, skewed and disjointed. This is such a pathological condition that the afflicted scientists can be predicted to start falling down, in large numbers, confused and rambling wildly without any ability to secure the healing use of natural mental inertial frames (MIFS) ,which they have negated with theory. Most will not be able to "get up again". Then what do we do? Schiavo 'em I guess, pull their plugs. Or, give them some sliding bamboo calculators to play with.

 

Those poor, poor people. We will just have to be bigger than the problem and be ready to offer our assistance whenever we see one of "them" about to collapse: Usually, "They" start with sharp whining moans that ultimately generate some of the seetest music I have ever heard.