Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
observations, each of which are described in more detail on
separate pages:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Subject: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
From: Sam Wormley
Date: 16/11/03 13:10 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
observations, each of which are described in more detail on
separate pages:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html


as it is short cut and paste of above:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology


The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of
which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us
provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.

The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused
from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background
radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our
universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang
model predicts.

Last updated: Monday, 10-20-2003


Let us take these one at a time:

Expansion of the universe.
Yes the observations are that the universe is expanding but

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ts/1998/PHYS_c
osmos.html

indicates that the initial energy imparted to matter by the big bang would
cause the matter to slow down due to gravitational effects, but now it appears
to be speeding up. If it is speeding up then there are other forces at work the
current velocity could not be due to the big bang.

The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The abundance of light elements in the universe we see today assumes that all
the hydrogen was produced by the big bang, He & Li are being produced in the
sun as we speak. There is no way of identifying the He & Li which is produced
by stellar reactions appart from the He & Li claimed to be produced by the big
bang. Now, if there was a mechanism available for the production of hydrogen in
the universe today then the support for the big bang by the abundance of light
elements is non existant.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
To me this one is the most bizarre. Firstly as we are talking EMR. The big bang
had to have a source of energy, this energy must have been in the form of EMR
as there is no other form of energy available in a vacuum. We all know that EMR
is created by accelerated charged particles and its is the only way to produce
it. As charged particles are matter then there must have been matter present
prior to the big bang. If there was matter present before the big bang then the
big bang could not have created all the matter in the universe.

Secondly, cosmic background radiation. If a large amount of radiation was
created by the big band then that was the fastest phenomena, the matter
supposedly created being the slower. Unless you want to invoke the premise that
at that time matter could travel faster than light. So the EMR emitted by the
big bang should have been the first thing out of there and be well beyond the
visible universe by now. So what is the explanation for it being visible to us
inside the universe? Is it being reflected off something or is it merely
confirmation that the universe is closed. According to the BBT there is no
matter outside the universe to reflect it off, and a closed universe is not
confirmed yet.

Is the CMB a red shifted hydrogen line?

Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)

Monitek wrote:

Subject: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
From: Sam Wormley
Date: 16/11/03 13:10 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
observations, each of which are described in more detail on
separate pages:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html


as it is short cut and paste of above:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology


The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each
of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from
us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.

The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been
fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our
universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big
Bang model predicts.

Last updated: Monday, 10-20-2003


Let us take these one at a time:

Expansion of the universe.
Yes the observations are that the universe is expanding but

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ts/1998/PHYS_c
osmos.html

indicates that the initial energy imparted to matter by the big bang would
cause the matter to slow down due to gravitational effects, but now it
appears to be speeding up. If it is speeding up then there are other forces
at work the current velocity could not be due to the big bang.

Err, these "other forces" are taking into account by the modern Big Bang
models, if you haven't noticed.


The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The abundance of light elements in the universe we see today assumes that
all the hydrogen was produced by the big bang, He & Li are being produced in
the sun as we speak. There is no way of identifying the He & Li which is
produced by stellar reactions appart from the He & Li claimed to be produced
by the big bang.

Wrong. For example, we can look at stars of different ages and determine
the abundance of He, Li and other elements in their atmospheres and
surroundings. We can look at gas clouds far away, which we therefore see
at earlier times. And so on. Hence we can look how the He content of the
universe changed with time.

We can also make models and calculate how much He and Li can have been
added to the universe by having been produced in stars, and add this to
the Big Bang predictions, before comparing with the He and Li which is
observed.

And we can look for the abundance of Deuterium, which can't be produced
in stars (resp. is destroyed there at once).


Now, if there was a mechanism available for the production of hydrogen in
the universe today then the support for the big bang by the abundance of
light elements is non existant.

What mechanism would that be?


The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
To me this one is the most bizarre. Firstly as we are talking EMR. The big
bang had to have a source of energy,

Why? The total energy of the universe is very likely zero.


this energy must have been in the form of EMR
as there is no other form of energy available in a vacuum.

Err, why do you think there was a vacuum?

And even if there was one: there are other possibilites to have energy
in a vacuum. Ever heard of strong, weak and gravitational fields?


We all know that EMR
is created by accelerated charged particles and its is the only way to
produce it.

Wrong. For example, you can also get two photons from an
electron-positron annihilation.


As charged particles are matter then there must have been matter present
prior to the big bang.

"prior to the big bang" makes no sense.


If there was matter present before the big bang then the
big bang could not have created all the matter in the universe.

You aren't making sense. There is no "before the big bang".


Secondly, cosmic background radiation. If a large amount of radiation was
created by the big band

Well, I didn't know that bands can create radiation. I thought they
produce sound only. ;-)

But what you apparently don't understand is that the CMBR is not light
which was created by the Big Bang directly. It is radiation which came
from hot matter around 300.000-400.000 years *after* the BB.


then that was the fastest phenomena, the matter
supposedly created being the slower.

Right.


Unless you want to invoke the premise that
at that time matter could travel faster than light.

Well, the expansion of the universe in very earlier times was faster
than light.


So the EMR emitted by the
big bang should have been the first thing out of there and be well beyond
the visible universe by now.

What do you mean by "out there"?


So what is the explanation for it being visible to us
inside the universe?

Sorry, I don't understand your problem at all!

The light was emitted at every point of the universe and can be seen
therefore at every point of the universe. What don't you understand
there?


Is it being reflected off something or is it merely
confirmation that the universe is closed. According to the BBT there is no
matter outside the universe to reflect it off,

According to the BBT, there is not outside of the universe. What is this
supposed to mean?


and a closed universe is not confirmed yet.

Is the CMB a red shifted hydrogen line?

*sigh* Thanks for showing that you have no clue what you are talking
about.

CMBR is not a single line, it is a complete spectrum - the spectrum of a
perfect black body.


Bye,
Bjoern

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher
Date: 18/11/03 10:25 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Monitek wrote:

Subject: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
From: Sam Wormley
Date: 16/11/03 13:10 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
observations, each of which are described in more detail on
separate pages:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html


as it is short cut and paste of above:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology


The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each
of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from
us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.

The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been
fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big
Bang.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our
universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big
Bang model predicts.

Last updated: Monday, 10-20-2003


Let us take these one at a time:

Expansion of the universe.
Yes the observations are that the universe is expanding but

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ts/1998/PHYS_c
osmos.html

indicates that the initial energy imparted to matter by the big bang would
cause the matter to slow down due to gravitational effects, but now it
appears to be speeding up. If it is speeding up then there are other forces
at work the current velocity could not be due to the big bang.

Err, these "other forces" are taking into account by the modern Big Bang
models, if you haven't noticed.


Such as.


The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The abundance of light elements in the universe we see today assumes that
all the hydrogen was produced by the big bang, He & Li are being produced
in
the sun as we speak. There is no way of identifying the He & Li which is
produced by stellar reactions appart from the He & Li claimed to be
produced
by the big bang.

Wrong. For example, we can look at stars of different ages and determine
the abundance of He, Li and other elements in their atmospheres and
surroundings. We can look at gas clouds far away, which we therefore see
at earlier times. And so on. Hence we can look how the He content of the
universe changed with time.

How much has been swallowed by black holes?

We can also make models and calculate how much He and Li can have been
added to the universe by having been produced in stars, and add this to
the Big Bang predictions, before comparing with the He and Li which is
observed.

And we can look for the abundance of Deuterium, which can't be produced
in stars (resp. is destroyed there at once).

Presumably, destroyed by temperature, could this indicate a cold formation of
deuterium is possible? Slow neutrons attaching to protons. the Sun seems to
emit an abundance of both particles. Was the deuterium not gravitated into
stellar regions and destroyed?


Now, if there was a mechanism available for the production of hydrogen in
the universe today then the support for the big bang by the abundance of
light elements is non existant.

What mechanism would that be?

The proton can be considered as a positronium buckyball which in turn provides
a model for the strong force. These could be formed by forming a neutron from
vacuum fluctuations which decays into proton and an electron.


The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
To me this one is the most bizarre. Firstly as we are talking EMR. The big
bang had to have a source of energy,

Why? The total energy of the universe is very likely zero.

If so what is negative energy?

this energy must have been in the form of EMR
as there is no other form of energy available in a vacuum.

Err, why do you think there was a vacuum?


Because, there was supposed to be nothing prior to the big bang. All the
universe was supposed to be created from the big bang, or have the goal posts
been moved again?

And even if there was one: there are other possibilites to have energy
in a vacuum. Ever heard of strong, weak and gravitational fields?

Yes. These forces both require the state of matter before they exist. Just as
the quark is confied then the strong force is confined. Thew strong force is
associated with the neutron and the proton. The weak force has been shown to be
of electromagnetic origin. Personally think that they are all of
electromagnetic origin.


We all know that EMR
is created by accelerated charged particles and its is the only way to
produce it.

Wrong. For example, you can also get two photons from an
electron-positron annihilation.

How do you say I am wrong when both the electron and positron are charged and
are matter particles and they accellerate as they approach each other. I repeat
EMR requires charged particles to create it. The was no energy for the BIG Bang
because there were no charged particles to clreate it. If there were then the
big bang did not create the universe. Where do the leptons go when they are
annihilated?


As charged particles are matter then there must have been matter present
prior to the big bang.

"prior to the big bang" makes no sense.

To you.

If there was matter present before the big bang then the
big bang could not have created all the matter in the universe.

You aren't making sense. There is no "before the big bang".


There must have been a before the big bang. How did the energy accumulate to
initiate the big bang?


Secondly, cosmic background radiation. If a large amount of radiation was
created by the big band

Well, I didn't know that bands can create radiation. I thought they
produce sound only. ;-)

Well maybe they are being broadcast on the radio! I did that mistake a few
times I thought I had found them all but it is difficult to proof read your own
work on the same day. Maybe I was thinking of Mantovani he only had 100 fiddles
in his work.)

But what you apparently don't understand is that the CMBR is not light
which was created by the Big Bang directly. It is radiation which came
from hot matter around 300.000-400.000 years *after* the BB.


I still would like to know how we can see it when we are inside the expanding
wavefront, you can not see a light wave from behind unless it is reflected
back.


then that was the fastest phenomena, the matter
supposedly created being the slower.

Right.


Unless you want to invoke the premise that
at that time matter could travel faster than light.

Well, the expansion of the universe in very earlier times was faster
than light.

Not consistent with above, by what reasoning do you say the laws of physics are
variable.


So the EMR emitted by the
big bang should have been the first thing out of there and be well beyond
the visible universe by now.

What do you mean by "out there"?

"out of there" - means that the fastest phenomenon makes the greatest distance
in the same time. as all the matter is slower than the light then as we are sat
on a lump of matter it must therefore be inside the wavefront of the light
emitted from the big bang. So how can we observe it?


So what is the explanation for it being visible to us
inside the universe?

Sorry, I don't understand your problem at all!


You can not observe a light beam from behind.

The light was emitted at every point of the universe and can be seen
therefore at every point of the universe. What don't you understand
there?


Yes but the universe was tiny then compared with what it is today.
as you say 300,000 light years across it is now 1300,000,000 light years
across.
All I am saying is the initial light outpaced the matter.


Is it being reflected off something or is it merely
confirmation that the universe is closed. According to the BBT there is no
matter outside the universe to reflect it off,

According to the BBT, there is not outside of the universe. What is this
supposed to mean?


and a closed universe is not confirmed yet.

Is the CMB a red shifted hydrogen line?

*sigh* Thanks for showing that you have no clue what you are talking
about.

CMBR is not a single line, it is a complete spectrum - the spectrum of a
perfect black body.


Bye,
Bjoern


Equivalent to 2.73 deg Kelvin, is that a complete spectrum or random noise from
the vacuum?

Regards,
Monitek (Arden Barker)

Sam Wormley wrote in message ...
Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
observations, each of which are described in more detail on
separate pages:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Linkmaster Sam! Thank you.
--
Mike.

Monitek wrote:

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher
Date: 18/11/03 10:25 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Monitek wrote:

Subject: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
From: Sam Wormley
Date: 16/11/03 13:10 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
observations, each of which are described in more detail on
separate pages:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html


as it is short cut and paste of above:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology


The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each
of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from
us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.

The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been
fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big
Bang.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our
universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big
Bang model predicts.

Last updated: Monday, 10-20-2003


Let us take these one at a time:

Expansion of the universe.
Yes the observations are that the universe is expanding but

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ts/1998/PHYS_c
osmos.html

indicates that the initial energy imparted to matter by the big bang would
cause the matter to slow down due to gravitational effects, but now it
appears to be speeding up. If it is speeding up then there are other forces
at work the current velocity could not be due to the big bang.

Err, these "other forces" are taking into account by the modern Big Bang
models, if you haven't noticed.


Such as.

Is this supposed to be a question? Do you ask here what "other forces"
are taken into account by the BBT which can explain the acceleration? If
yes, try reading up on "cosmological constant" and "quintessence". These
are the two most commonly used concepts.



The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The abundance of light elements in the universe we see today assumes that
all the hydrogen was produced by the big bang, He & Li are being produced
in
the sun as we speak. There is no way of identifying the He & Li which is
produced by stellar reactions appart from the He & Li claimed to be
produced
by the big bang.

Wrong. For example, we can look at stars of different ages and determine
the abundance of He, Li and other elements in their atmospheres and
surroundings. We can look at gas clouds far away, which we therefore see
at earlier times. And so on. Hence we can look how the the content of the
universe changed with time.

How much has been swallowed by black holes?

Quite a bit, but probably not a crucial quantity.

I think it's safe to assume that the total amount of mass concentrated
in the central black hole of a galaxy is not more than about 1% of the
total (visible) mass of the galaxy (based on the available data on
masses of central black holes), if at all. Additionally, there are
stellar black holes; I think they could maybe make up another percent
(this is mostly guesswork, I don't have much data here - I only know
that the confirmed cases of stellar black holes are very rare). So only
at most 2% of the total (visible) mass of each galaxy is in black holes,
I would estimate.

Why is this relevant to the question of the abundance of the light
elements?


We can also make models and calculate how much He and Li can have been
added to the universe by having been produced in stars, and add this to
the Big Bang predictions, before comparing with the He and Li which is
observed.

And we can look for the abundance of Deuterium, which can't be produced
in stars (resp. is destroyed there at once).

Presumably, destroyed by temperature,

By collisions at high temperature and pressure.


could this indicate a cold formation of deuterium is possible?
Slow neutrons attaching to protons.

This *could* happen, but I think this process is rather unlikely to
happen (I would have to look up the cross sections).


the Sun seems to
emit an abundance of both particles. Was the deuterium not gravitated into
stellar regions and destroyed?

Which deuterium should have been destroyed? The one formed in this cold
process?



Now, if there was a mechanism available for the production of hydrogen in
the universe today then the support for the big bang by the abundance of
light elements is non existant.

What mechanism would that be?

The proton can be considered as a positronium buckyball

It can? Does this model explain the measured charge density of the
proton, especially that this charge density is spherical symmetric?


which in turn provides a model for the strong force.

If you say so.


These could be formed by forming a neutron from
vacuum fluctuations which decays into proton and an electron.

How do you form a neutron from vacuum fluctuations? What about
conservation of angular momentum, for starters?



The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
To me this one is the most bizarre. Firstly as we are talking EMR. The
big bang had to have a source of energy,

Why? The total energy of the universe is very likely zero.

If so what is negative energy?

Binding energy is negative. The whole universe is "bound" together by
gravitational forces - this is a *huge* amount of negative energy. (for
other readers: please forgive me that I'm writing a bit sloppy here)


this energy must have been in the form of EMR
as there is no other form of energy available in a vacuum.

Err, why do you think there was a vacuum?


Because, there was supposed to be nothing prior to the big bang.

No. What is always said is that talking about "prior to the big bang"
makes no sense, hence it obviously isn't supposed that there was nothing
prior to the big bang.


All the
universe was supposed to be created from the big bang, or have the goal
posts been moved again?

Yes, the universe, *including time*, was supposedly created from the Big
Bang - that's why it makes no sense to talk about "prior to the Big
Bang".


And even if there was one: there are other possibilites to have energy
in a vacuum. Ever heard of strong, weak and gravitational fields?

Yes. These forces both require the state of matter before they exist.

Wrong. Why do you think so?


Just as
the quark is confied then the strong force is confined.

This makes little sense. Ever heard of a quark-gluon-plasma? This is
supposed to have existed early in the universe, and I see no reason at
all why a gluon plasma couldn't exist on its own (with only virtual
quarks in it, no real quarks) - at least until it has cooled down enough
to give rise to real quarks.


The strong force is associated with the neutron and the proton.

You should be more specific. The strong *color* force is associated with
quarks. The strong *nuclear* force is a residucal effect of this color
force and is associated with neutrons and protons. However, just as
photons can exist on their own, gluons can exist on their own, too. So
can W and Z bosons (well, at least until they decay ;-) ).


The weak force has been shown to be
of electromagnetic origin.

That's new to me. When did this happen, please?


Personally think that they are all of
electromagnetic origin.

Then how do you explain that their behaviour is totally different?



We all know that EMR
is created by accelerated charged particles and its is the only way to
produce it.

Wrong. For example, you can also get two photons from an
electron-positron annihilation.

How do you say I am wrong when both the electron and positron are charged
and are matter particles and they accellerate as they approach each other.

Well, the EMR I talked about is in this case *not* created by the
acceleration
(you seemed to imply that - if I misunderstood you, sorry), but by the
annihilation itself.


I repeat EMR requires charged particles to create it.

Sounds right.


The was no energy for the BIG Bang

Again, the total energy is likely zero.


because there were no charged particles to clreate it.

Energy can't be created. Or do you refer to EMR now with the word "it"?
If yes, then I nevertheless don't understand your statement:
"There was no energy for the BB because there were no charge particles
to create EMR"? Huh? Could you please explain how the one follows from
the other?


If there were then the
big bang did not create the universe. Where do the leptons go when they are
annihilated?

They produce either two real photons, or one virtual photon, or one
virtual Z boson. The virtual photon or virtual Z boson then decays into
a fermion-antifermion pair.



As charged particles are matter then there must have been matter present
prior to the big bang.

"prior to the big bang" makes no sense.

To you.

To everyone who understands that time was created by the BB.



If there was matter present before the big bang then the
big bang could not have created all the matter in the universe.

You aren't making sense. There is no "before the big bang".


There must have been a before the big bang.

Why?


How did the energy accumulate to initiate the big bang?

Why do you think that energy had to accumulate for it to happen?



Nevertheless, if you want to insist on wanting to know what happened
"before the Big Bang", maybe you should look up the ekpyrotic model by
Steinhardt and Turok. Perhaps this will satisfy you. You can start here,
for example:
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/



Secondly, cosmic background radiation. If a large amount of radiation was
created by the big band

Well, I didn't know that bands can create radiation. I thought they
produce sound only. ;-)

Well maybe they are being broadcast on the radio! I did that mistake a few
times I thought I had found them all but it is difficult to proof read your
own work on the same day. Maybe I was thinking of Mantovani he only had 100
fiddles in his work.)

No problem. I didn't want to critize you, I only thought is was a funny
typo.



But what you apparently don't understand is that the CMBR is not light
which was created by the Big Bang directly. It is radiation which came
from hot matter around 300.000-400.000 years *after* the BB.


I still would like to know how we can see it when we are inside the
expanding wavefront,

Why on earth do you think we are inside it???


you can not see a light wave from behind unless it is reflected back.

Well, we don't see it from behind! We see light which was emitted far
from us, which reaches us now!


then that was the fastest phenomena, the matter
supposedly created being the slower.

Right.


Unless you want to invoke the premise that
at that time matter could travel faster than light.

Well, the expansion of the universe in very earlier times was faster
than light.

Not consistent with above,

With what above?


by what reasoning do you say the laws of physics are variable.

Huh? Where did I imply anything like that?



So the EMR emitted by the
big bang should have been the first thing out of there and be well beyond
the visible universe by now.

What do you mean by "out there"?

"out of there" - means that the fastest phenomenon makes the greatest
distance in the same time.

Obviously right.


as all the matter is slower than the light then as we are sat
on a lump of matter it must therefore be inside the wavefront of the light
emitted from the big bang. So how can we observe it?

Apparently you imagine the BB as a point exploding outwards into empty
space. That's *not* what the BB theory says at all!

Aren't you familiar with the (in)famous balloon or "raisins in a cake"
analogies?



So what is the explanation for it being visible to us
inside the universe?

Sorry, I don't understand your problem at all!


You can not observe a light beam from behind.

We don't do this.


The light was emitted at every point of the universe and can be seen
therefore at every point of the universe. What don't you understand
there?


Yes but the universe was tiny then compared with what it is today.

Not necessarily - only if the universe is closed, it was ever tiny (and
the jury is still out on if it is closed or not).


as you say 300,000 light years across it is now 1300,000,000 light years
across.

Where did I say this??? I only mentioned "300,000 years after the BB", I
never said anywhere "300,000 light years across"!



All I am saying is the initial light outpaced the matter.

This would make only sense if the BB was a point exploding outwards into
empty space, and that's *not* what the BBT says.



Is it being reflected off something or is it merely
confirmation that the universe is closed. According to the BBT there is
no matter outside the universe to reflect it off,

According to the BBT, there is not outside of the universe. What is this
supposed to mean?

Hello?


and a closed universe is not confirmed yet.

Is the CMB a red shifted hydrogen line?

*sigh* Thanks for showing that you have no clue what you are talking
about.

CMBR is not a single line, it is a complete spectrum - the spectrum of a
perfect black body.


Equivalent to 2.73 deg Kelvin,

Yes.


is that a complete spectrum

Yes.


or random noise from the vacuum?

Random noise would look *completely* different. The observed spectrum
has nothing random about it - it follows perfectly a specific curve,
which formula was found by Planck more than a century ago, describing
the emittance of a perfect black body.


Bye,
Bjoern

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher
Date: 20/11/03 11:03 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Monitek wrote:

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher
Date: 18/11/03 10:25 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Monitek wrote:

Subject: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
From: Sam Wormley
Date: 16/11/03 13:10 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important
observations, each of which are described in more detail on
separate pages:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html


as it is short cut and paste of above:

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology


The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations,
each
of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding
from
us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.

The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been
fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big
Bang.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the
our
universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the
Big
Bang model predicts.

Last updated: Monday, 10-20-2003


Let us take these one at a time:

Expansion of the universe.
Yes the observations are that the universe is expanding but


http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ts/1998/PHYS_c
osmos.html

indicates that the initial energy imparted to matter by the big bang
would
cause the matter to slow down due to gravitational effects, but now it
appears to be speeding up. If it is speeding up then there are other
forces
at work the current velocity could not be due to the big bang.

Err, these "other forces" are taking into account by the modern Big Bang
models, if you haven't noticed.


Such as.

Is this supposed to be a question? Do you ask here what "other forces"
are taken into account by the BBT which can explain the acceleration? If
yes, try reading up on "cosmological constant" and "quintessence". These
are the two most commonly used concepts.



The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The abundance of light elements in the universe we see today assumes
that
all the hydrogen was produced by the big bang, He & Li are being
produced
in
the sun as we speak. There is no way of identifying the He & Li which is
produced by stellar reactions appart from the He & Li claimed to be
produced
by the big bang.

Wrong. For example, we can look at stars of different ages and determine
the abundance of He, Li and other elements in their atmospheres and
surroundings. We can look at gas clouds far away, which we therefore see
at earlier times. And so on. Hence we can look how the the content of the
universe changed with time.

How much has been swallowed by black holes?

Quite a bit, but probably not a crucial quantity.

I think it's safe to assume that the total amount of mass concentrated
in the central black hole of a galaxy is not more than about 1% of the\0
total (visible) mass of the galaxy (based on the available data on
masses of central black holes), if at all. Additionally, there are
stellar black holes; I think they could maybe make up another percent
(this is mostly guesswork, I don't have much data here - I only know
that the confirmed cases of stellar black holes are very rare). So only
at most 2% of the total (visible) mass of each galaxy is in black holes,
I would estimate.

Why is this relevant to the question of the abundance of the light
elements?


Snip---------------------------------

the Sun seems to
emit an abundance of both particles. Was the deuterium not gravitated into
stellar regions and destroyed?

Which deuterium should have been destroyed? The one formed in this cold
process?


All the primoral deuterium would be lost in stellar processes that which we see
today
could have been created since the BB.

Now, if there was a mechanism available for the production of hydrogen
in
the universe today then the support for the big bang by the abundance of
light elements is non existant.

What mechanism would that be?

The proton can be considered as a positronium buckyball

It can? Does this model explain the measured charge density of the
proton, especially that this charge density is spherical symmetric?

As the proposed structure is a ball with the charge placed centrally
I can see no problem here.


which in turn provides a model for the strong force.

If you say so.


I say so he http://members.aol.com/medusa1989/theatom.html


These could be formed by forming a neutron from
vacuum fluctuations which decays into proton and an electron.

How do you form a neutron from vacuum fluctuations? What about
conservation of angular momentum, for starters?


Pair creation occurs randomly in the vacuum and sometimes it makes a neutron#
but mostly the e-p pairs recombine. However there is evidence for galactic
electron
positron jets maybe the source could be from these.
There is no angular momentum to conserve as the neutron would be created from
massles chargeless particles in the form of combined e-p pairs in the vacuum

snip--------------------------------------
And even if there was one: there are other possibilites to have energy
in a vacuum. Ever heard of strong, weak and gravitational fields?

Yes. These forces both require the state of matter before they exist.

Wrong. Why do you think so?

The strong force occurs in the nucleus - matter
The force of gravitation is proportional to mass no mass no g -- matter
The weak is evidenced by neutron decay but already linked to electromagnetic.
---- matter
Electrostatic force surrounds leptons - matter

The fields surround the matter - no matter present no no fields.

Just as
the quark is confined then the strong force is confined.

This makes little sense. Ever heard of a quark-gluon-plasma? This is
supposed to have existed early in the universe, and I see no reason at
all why a gluon plasma couldn't exist on its own (with only virtual
quarks in it, no real quarks) - at least until it has cooled down enough
to give rise to real quarks.

The quark gluon plasma has not been observed yet. How does temperature convert
real quarks into virtual quarks?


The strong force is associated with the neutron and the proton.

You should be more specific. The strong *color* force is associated with
quarks. The strong *nuclear* force is a residucal effect of this color
force and is associated with neutrons and protons. However, just as
photons can exist on their own, gluons can exist on their own, too. So
can W and Z bosons (well, at least until they decay ;-) ).



Colour force not been measured, the only thing that has been measured is that
there is fractional charge in nucleons.

The weak force has been shown to be
of electromagnetic origin.

That's new to me. When did this happen, please?


1983, something to do with w & z particles,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../unify.html#c1

Personally think that they are all of
Electromagnetic origin.

Then how do you explain that their behaviour is totally different?

I don't have to. I don't have a problem with it. Its not my theory

snip---------------------

The was no energy for the BIG Bang

Again, the total energy is likely zero.


because there were no charged particles to clreate it.

Energy can't be created. Or do you refer to MR now with the word "it"?
If yes, then I nevertheless don't understand your statement:

Yes EMR and energy in a vacuum are synonymous, in the context it means EMR
here.

"There was no energy for the BB because there were no charge particles
to create EMR"? Huh? Could you please explain how the one follows from
the other?

EMR can only be created from charged particle acceleration. If the only source
of energy for the BB was EMR it had to come from charged particles in existence
prior to the Big Bang.


If there were then the
big bang did not create the universe. Where do the leptons go when they are
annihilated?

They produce either two real photons, or one virtual photon, or one
virtual Z boson. The virtual photon or virtual Z boson then decays into
a fermion-antifermion pair.

or a proton or a neutron or anything you like for that matter, its the
producing anything at all which gave me the idea that matter may be a construct
of positronium. I understand from those in the know that electron -positron
colliders produce every known type of particle.
So you see e-p pairs can create protons. The Dirac sea can create protons.

Snip---------------------
If there was matter present before the big bang then the
big bang could not have created all the matter in the universe.

You aren't making sense. There is no "before the big bang".


There must have been a before the big bang.

Why?

Because the Big Bang required energy. Because the Big Bang required the
gravitational collapse of a singularity. Gravity doesn't exist without matter,
gravitational fields are a function of the presence of mass, mass is a property
of matter.


How did the energy accumulate to initiate the big bang?

Why do you think that energy had to accumulate for it to happen?


The energy imparted a velocity to a huge amount of matter.
The experiments show that energy is required to produce matter.


Nevertheless, if you want to insist on wanting to know what happened
"before the Big Bang", maybe you should look up the ekpyrotic model by
Steinhardt and Turok. Perhaps this will satisfy you. You can start here,
for example:
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

As it mentions hidden dimensions and as yet hidden dimensions can not be
observed,


Secondly, cosmic background radiation. If a large amount of radiation
was
created by the big band

Well, I didn't know that bands can create radiation. I thought they
produce sound only. ;-)

Well maybe they are being broadcast on the radio! I did that mistake a few
times I thought I had found them all but it is difficult to proof read your
own work on the same day. Maybe I was thinking of Mantovani he only had 100
fiddles in his work.)

No problem. I didn't want to critize you, I only thought is was a funny
typo.

That's ok I don't want to critize you ether.


But what you apparently don't understand is that the CMBR is not light
which was created by the Big Bang directly. It is radiation which came
from hot matter around 300.000-400.000 years *after* the BB.


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html - says that Cosmic Microwave
Background IS light directly from the Big Bang . I say it can not be true. The
Big Bang created a hot hydrogen plasma. A plasma is a gas and as such it can
not radiate a thermal spectrum so how on earth did a hydrogen plasma radiate a
thermal spectrum when there was no matter there.


I still would like to know how we can see it when we are inside the
expanding wave front,

Why on earth do you think we are inside it???


you can not see a light wave from behind unless it is reflected back.

Well, we don't see it from behind! We see light which was emitted far
from us, which reaches us now!


then that was the fastest phenomena, the matter
supposedly created being the slower.

Right.


Unless you want to invoke the premise that
at that time matter could travel faster than light.

Well, the expansion of the universe in very earlier times was faster
than light.

Not consistent with above,

With what above?



You said:

then that (EMR) was the fastest phenomena, the matter
supposedly created being the slower.

Right.

And you said:
Well, the expansion of the universe in very earlier times was faster
than light.

I put the brackets in because it is out of context.
Now you really have to show that matter can travel faster than light.
I am sure old Onestone will be pleased about that.


by what reasoning do you say the laws of physics are variable.

Huh? Where did I imply anything like that?

Implying that matter can travel faster than light!!!

Snip-------------------------

as all the matter is slower than the light then as we are sat
on a lump of matter it must therefore be inside the wavefront of the light
emitted from the big bang. So how can we observe it?

Apparently you imagine the BB as a point exploding outwards into empty
space. That's *not* what the BB theory says at all!

Aren't you familiar with the (in)famous balloon or "raisins in a cake"
analogies?


Yes, but the wavefronts of the light have expanded faster than the matter.
We are sat on matter therefore the light has gone beyond us. Secondly
with the balloon model the outside edge of the balloon is expanding into free
space.



So what is the explanation for it being visible to us
inside the universe?

Sorry, I don't understand your problem at all!


You can not observe a light beam from behind.

We don't do this.

I know that is why I say you can't see anything which was coming from the big
bang.

The light was emitted at every point of the universe and can be seen
therefore at every point of the universe. What don't you understand
there?


Yes but the universe was tiny then compared with what it is today.

Not necessarily - only if the universe is closed, it was ever tiny (and
the jury is still out on if it is closed or not).

The light was emitted from a gas and a gas can not emit a thermal radiation
spectrum.


as you say 300,000 light years across it is now 1300,000,000 light years
across.

Where did I say this??? I only mentioned "300,000 years after the BB", I
never said anywhere "300,000 light years across"!

As light travels at the speed of light after a year it has travelled a light
year. So
After 300,000 years the universe has expanded to 300,000 light years diameter
OOPs that's wrong its 600,000 light years diameter (across) therefore after
1,300,000,000
Years the universe is 2,600,000,000 light years across. Therefore as we can see
1300,000,000 light years in all directions we must be in the exact centre of
the universe.





All I am saying is the initial light outpaced the matter.

This would make only sense if the BB was a point exploding outwards into
empty space, and that's *not* what the BBT says.



Is it being reflected off something or is it merely
confirmation that the universe is closed. According to the BBT there is
no matter outside the universe to reflect it off,

According to the BBT, there is not outside of the universe. What is this
supposed to mean?

Hello?
Morgen. Wie gehte Sie.



and a closed universe is not confirmed yet.

Is the CMB a red shifted hydrogen line?

*sigh* Thanks for showing that you have no clue what you are talking
about.

CMBR is not a single line, it is a complete spectrum - the spectrum of a
perfect black body.


Equivalent to 2.73 deg Kelvin,

Yes.


is that a complete spectrum

Yes.


or random noise from the vacuum?

Random noise would look *completely* different. The observed spectrum
has nothing random about it - it follows perfectly a specific curve,
which formula was found by Planck more than a century ago, describing
the emittance of a perfect black body.


Bye,
Bjoern


Ok so its not random noise it's a thermal radiation profile but it can not have
come from a gas. It must be from a liquid or a solid. Open a red hot furnace
and what do you see?
The thermal radiation spectrum must be from interstellar dust and as most of
that is from supernovae that was hot to start with.

Regards,

Monitek (Arden Barker)

Monitek wrote:

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher
Date: 20/11/03 11:03 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

Monitek wrote:


[snip]


Err, these "other forces" are taking into account by the modern Big Bang
models, if you haven't noticed.


Such as.

Is this supposed to be a question? Do you ask here what "other forces"
are taken into account by the BBT which can explain the acceleration? If
yes, try reading up on "cosmological constant" and "quintessence". These
are the two most commonly used concepts.

Hello? Did you get this?



[snip]


Wrong. For example, we can look at stars of different ages and determine
the abundance of He, Li and other elements in their atmospheres and
surroundings. We can look at gas clouds far away, which we therefore see
at earlier times. And so on. Hence we can look how the the content of
the universe changed with time.

How much has been swallowed by black holes?

Quite a bit, but probably not a crucial quantity.

I think it's safe to assume that the total amount of mass concentrated
in the central black hole of a galaxy is not more than about 1% of the
total (visible) mass of the galaxy (based on the available data on
masses of central black holes), if at all. Additionally, there are
stellar black holes; I think they could maybe make up another percent
(this is mostly guesswork, I don't have much data here - I only know
that the confirmed cases of stellar black holes are very rare). So only
at most 2% of the total (visible) mass of each galaxy is in black holes,
I would estimate.

Why is this relevant to the question of the abundance of the light
elements?

Hello? Did you get this?



Snip---------------------------------

the Sun seems to
emit an abundance of both particles. Was the deuterium not gravitated
into stellar regions and destroyed?

Which deuterium should have been destroyed? The one formed in this cold
process?


All the primoral deuterium would be lost in stellar processes that which we
see today could have been created since the BB.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Could you please rephrase
the sentence?


[snip]


The proton can be considered as a positronium buckyball

It can? Does this model explain the measured charge density of the
proton, especially that this charge density is spherical symmetric?

As the proposed structure is a ball with the charge placed centrally
I can see no problem here.

But the measured charge density of the proton isn't a ball with the
charge
placed centrally. Measurements say that the charge density of the proton
depends exponentially on the distance to its center. How does your model
explain this?



which in turn provides a model for the strong force.

If you say so.


I say so he http://members.aol.com/medusa1989/theatom.html

I see that you say the
"My counter claim is that the particles themselves lose charge as they
approach each other..."

What's your evidence that this indeed happens, and how is this possible
in the light of conservation of electric charge?

You *do* know that conservation of charge follows directly from
Maxwell's
equations, don't you?



These could be formed by forming a neutron from
vacuum fluctuations which decays into proton and an electron.

How do you form a neutron from vacuum fluctuations? What about
conservation of angular momentum, for starters?


Pair creation occurs randomly in the vacuum and sometimes it makes a
neutron#but mostly the e-p pairs recombine. However there is evidence for
galactic electron positron jets maybe the source could be from these.
There is no angular momentum to conserve as the neutron would be created
from massles chargeless particles in the form of combined e-p pairs in the\0
vacuum

Combined e-p pairs are called "positronium". This has properties totally
different from neutrons.

What about the mass of the neutron? Why is it so much more massive
than an electron-positron-pair.

And there is *still* a problem with angular momentum: electrons,
positrons
and neutrons all have spin 1/2. How do you combine two particles with
spin 1/2 to get yet another particle with spin 1/2?



snip--------------------------------------
And even if there was one: there are other possibilites to have energy
in a vacuum. Ever heard of strong, weak and gravitational fields?

Yes. These forces both require the state of matter before they exist.

Wrong. Why do you think so?

The strong force occurs in the nucleus - matter

Ever heard of glueballs? Do you consider those to be matter, too?


The force of gravitation is proportional to mass no mass no g -- matter

Wrong. The force of gravitation is proportional to *energy*, not to
mass.



The weak is evidenced by neutron decay but already linked to
electromagnetic. ---- matter

Do you include neutrinos when you say "matter"?


Electrostatic force surrounds leptons

And quarks. And Z bosons.


- matter

Do you include Z bosons when you say "matter"?


The fields surround the matter - no matter present no no fields.

Wrong. For example, electromagnetic waves travel through the vacuum,
without any matter present (yes, there is the occasional atom here
and there even in interstellar space - but between them, there is
nothing at all, only vacuum).


Just as
the quark is confined then the strong force is confined.

This makes little sense. Ever heard of a quark-gluon-plasma? This is
supposed to have existed early in the universe, and I see no reason at
all why a gluon plasma couldn't exist on its own (with only virtual
quarks in it, no real quarks) - at least until it has cooled down enough
to give rise to real quarks.

The quark gluon plasma has not been observed yet.

Several people think it has been observed recently. I have to look this
up.


How does temperature convert
real quarks into virtual quarks?

I didn't say that this happens.

What I said is that there can be a "sea" of gluons and virtual quarks,
and that when this sea cools down, the gluons and virtual quarks could
combine
and form real quarks.



The strong force is associated with the neutron and the proton.

You should be more specific. The strong *color* force is associated with
quarks. The strong *nuclear* force is a residucal effect of this color
force and is associated with neutrons and protons. However, just as
photons can exist on their own, gluons can exist on their own, too. So
can W and Z bosons (well, at least until they decay ;-) ).


Colour force not been measured,

Well, its effects *have* been measured. For example, one can study the
spectra of quarkoniums.


the only thing that has been measured is that
there is fractional charge in nucleons.

No, that's definitely *not* the only thing which has been measured! For
example, one piece of evidence for the existence of "colour" is the
production cross section for mesons, which shows that there is an
additional
factor of three involved, compared to electromagnetic processes; another
is the observation of three-jet events in colliders. And that's just the
tip
of the iceberg!


The weak force has been shown to be
of electromagnetic origin.

That's new to me. When did this happen, please?


1983, something to do with w & z particles,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../unify.html#c1

This says that the weak force and the electromagnetic force can
be combined together and form the so-called "electroweak force".
This isn't the same as saying "the weak force is of electromagnetic
origin"! You could say with equal right, if not even more right:
"The electromagnetic force if of weak origin"!


Personally think that they are all of
Electromagnetic origin.

Then how do you explain that their behaviour is totally different?

I don't have to. I don't have a problem with it. Its not my theory

This comment makes no sense at all! *YOU* claim that all forces
have to same origin, so you can't ignore that these forces all behave
totally different! That's an experimental observation!

For example, we know (for example, from observation of binding energies
of nuclei) that there is a force in nuclei which has only a very short
range; this follows from the observation that the binding energy of
nuclei is (to a first approximation) proportional to their volumes.
How do you explain these observations?

[snip]



"There was no energy for the BB because there were no charge particles
to create EMR"? Huh? Could you please explain how the one follows from
the other?

EMR can only be created from charged particle acceleration.

Or, again, from electron-positron acceleration. Again, the EMR is *not*
caused by their acceleration "towards" each other.

And why do you think the EMR at the BB *had* to be created? Perhaps it
has
already existed forever?


If the only source
of energy for the BB was EMR

Again: the BB doesn't need a source of energy. Why do you think so?


it had to come from charged particles in existence
prior to the Big Bang.

Again: "prior to the BB" makes no sense. Say, do you listen to anything
I say at all?


If there were then the
big bang did not create the universe. Where do the leptons go when they
are annihilated?

They produce either two real photons, or one virtual photon, or one
virtual Z boson. The virtual photon or virtual Z boson then decays into
a fermion-antifermion pair.

or a proton or a neutron or anything you like for that matter,

Violates conservation of charge, of angular momentum, of energy, and
several others.


its the
producing anything at all which gave me the idea that matter may be a
construct of positronium.

Violates conservation of charge.


I understand from those in the know that electron -positron
colliders produce every known type of particle.

Wrong. There are lots of particles which can't be produced in
electron-positron collisions.


So you see e-p pairs can create protons.

Only if they have enough energy, and only if other particles (for
example,
an antiproton) is created simultaneously.


The Dirac sea can create protons.

Violates conservation of energy.


Snip---------------------
If there was matter present before the big bang thenthe
big bang could not have created all the matter in the universe.

You aren't making sense. There is no "before the big bang".


There must have been a before the big bang.

Why?

Because the Big Bang required energy.

Why? How often do I need to point out to you that the total energy
of the universe is very likely zero?


Because the Big Bang required the
gravitational collapse of a singularity.

Huh??? Why on earth do you think so?