Digital Radio Central - Sponsored by TSS Radio
  DRC Home Page DRC Forums Contact Us  
 
SIRIUS Backstage Forum
 
 
 
  Sirius Satellite Radio XM Satellite Radio iTunes/iPod Slacker Pandora  
 
 
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   SIRIUS Backstage Forum > >
Visit Digital Radio Central

Notices

The Doghouse Here is where people are talking everything not SIRIUS related. So be cool, be smart and have something to say!

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
 
Old 10-19-2005, 02:29 PM   #121
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

I went looking for an explaination of the 1 hour about light or some other articles besides my books. Nasa has a good website, they sat a day. I quote:

Quote:

Right after the first instant of the Big Bang, the energy was so great and dense that matter was constantly being created and destroyed (as predicted by Einstein's E = mc^2). The Universe was an expanding and cooling "soup" of energetic particles and photons. Around a year after the Big Bang, the "soup" had expanded and cooled enough that the photons in the soup no longer interacted with matter. This left a "gas" of photons that has since expanded and cooled to 3 degrees Kelvin. This radiation permeates all of the Universe. The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) measured this radiation to an unparalleled precision. For example, it has found that all but one part in 3000 of this "photon gas" contains energy from the Big Bang (in other words, the photons have essentially not interacted at all with the rest of the Universe since the Big Bang). You can learn more about COBE from http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/astro/cobe/cobe_home.html. COBE has shown that much of the Big Bang is a good representation of how our Universe began and has ruled out some competing theories.
Source
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-19-2005, 02:37 PM   #122
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Ahhh here was where I got the hundreds of thousands of years thing when trying to observe the universe and look back. Have to be careful becasue I confuse myself without a good cup of coffee.

Quote:
When matter and radiation "decoupled" with the formation of atoms a million years after the Big Bang, the radiation had cooled to visible light.
That is from my original link back on the topic from University of Califonia.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-19-2005, 06:53 PM   #123
Amnesia
Sirius Star
 
Amnesia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 03, 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,035
Amnesia is on a distinguished road
Default

So I read through a couple of those links and it seems like everyone is assuming that the rate of universe expansion is constant.

If it were not constant, then there's no way for us to calculate the age of the universe...
__________________
Amnesia is offline  
 
 
Old 10-20-2005, 12:22 PM   #124
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

They are assuming it's constant because the change is slow. Most believe the universe is speeding up but the change is miniscule over million year or more period. The constant is used in the context of "now" a snapshot for scientific calculations of the universe today. In fact the constant wasn't so constant untile recently. You are refering to the Hubble Constant. And yes it would be difficult to predict the age of the universe without it.

The reason light can't be pinned down I think is because there is a field that prevents us from seeing the origins of the universe. It's blocking out view. We should be able to see light all the way back but we can't.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-20-2005, 03:20 PM   #125
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renaissance Man
By the time this thread ends, we'll know for sure whether He exists!
Why "He" instead of "It"?

You don't really think that your god has a penis, do you?

Never understood that...
it has just been a literary custom that we use he more often than she when pertaining to a person. and by very definition, the belief in god is that of a a unique identity - just the opposite of IT, which would be used by people such as yourself who think that it is just a force, etc. of some sort.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-20-2005, 03:24 PM   #126
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

hi rc,

it still seems to be that photon energy has been around since the beginning. i did not read the full article. did i miss somewhere where it said that photons were created at a later point ?

and by later, i do not mean 10 to the -43 seconds later, or something that stupid. i find it outstandishly hilarious that our scientists even think that they can be this accurate. that is like trying to run before learning to crawl, which is about where we are, i am afraid, in our real understanding of the cosmos.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-20-2005, 03:56 PM   #127
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
it still seems to be that photon energy has been around since the beginning. i did not read the full article. did i miss somewhere where it said that photons were created at a later point ?

and by later, i do not mean 10 to the -43 seconds later, or something that stupid. i find it outstandishly hilarious that our scientists even think that they can be this accurate. that is like trying to run before learning to crawl, which is about where we are, i am afraid, in our real understanding of the cosmos.
Well gymejet it is a theory so they could be wrong. But based on *cough* Einstein or whatever hidden genius was behind his work, you plug in the equations and it works out that way. Then you can check to see if those equations predict things that we can see today and they do. One is Cosmic Background Radiation that permeates the entire universe at a certain temperature. You can tune your insuments to read this and BANG <Big bang pun > it's there at precisely the temperature preditcted. So one has to assume that those equations are somewhat correct and they pretict the extreme numbers in time.

I know what you mean by later. Though. It seems that light has been there all along. There is one theory that predicts 1 million years or so. I'll conult the univerity of colorado physics dept. I drink brews with a few of them once in a while.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-20-2005, 03:57 PM   #128
Amnesia
Sirius Star
 
Amnesia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 03, 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,035
Amnesia is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
and by very definition, the belief in god is that of a a unique identity - just the opposite of IT, which would be used by people such as yourself who think that it is just a force, etc. of some sort.
Not at all.

The word "it" is often used in fiction for non-gendered entities as well...
__________________
Amnesia is offline  
 
 
Old 10-20-2005, 05:11 PM   #129
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadClosed
Quote:
it still seems to be that photon energy has been around since the beginning. i did not read the full article. did i miss somewhere where it said that photons were created at a later point ?

and by later, i do not mean 10 to the -43 seconds later, or something that stupid. i find it outstandishly hilarious that our scientists even think that they can be this accurate. that is like trying to run before learning to crawl, which is about where we are, i am afraid, in our real understanding of the cosmos.
Well gymejet it is a theory so they could be wrong. But based on *cough* Einstein or whatever hidden genius was behind his work, you plug in the equations and it works out that way. Then you can check to see if those equations predict things that we can see today and they do. One is Cosmic Background Radiation that permeates the entire universe at a certain temperature. You can tune your insuments to read this and BANG <Big bang pun > it's there at precisely the temperature preditcted. So one has to assume that those equations are somewhat correct and they pretict the extreme numbers in time.

I know what you mean by later. Though. It seems that light has been there all along. There is one theory that predicts 1 million years or so. I'll conult the univerity of colorado physics dept. I drink brews with a few of them once in a while.
actually, i was not attempting to deny the theory. and CBR and all is fine. but did i miss something ? is there somewhere where it says that photon energy was created at a later point. i do think it is a bit ridiculous to go back to that small percentage of a second. but i was not doubting the main theory.

if you could, just reprint that portion that says that photons were created at a later time.

i think i said this before - but i think the consensus is somehow that time and light are extremely related, almost like bedfellows. that may be - i dont claim to know. but i would say that in order for that to be true, i find it highly unlikely that photon energy (i.e. light) would not be present at about the same "time" as the "beginning of time".
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-20-2005, 05:14 PM   #130
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesia
Quote:
Originally Posted by gymeejet
and by very definition, the belief in god is that of a a unique identity - just the opposite of IT, which would be used by people such as yourself who think that it is just a force, etc. of some sort.
Not at all.

The word "it" is often used in fiction for non-gendered entities as well...
really ? i guess i dont think of it in that way, but i dont doubt that you are correct. i would actually prefer to say "it", because i certainly dont think of god in terms of human form. but at least for me, "it" implies a non-entity, so that would take a lot for me to get used to, at this point. LOL.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-20-2005, 06:35 PM   #131
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
time and light are extremely related,
Yes, that is it. They are. And it's that relation with current gravitational theories that predict Space Time. And it all boil down to light and our "relative" perseption of them while in motion.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-20-2005, 06:42 PM   #132
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

forgot to answer gymeejets question. Here is one exerpt, I have some others I can find later...
oh the correlation of lite and time and there relation is the essence of todays universe theories. There are other particles we can't measure yet that will also shed some information in the future...


Quote:
The strongest evidence that something like the Big Bang really happened is the Cosmic Background Radiation predicted by Cosmologist George Gamov in 1948 and discovered by Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson of Bell Labs in 1965. All those -rays described above are part of the thermal radiation present in the early Universe because it is hot. As the Universe expanded and cooled, the radiation field cooled along with it. When matter and radiation "decoupled" with the formation of atoms a million years after the Big Bang, the radiation had cooled to visible light. Although the matter distribution has become complicated with the formation of galaxies & stars since that time the light has simply continued to cool with the expansion. Gamow predicted that the Universe should be filled with this "relic radiation left over" from the Big Bang. (Gamow calculated a temperature of 15K; Dicke & Peebles at Princeton recalculated the value in 1963, predicting a Temperature near 3K.) Using the peculiar horn-shaped antenna shown in the picture to the right, Penzias & Wilson made the first glimpses of the Cosmic Background Light quite unexpectedly. Since their discovery the evidence has become stronger and stronger that we are seeing the light from the Big Bang. Penzias & Wilson received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978.

Did I mention that sometimes cosmological scale is expressed in a 24 hour clock so you don't have to keep writing 1000000000000000000. Which could explain the article I noted that places light at 1 hour. I would have to look. To understand the temps they are talking about you have to look up Kelvin. Lord Kelvin, another Genius.
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-21-2005, 02:17 AM   #133
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesia
So I read through a couple of those links and it seems like everyone is assuming that the rate of universe expansion is constant.

If it were not constant, then there's no way for us to calculate the age of the universe...
i have wondered about this before. from what is said now, it is thought that the universe expansion is accelerating. however, it may be thought to be of a constant acceleration.

but as i said earlier in the thread, they think that the universe is 156 billion light years across, in just 15 billion years. i dont see anyway out of it, but that space/universe has at one time expanded at faster than the speed of light. what really seems strange to me is that it is accelerating today.

that means that at some point, something was so strong that it was able to slow down something going at faster than the speed of light, to some rate that is even slower than today - since by current assumptions, the rate of expansion is accelerating.

i dont think anyone is suggesting anything other than gravity/matter to slow the original speed down. but now it is not able to keep it from accelerating, when it is going much slower ? it is not like we lost any matter.

i guess one could surmise that if this mighty force that slowed down the mach-light speed of expansion to something above zero, that over zillions of years, the matter would be further away from each other, to lose enough oomph, and allow the expansion to once again begin to accelerate.

that would seem to be more like newton's theory of gravity where matter has some innate attraction toward matter, with distance being a measure of this force - rather than einsteins matter warping some spacetime fourth dimension.

take all these theories, including relativities - and it just seems like you can shoot big holes through them. i dont think we are that close to the real answers.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
Old 10-21-2005, 01:30 PM   #134
RoadClosed
Sirius Star
 
RoadClosed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 17, 2005
Location: Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow
Posts: 5,758
RoadClosed will become famous soon enoughRoadClosed will become famous soon enough
Default

gymeejet, you either missed or didn't understand my post earlier (either this thread or the other one) The universe is expanding FASTER than the speed of light now. The Hubble constant IS faster than the speed of light. At the outset during those first 10 to the negative 19th power time frames there was NO matter and the distances were tiny compared to today and the energy great.

Quote:
i have wondered about this before. from what is said now, it is thought that the universe expansion is accelerating. however, it may be thought to be of a constant acceleration.
From what I understand the acceleration is constant but there is a minuscule change over the course of a few million years. So in the context of a few human lifetimes, it is constant. This number has been highly debated but a NASA mssion to increase the accuracy of the COBE experiment has determined with great accuracy the number. BTW NASA kicks ass
and any politician that wants to cut funding needs smacked.

In addition you HAVE to understand this. The galaxies are moving too. And the universe is expanding faster than they are moving. This gives the appearance of acceleration as the space between two observable galaxies expands.

Quote:
but as i said earlier in the thread, they think that the universe is 156 billion light years across, in just 15 billion years. i don't see anyway out of it, but that space/universe has at one time expanded at faster than the speed of light. what really seems strange to
me is that it is accelerating today.
Kind of repeating myself but it does expand faster than light today. Many times faster.

Quote:
that means that at some point, something was so strong that it was able to slow down something going at faster than the speed of
light, to some rate that is even slower than today - since by current assumptions, the rate of expansion is accelerating.
That something is nothing. What is expanding is space. Light is an object contained in space. If some force slowed down space I couldn't imagine what it is. But it's more likely the physics of energy that would do it. Picture the big bang like a nuclear explosion. The blast radius will fan out in all directions expanding as it goes accelerating in all directions as the energy of the blast feeds it, but once the energy is used up the blast slows and eventually reverses to fill the gap left where the energy once was. As in the case of an atomic explosion. That is a simplified expansion, retraction universe theory but explains how a universe expansion could eventually slow to sub C. There are other theories that say there is some force pushing the expansion outside the big bang. I would have to look those up.

I was going to keep typing but this site does a much better job than I and I just stumbled upon it while looking up that force that could be pushing us along.

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ...t.html?2512005

Quote:
that would seem to be more like newton's theory of gravity where matter has some innate attraction toward matter, with distance being a measure of this force - rather than Einstein's matter warping some spacetime fourth dimension.
As for Newton and Einstein. Einstein and Newton come to the exact same details when objects are slow moving. Newton says there is a force emitted by an object that is gravity, and that is instantaneous and constant. Einstein says there is a disturbance in space time caused by mass that = gravity. Force versus disturbance. Either way the models work the same. Where Newtons math fails though is at near light speeds.

Einstein corrected that. But even today they are debated on forums across the globe. To commemorate both Scientists the Royal Society of London is holding a public debate in November with a team representing Einstein and a team representing Newton. I hope they film it. Newton explain with great accuracy for the first time EVER why the moon stays in orbit around the Earth. Amazing stuff and no less remarkable than Einstein. Newton was also a celebrity who held the highest honors. I have read the mathematica principia, Newton did not know "how" it worked. In fact on the very pages he wrote this: “Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws,” and left the mechanism up to us, the reader: “But whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers."

Einstein developed, actually more like dreamed up a working apparatus for gravity. He had no experiments to go on, just thought which led to a mathematical theory that still holds. In his memoirs he wrote this: “Newton, forgive me,” Who can't help but smile at the respect he had for Newton “You found the only way which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thought and creative power.” I kept harping on building blocks earlier and I posed a question sometime during the discussion. If the sun suddenly popped out of existence would we feel its effects immediately and how would that be communicated to the planets to stop being attracted to the sun. Under Newtons laws it would be instantaneous throughout the universe. Einstein was puzzled by this. How would earth know to stop circling and go about it's business without the sun. He also didn't think the influence would be instantaneous through all the universe at once. The "message" would take time to get there he supposed.

Enter space time and the warping of space as a mechanism, a medium so to speak for gravity. The "message" sent to earth would be an equivalent of a gravity wave (yes it was relativity that introduced the concept). Einstein said through his Theory that mass warps space. By the very essence of mass setting there it warps the space around it. Think of it like this, and this is not my thought experiment. It comes from a CD lecture called Exploring the Cosmos. Space is the black netting of a trampoline. And you are standing in the middle of it. The depression you make is a result of your existence in the center. Roll a ball past fast enough to just catch the edge of the depression. Your goal? To roll the ball to the other side but by catching a little of the depression you have altered it's course and altered it's time to get there. You have redirected its position in space which effected it's time. Space Time in a nutshell. I think you already know this, but the well does not effect the results newton drew up, only the mechanism. At slow speeds and small masses. Meaning planets and stars. Also back to your impression in the trampoline... the farther away from you it stretches the less it warps space, thus the less influence you have on the ball. Just like Newtons gravity force we learned in school.

SO Instead of a mass exerting a force which is just as cloudy, a mass exerts an influence on space simply by existing within space. Just like you are exerting an influence on the makeup of your well on the trampoline. If you were to gain or lose 30 pounds, that depression would be different. Your well would be deep or shallow depending on mass.

OK, You have equated time to light in another post. You have noted they are "bedfellows" which is key. Now lets pretend the ball is not a planet but a photon, one of billions emanating from a distant star. Imagine this light traveling along ping ponging and zagging through gravity wells of star clusters, galaxies black holes etc. Bending, slowing, stretching.... Can you see how time is effected by the curvature of space now? Or at least in theory. Because the light is effected by gravity. Not as a force, as a curvature of space.

No? Back to Einstein. He speculated that changes in the mass of a body would require time to get there. If the sun suddenly and once again popped out of existence. The Earth should feel it before the Dog Star. Newton's logic fails here and its where Einstein did his apology. It is not instantaneous. Now imagine your trampoline a little more flexible. It's pretty rigid but if the surface was water and you could see a more accurate result. Only for this experiment lets use the sun suddenly popping into existence. Like a stone. Toss the stone into the water. The sudden existence of mass causes a ripple in the surface. As the ripple moves along it squeezes and stretches space "warping" as it travels in all directions from the origination of the object or mass. This is a gravity wave. This is again space time in a nutshell. As space is stretched and squeezed so is time.

Currently we can not predict gravity waves. According to relativity they are insanely small. In fact Einstein wondered if his predictions could ever be checked through measurement. The closes we've gotten so far is observing objects using Einsteins predictions and they have to be objects of MASSIVE gravitational influence. The LIGO project. Yeah! Crap just went to the site, there is an essay there that would have saved me time with the whole space time thing. Ah well, enjoy it's a Cal tech site. There is also one at MIT http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/
__________________
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.


God does not believe in Athiests. Therefore they do not exist.
RoadClosed is offline  
 
 
Old 10-23-2005, 06:51 PM   #135
gymeejet
Sirius Star
 
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 5,491
gymeejet will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadClosed
Hi gymeejet,

About light creation...

I wasn't paying attention to this post so didn't reply and I am wrong. It wasn't a long time after the big bang. I must have read that somewhere as a child when they were trying to explain the inability to look all the way back or some religious doctrine stating light was created in transit. I don't recall. I consulted my BRAIN and found the general consensus is 1 hour or so by looking in books.

If you think about physics light could not have existed at the VERY beginning.

Here is an internet source with decent descriptions some backed my mathematics. I chose Califonia on purpose.


http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/BB.html
to be honest, i am not sure that light, i.e. photon energy could not have existed from the very beginning. but i wont argue about a fraction of a second.

i scanned thru this article, until i found some talk about photons. from this article, the following :

As space expanded, it continued to cool down. Matter--at first photons, quarks, neutrinos, and electrons, and then protons and neutrons--condensed out, all less than one second after the Big Bang. It was not until one billion years later, when the universe was one-fifth the size it is today, that the matter would form the first stars and galaxies.
gymeejet is offline  
 
 
 

Go Back   SIRIUS Backstage Forum > >


Digitalradiocentral.com




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.39 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All Content Copyright SIRIUS Backstage. All Rights Reserved. SIRIUS and registered trademarks are the property of SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc. The opinions posted on SIRIUS Backstage website and forums are those of the individual posters and/or this website and are not necessarily the opinions or positions of SIRIUS Satellite Radio, Inc.