How can I look back 14 billion LJ (assumed age of universe 15 B yrs ).
At that time the universe was 1 billion yrs old and the light should
have approached quite earlier at me.
Or there was no BigBang?

Is the background temperature, quite isotrope, an answer for Olbers
paradox for an infinite universe, still expanding (infinite and
expanding paradox)?

Dear Rudolf Drabek:

On Jun 16, 1:56*pm, Rudolf Drabek wrote:
How can I look back 14 billion LJ (assumed age
of universe 15 B yrs ). At that time the
universe was 1 billion yrs old and the light
should have approached quite earlier at me.
Or there was no BigBang?

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
... in four parts.

Specifically to your question:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html


Is the background temperature, quite
isotrope, an answer for Olbers paradox
for an infinite universe, still expanding
(infinite and expanding paradox)?

No. No infinite Universe passes Olber's paradox, since you should be
moving *towards* something, or you should be encountering new bright
galaxies (and not just the dim ones being discovered by enhanced
instrumentation).

David A. Smith

Rudolf Drabek wrote:
How can I look back 14 billion LJ (assumed age of universe 15 B yrs ).
At that time the universe was 1 billion yrs old and the light should
have approached quite earlier at me.

No. In big bang models the universe has been expanding sufficiently fast
that such light took 14 gigayears to reach you.


Or there was no BigBang?

Without one it's exceedingly difficult to construct a cosmological model
that agrees with observations. But the details before something like
10^-27 second are not well known, and it's possible there was not truly
a singularity -- in GR there definitely is one, but there's no reason to
expect GR to apply to such extreme conditions. Understanding this will
almost surely have to wait for a theory of quantum gravity to be
formulated....


Tom Roberts

On Jun 17, 4:30*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
How can I look back 14 billion LJ (assumed age of universe 15 B yrs ).
At that time the universe was 1 billion yrs old and the light should
have approached quite earlier at me.

No. In big bang models the universe has been expanding sufficiently fast
that such light took 14 gigayears to reach you.

Or there was no BigBang?

Without one it's exceedingly difficult to construct a cosmological model
that agrees with observations. But the details before something like
10^-27 second are not well known, and it's possible there was not truly
a singularity -- in GR there definitely is one, but there's no reason to
expect GR to apply to such extreme conditions. Understanding this will
almost surely have to wait for a theory of quantum gravity to be
formulated....

Tom Roberts

YOU should formulate it Roberts Roberts although you are still a
freshman among hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult. Half of your
superior brothers are already making money elsewhere, the other half
speak of "energy-dependent speed of light" and therefore will abandon
Einsteiniana soon:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track --
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."

Pentcho Valev

Tom Roberts wrote:
Rudolf Drabek wrote:
How can I look back 14 billion LJ (assumed age of universe 15 B yrs
). At that time the universe was 1 billion yrs old and the light
should have approached quite earlier at me.

No. In big bang models the universe has been expanding sufficiently
fast that such light took 14 gigayears to reach you.


Or there was no BigBang?

Without one it's exceedingly difficult to construct a cosmological
model that agrees with observations.

What are the most likely contenders?

The age of the universe must include the universal expansion that
carried the most distamt onbjects out to 13 bilion lighy years. The
light then had to return accross expanding space.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jun 17, 5:04*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:30*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:





Rudolf Drabek wrote:
How can I look back 14 billion LJ (assumed age of universe 15 B yrs ).
At that time the universe was 1 billion yrs old and the light should
have approached quite earlier at me.

No. In big bang models the universe has been expanding sufficiently fast
that such light took 14 gigayears to reach you.

Or there was no BigBang?

Without one it's exceedingly difficult to construct a cosmological model
that agrees with observations. But the details before something like
10^-27 second are not well known, and it's possible there was not truly
a singularity -- in GR there definitely is one, but there's no reason to
expect GR to apply to such extreme conditions. Understanding this will
almost surely have to wait for a theory of quantum gravity to be
formulated....

Tom Roberts

YOU should formulate it Roberts Roberts although you are still a
freshman among hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult. Half of your
superior brothers are already making money elsewhere, the other half
speak of "energy-dependent speed of light" and therefore will abandon
Einsteiniana soon:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. *On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track --
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. *I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. *So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."

Roberts Roberts if you want to become a member of the Perimeter
Institute where Einsteiniana is still a money-spinner:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/

you should start repeating the words of Master Joao Magueijo who is
now inside the Perimeter Institute and eats a lot and is very happy:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
''Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum
gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said. ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps
the constancy of the speed of light.''

Something like this:

Tom Roberts: ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of
the speed of light yes we need to drop a postulate, perhaps the
constancy of the speed of light oh yes we need to drop a postulate,
perhaps the constancy of the speed of light yes yes yes!

Then Big Brother Lazaridis may appreciate your revolutionary ideas and
then you will be given a place at the table, next to eating Master
Joao Magueijo.

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 18, 1:06*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Roberts Roberts if you want to become a member of the Perimeter
Institute where Einsteiniana is still a money-spinner:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/

you should start repeating the words of Master Joao Magueijo who is
now inside the Perimeter Institute and eats a lot and is very happy:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
''Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum
gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said. ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps
the constancy of the speed of light.''

Something like this:

Tom Roberts: ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of
the speed of light yes we need to drop a postulate, perhaps the
constancy of the speed of light oh yes we need to drop a postulate,
perhaps the constancy of the speed of light yes yes yes!

Then Big Brother Lazaridis may appreciate your revolutionary ideas and
then you will be given a place at the table, next to eating Master
Joao Magueijo.

Roberts Roberts Big Brother Lazaridis and Superior Brother Smolin have
already considered your 2006 discovery:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."

They were inclined to offer you a place at one of the tables at the
Perimeter Institute, next to eating Master Joao Magueijo, but then an
incredibly intelligent Einsteinian called Superior Brother Jean-Marc
Lévy-Leblond told them that you are in fact "parvenu et plagiaire": it
is Superior Brother Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, not you Roberts Roberts,
that has discovered that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate is
obsolete and if the speed of light is constant Divine Albert's Divine
Special Relativity "would be unaffected" and if the speed of light is
variable Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity "would be
unaffected" again:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

Pentcho Valev

On 17 Jun., 00:36, dlzc wrote:
Dear Rudolf Drabek:

On Jun 16, 1:56*pm, Rudolf Drabek wrote:

How can I look back 14 billion LJ (assumed age
of universe 15 B yrs ). *At that time the
universe was 1 billion yrs old and the light
should have approached quite earlier at me.
Or there was no BigBang?

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
... in four parts.

Specifically to your question:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html

In this animation the starting distance is about 1,6 GLy, so very long
after the universe was transparent for photons. To have a visibility
of far objects *now*, after 13GLy, the speed difference taken in the
animation is about 0.88c.

In the pictues the distance *now* is said to be 39 billion Ly = 39 GLy
this is greater as the universe to date is. Must be a failure I think

One thing is clear: the escape velocity of the outer parts of the
universe has to be c and this gives the size of the universe. I posted
this yrs ago in connection *what is outside of the universe*. Also is
clear and can be seen in the animation also, that the specific density
of the universe is decreasing with the age.
So at 10^-27sec we can assume a *center*, but it is useless to know
where it was. For sure not on the back of turtles (answer of the old
lady).


Is the background temperature, quite
isotrope, an answer for Olbers paradox
for an infinite universe, still expanding
(infinite and expanding paradox)?

No. *No infinite Universe passes Olber's paradox, since you should be
moving *towards* something, or you should be encountering new bright
galaxies (and not just the dim ones being discovered by enhanced
instrumentation).

David A. Smith

Dear Rudolf Drabek:

On Jun 19, 9:38*am, Rudolf Drabek wrote:
...
So at 10^-27sec we can assume a *center*,
but it is useless to know where it was.

As a first blush guess, we could start with:
300 km/sec * 3.2 x 10^7 sec / year * 14.7 x 10^9 years towards Virgo.
But nothing interesting there.

David A. Smith