Re: The Observational Collapse of Einsteinian Physics

"HenriWilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i melding news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 23:38:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i melding news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:40:03 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"HenriWilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i melding news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:34:41 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >Is this really so hard to grasp, Henry?
> >> >> >The point is that the CMBR is the oldest EM-radiation that exists.
> >> >> >So the origin of that radiation is a sphere around us that is the edge
> >> >> >of the visible universe.
> >> >>
> >> >> And we just happen to be at the centre eh, Paul?
> >> >
> >> >Some coincidence eh, Henry? :-)
> >>
> >> Your previous explanation is plain hogwash.
> >
> >I note with interest that you don't think you are in
> >the centre of the visible universe.
> >So in which direction do you see the edge of
> >the visible universe to be nearest?
>
> Paul, at any instant, I am receiving light from all distances not just from one
> spherical shell centred on me.

Do you, right now, receive light from outside the visible universe?

> >> >> >Tomorrow, the visible universe is a little bigger.
> >> >>
> >> >> Crap.
> >> >
> >> >Your abilities to fail to understand even the simplest issues are truly amazing
> >>
> >> Paul, do you really believe what you are saying?
> >> This is nonsense.
> >
> >I note with interest that you don't think the radius of
> >the visible universe is increasing day by day.
> >That can only mean that the distance to the edge of
> >the visible universe is constant.
> >What does the edge of the visible universe look like, Henry?
> >You can look in the direction where it's nearest, of course.
>
> What are you talking about? There is no 'edge'.

So your visible universe is infinite?
Mine is not. It has an edge.
We can "see" it (with the right instruments).
It's called the CMBR.

> >> The CMBR would only be even remotely isotropic to us if we were near the centre
> >> of the fictitious BB.
> >
> >If you say so.
> >That statement doesn't make any sense to me, though.
> >Does it mean anything? What?
>
> It means that if the CMBR were exactly isotropic then we must be exactly at the
> centre of the BB.
> That should be obvious.

Not to me. It simply doesn't make sense.
If the whole universe has expanded out from a singularity,
then the "centre" is everywhere.
THAT is obvious to me.

The BB was not an explosion IN the universe, you know.
Or didn't you know?

> If it is isotropic and we are not at the centre then the BB explanation is
> plain nonsense.

The "centre of the universe" is meaningless.
But the centre of the visible universe is an entirely different matter.
We are all in the centre of our respective visible universes.
Your and mine visible universes are not identical, Henry.
Not very different, but not identical. They are both spherical with
the same radii, but their centres are offset by a few light microseconds.
It IS rather obvious. Isn't it?

> But your whole argument doesn't make any sense anyway because the origin of the
> microwaves is purely speculative.

So a speculation cannot make sense, Henry?
Of course it is impossible to prove conclusively that the BB happened.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
The explanation I gave made perfectly sense, and if you hadn't
closed your eyes, shouting daaa - daaa - daaa, you would have
understood it.
It may not be correct - we will never know with absolute certainty -
but it does indeed make sense.


In the improbable case that you are willing to turn off your
mind jammer for a while, and actually read what I have to say
with the intention of understanding it, here is the explanation again.
It IS possible to understand it even if you chose not to believe the BB happened.

It was an answer to your question:
| Why should any of the initial radiation from the supposed BB end up returning
| back in our direction?

OK. I will try to explain this one.
It is a somewhat simplified and naive explanation in order
to get the main point through.

The CMBR is not from the BB, but from a the time when the universe
became transparent, ca. 300000 years after the big bang.
Before this time, the universe was too hot and dense for photons to
pass through it, they would interact with particles after a very short time.
(Like they do in the interior of the Sun, the gammas created in the core
never get to the surface.)
When the universe became transparent, photons going in all
directions were everywhere. You can consider every point to be
the source of a flash of light (or rather a black body spectrum.)

Let's first forget about the expansion.
What would you at an arbitrary point in the universe see 1 second
after it got transparent? The answer is that you would see the light
that started out from a sphere with radius 1 light second around you.
Got it? You are not special. You would see the same thing at any point.
After 10 seconds, you would see the light that started out from a sphere
10 light seconds around you.

Now we see the light that started out from a sphere around us,
with a radius which now has expanded to 12(?) billion light years.
The light has cooled to a 2.7K black body spectrum.
To morrow, we will see the light that started out 1 light day farther away.

But Henry, that does obviously not mean that we _only_ see the "light"
from the edge of the visible universe. It is the CMBR at comes from
the edge. Nothing else.
Paul