<< > Skipping ahead a bit...Sheffield says...in regard to the Red Shift (the
> genesis for the idea of the big bang) ..."the most plausible mechanism, to
a
> physicist, is the doppler effect'
>
> Oh? That implies there are OTHER mechanisms? I wonder what they are?
And then Hal said....
>>. Ironically, doppler shift is probably *not* the best way of thinking
>> of the cosmological redshifts. Rather, what happens is that photons
>> are emitted by the galaxies, then as they travel, spacetime expands
>> and the photons get "stretched". Their wavelength lengthens, which
>>is a redshift. Doppler shift is quite misleading when dealing with
>> cosmological distances.
And in a similar but different discussion Nick Bostrom said
>>So if that expansion
> >rate settles down to a constant, then there must be a sphere centered
> >around Earth such that nothing that is outside of that sphere can
> >*ever* affect Earth, even if it travels with the speed of light.
To which Damien Broderick replied.
>
> I believe you have just reinvented the canonical explanation for Olbers'
> Paradox.
And Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin replied
>We can also use this to set bounds on the expansion rate. The
>diameter of the sphere is set by the expansion rate, and we can (by
>definition) observe the edges of the observable universe, but nothing
>beyond those edges.
Me again...
I find this very interesting...but puzzeling...
For one thing...there's a "constant" problem that's (vaugely) bothering
me.....
If EVERYTHING is expanding...(The girl, the gold watch...and
everything)...then why should a red shift be noticeable? Is this Eienstein's
non-intuitive relativity theory again...? To me it would appear that for a
red shift to be noticable there would have to be SOME type of constant...by
which velocity, expansion...or whatever is measured against...if "Space-Time"
is expanding...(which includes light)...then how would we know? And what
difference would it make?
Another thing Charles Sheffeild said which also bothers me....
"We can go further, at least in theory, to the time, 10-35 sec After Creation,
when the universe went through a superrapid "inflationary " phase, growing
from the size of a proton to the size of a basket ball in about 5 x 10-32
seconds....
to which he foot notes
""SuperRapid" is an appropriate description. Druing the inflation period the
universe was expanding in size MILLIONS OF TIMES FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF
LIGHT . This does not violate the theory of relativity, since no signal is
being propagated..."
Curiosior and curiousior......
Also he said..
"The universe may have been created out of nothing, by a zero energy
fluctuation. And one day it may simply disappear, when the vacuum flutuation
that created it pops out of existence."
Now....if I understand correctly....Lerner (The Big Bang Never Happened)...is
proposing something similar...but on a proton by proton basis...that is a
vacuum fluctuation "creates" a proton...(uncounted zillions of
them...constantly)...they coalesce to form hyrdogen...galaxies and whatever
(the carbon cycle)...and eventually go "poof" decay...on an individual
basis...
Current cosmological theory holds that the entire universe is the result of a
vacuum flux?....which is expanding ....and will eventually "pop"...like a soap
bubble?
Now what was Ander's saying about angles dancing on the head of a pin?
EvMick