The Evidences For The Big Bang

[lbiar]

lbiar's argument is, I believe, that the CMB would not be visible without fine tuning.

 

Because the CMB happened at one point in the past, lbiar believes that it should be visible at only one point in earth's history (or present or future). If the surface of last scattering were a little closer to earth, expanding at the speed it is, its light would have already reached earth and if it were a little further from earth, its light wouldn't have reached us yet.

 

That is how I interpret the reference to the CMB being invisible. It is incorrect because the CMBR fills the universe just as the surface of last scattering filled the universe. It is now and always will be visible (at least, until it is too redshifted to be easily observed).

 

~modest

 

I think like you in some part.

 

But for to see the CMB is needed that distance of the expansion of the universe at light speed is near of 13.7 billion lightyears, so if the expansion at light speed would be more near we don't show the CMB and more distant the CMB would be more distant of light speed (less redshift).

 

By this (I like to put another conclusion) in a universe without expansion we should see the same.

[lbiar]

Perhaps it is modest.

But the plain fact is, Ibiar is neither able to express this coherently, nor is he able to understand our comments and objections.

We could ask him if his argument is as you stated above.

But he would be unable to understand your question or evaluate the correlation between what he has said (14 times) and what you said.

I suggest, with all due respect, that we close all his threads and delete them.

This is getting us nowhere.

Pyro

 

You has sent me a private and I answer you.

 

I understand your messages and treat to answer theirs.

 

Sorry.

[lbiar]

With this antagonism and good work of moderators.

 

Bye.

[Qfwfq]

Ibiar, perhaps Pyrotex was a bit harsh but please, try to understand. OK?

 

It seems I had guessed your meaning a lot less than I hoped, and I never would have guessed:

Theirs is the the radiation of cosmic microwave background and quasar at 13 billion years.

which is certainly enlightening! This clarification must have helped Modest to guess what your whole post is trying to say. I still don't quite know how he was able to understand you that well, he must be a Zen Buddhist monk.

 

It seems I hadn't guessed your first sentence at all. It wasn't a question at all. Maybe you meant the word "how" as the Spanish como which can also mean like, but implicitly you also meant this or that. Maybe you translated a Spanish word similar to the Italian così which is like the French "comme ci" or "comme ça" or the English "like this" or "like that".

 

So right to doubt I had guessed what you meant by: "if the universe expand how says the theory they would be invisible" Perhaps you meant: "if the universe expands like that, the theory says they would be invisible" and this fits better with what Modest guessed.

 

As you can see, Ibiar, it is taking us very much to understand one short post, maybe it would take us 13.7 billion years to understand each post.

[Pyrotex]

But, of course, it is so unlikely that Ibiar understood even one sentence of YOUR post. [sigh]

[modest]

This clarification must have helped Modest to guess what your whole post is trying to say. I still don't quite know how he was able to understand you that well, he must be a Zen Buddhist monk.

 

:phones:

 

Buddha says, "a dog is not a good dog because he's a good barker—a man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker." :soccerb:

 

No, truth is I picked up on the invisible CMB thing from another thread where he says it more clearly,

 

The cosmic microwave background has been visible to anyone in the universe since it was emitted when the universe was roughly 400,000 years old and it will continue indefinitely being visible in the future (although, it's redshift will make it harder and harder to see).

~modest

 

Sorry I don't believe this.

 

We see the cosmic microwave because that source is from 13.7 billion years, older that any star. We see distance with years.

 

We see the cosmic microwave because that expand near light year speed, how the expansion is accelerating and the comoving distance is 46 billion lightyears (more that lightyears we see) in futur the cosmic microwave would not see (probably in million years).

 

We see the cosmic microwave because because we are without moving in the center of the universe (or any better explanation) because it's around us and if we are moving we cound not see the microwave in any direction: the relation of microwave speed from light speed is only 2.76 e-5 with the speed of light - Arguments « The universe is infinite (remember that in any expansion any body expanding at light speed is not show).

 

So, it would seem lbiar thinks that a peculiar velocity relative to the Hubble flow would make the CMB invisible rather than giving it a redshift dipole anisotropy.

 

The problem, lbiar, is that you are thinking of the source of cosmic microwave background as a hollow sphere. La fuente no estaba una esfera hueca. The source was everywhere.

 

~modest

[lbiar]

New work:

 

Deleted

 

Sorry by the errors, I put a new one.

 

thanks.

[Pyrotex]

C'mon Q! C'mon Modest!

This is just impossible! Even if you <think> you understand that last post,

it is even more likely that you are just "projecting patterns into the post"

that you generate from prior knowledge.

I am not being too harsh.

This is a gobbledigook post in a gobbledigook thread by a gobbledigook pseudosentient.

You are waaaaaaaay too trusting.

And that's my final word.

Please yourselves. :(

[modest]

Even if you <think> you understand that last post,

it is even more likely that you are just "projecting patterns into the post"

that you generate from prior knowledge.

 

Given that lbiar is not responding to our posts, I'm forced to agree. :(

 

~modest

[lbiar]

Even if you <think> you understand that last post

 

Without comentaries.

[lbiar]

I add 5 conclusions more:

 

Deleted

 

Sorry by the errors, I put a new one.

 

thanks.

[Qfwfq]

C'mon Q! C'mon Modest!

This is just impossible! Even if you <think> you understand that last post,

it is even more likely that you are just "projecting patterns into the post"

that you generate from prior knowledge.

I don't think I understand at all, cuz I can't afford to spend 13.7 billion years projecting patterns and seeing how well each one fits and trying to find the pattern that has any hope of being what Ibiar means to say.

 

Anyway, given that his views are heterodox, it's not much use projecting patterns according to prior knowledge of cosmology. I mainly analysed his syntax and vocab, according to experience with Italians trying to speak English, with various degrees of proficiency.

[lbiar]

Sorry by the errors, I put a new one.

[lbiar]

3 works:

 

1w – The light arrive to us in less time that need the expansion theory.

 

By expansion and homogeneity we see the universe in the form: 4-4-4-4 (each 4 is d/4 from expansion in form 4-3-2-1 and homogeneity), by distance - speed, at double distance the speed is double and how t is c and t/2 is c/2 (t/2 is needed to double distance and double speed, so d/4 is d/2 also in t/2) by that also is double time, so in t/2 less the form of this is 2-2-2-2. (d is distance of universe visual, t the time for this, c = lightspeed or: Hubble sphere [distance at which recession velocity = c]).

 

It's not the same d/2 in t/2 expand from d/4 that d/4 in t/2 expand to d/2, because c (speed of light) is constant and this unbalance the result.

 

If in actual time 4-4-4-4 = 16 is c and by that 8 needs t/2, we see a photon of d/2 (8) that was emitted from there in t/2 less, and in that time the distance was 4 (8 in t/2 less was half = 4), how c is constant that photon arrive to us in less of 3t/8 and not t/2 that need the expansion theory.

 

3t/8 because in first t/4 with expansion at c/4 finish in distance of 1 (4+1 or expansion -1), next t/4 expansion is at c/3, but is near (need between 1/16 and 2/16 with c of 16), so is near that arrive in less of 3t/8 (less that 4t/8 or t/2). Also, give 3t/8 if after first t/4 rest 1.6 (if we divide 4 between 10, 4 of c/4 and 6 of c/3), next t/4 rest 1.6 and expand at c/3 that give near 2 (2.5 with maximum) and is 2 of 4 possible, the result is also 3t/8. Light arrive in 3t/8 and according to theory also in 4t/8 = t/2.

 

With formulas: d/2 is c/2 (d is c), this d/2 in t/2 is d with speed c, the light we see in d/2 need t/2 to see (need t/2 to travel to us), by that was emitted made t/2, in that time d/2 was in (d/2)/2 = d/4 and in d/4 light need less of 3t/8 to arrive to us.

 

According to the theory the universe expand equal in all points and by that more at more distance (the expansion is not at constant speed), but lightspeed is constant speed.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

2w – The stretching is our expansion (not compensate with expansion).

 

According to the expansion theory we see homogeneous the universe by expansion + stretch (or stretching), so we would see in the form 1-2-3-4, but by expansion + stretch (100+0 = 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 100 = expansion + stretch) we see in the form 5-5-5-5 (because the expansion is 5-4-3-2-1), but this is false.

 

It's not the same +50% of 20 that give 30 that -50% of 30 that give 15, in the same form it's not the same space stretched that space to stretch. This form of expansion + stretch is taken from end to begin, so 25-50-75 are the values to decrease homogeneity distance to not homogeneous (-50% of 4 is 2 [the space without stretch according to the theory), but +50% of 2 is 3, not 4 (insufficient). By stretch from not homogeneous the % would be 50%, 100, 200% and according to this note the results are near 50 %,75, 92.

 

An example: there are 2 objects A and B, A is at 1 lightyear and B is ar 2 lighyears, we move away at c/2.

year 1: we don’t see neither A nor B, A is at 1.5 lighyears and B is a 2.5 lighyears

year 2: we see A at 2 lighyears, we not see B that is at 3 lighyears

year 3: we see A at 2.5 lighyears, we not see B that is at 3.5 lighyears

year 4: we see A at 3 lighyears and also B at 4 lighyears

year 5: we see A at 3.5 lighyears and also B at 4.5 lighyears

 

The stretching don’t change the relation between A and B that remains in 1 lighyear. We see A at 2 lighyears and B at 4 lighyears, but not in the form 2-4 how expansion theory need.

 

If the objects A and B are moving the distance is according to this, so in a universe in expansion the distance would be expansion + stretch, but stretch is in relation with expansion.

 

In expansion universe the stretch is in relation with expansion, so double distance is half expansion and also stretch. The formula of expansion + stretch is not 75+25 = 50+50 = 25+75 = 100 is not so, is: +25% of 75% (=93%), +50% of 50% (= 75%), +75% of 25% (=43%).

 

Really is not 25-50-75% (this is thinking in homogeneity), the universe according to theory expand less in past (and by that farther) by that the expansion is like 8,4,2,1 (periods of t/4), by that is more like stretch of 8/15% (near 50%), 12/15% (near 75%) and 14/15% (near 92%) – 12 is 8+4 and 14 is 8+4+2. The theory need for d/2 a stretch of 100% and by 3d/4 of 200% (size of 50 and 25).

 

By that expansion is against homogeneity and also against Hubble’s law.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

3w – Light in d with speed of c need always travel at c.

 

The light we see in d (Hubble sphere [distance at which recession velocity = c]) has speed of c = d/t, but where it was in d/2 also need the same speed and in all point (d/2)/(t/2) = (d/4)/(t/4) = d/t . If in any point speed is less that c in other need to be more that c.

 

If it’s in d but not travel to c (inflation) it’s against Hubble’s law that is a register of all this time.

 

If it travels always at c it’s against Hubble’s law that relations distance and speed and expansion theory that say that expansion is equal in all points and by that more in more distance.

 

In the same form, distance – speed an object from d/8 to d/4 need t/2, from d/4 to d/2 need t/2 and from d/2 to d need t/2, but from d/2 it would be not visible because it needs speed of c.

 

According to the theory distance - speed, it would need to be in form 4-2-1in each t/2 in d/4 - d/2 and d (without homogeneity), so the addition is 7, in this form in each t/2 is 4d/7 (>c), 2d/7 and d/7. In this form in d/4 (the more near to us would need to expand more that c and this is impossible). This makes also that in t the distance is d/2 and in 3t/2 is d, and seeing from d that the segments are t/3 (we speak over 3 segments of t/2).

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

All my work is according to visual expansion and against real expansion.

 

In my web I have more arguments (but I only is sufficent) more or less good.

 

I have also 26 hypotheses for a cosmology without expansion - Hypotheses « The universe does not expand

 

I have also more arguments in Arguments « The universe does not expand

[philiplaos]

Sorry.

 

I don't understand so, I create more thread to facilitate the differences. Each thread has a different name, later I have write the same in the last post, but first post is over the title. (maybe that today any of their has not value, but when I write theirs the title was different). Sorry.

 

I make this (I would arrange this and make 2 more if you permit me (by now I write it in that thread):

 

 

Ibiar,

 

I can't understand the above and it's not even about complex cosmology! Maybe you could get a native English-speaking friend to edit your posts first.

[lbiar]

I arrange 1w and 2w and add 3w

 

 

 

Thanks.

[Boerseun]

Dude... nobody understands you. But lemme see:

 

You got four points:

 

p1...p2...p3...p4

 

P1 is flying off in the direction of P4 at the speed of light. P2 is flying off in the same direction, also at the speed of light, relative to p1. P3 is also doing the same, at the speed of light relative to P2. And then finally, P4 is flying off in the same direction, at the speed of light relative to P4. So, what you're saying, is that P4 is flying off at four times the speed of light from P1. And this is perfectly true and fine. And is indeed what's happening in the universe. What you seem to ignore is that the spaces, the little elipses (...) between the points, the actual fabric of the universe, is also expanding. Nowhere does anything exceed the speed of light relative to the space around it - if I can call it such. The space itself is expanding. This, however, does not prevent two objects from receding from each other at greater than the speed of light. Consider two photons travelling in opposing directions, for instance.

 

If I've got the cat by the tail regarding your intent, I apologize - but that's the best sense I can make of your post.