Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Sam Wormley's Avatar
    Sam Wormley Guest

    Default From Dark Matter to Light

    the gastro in physics.

    Recent surveys of the shapes, colors, and masses of galaxies have
    put a new focus on the nitty-gritty of galaxy formation--the
    complicated physics of the interaction of gas.

  2. #2
    Davoud's Avatar
    Davoud Guest

    Default From Dark Matter to Light

    Sam Wormley:

    Galaxy formation is a worthy field of study, to be sure. A neophyte --
    the apparent target audience for "Science News" -- might think that it
    is the only problem remaining in cosmology. We don't know how the
    Universe began (or why) and what happened during the first 10e-15
    seconds (or so) after it began. We don't know what, if anything,
    happened before the Universe began. We aren't at all certain that
    M-theory is correct. And inflation is a very convenient theory, but is
    it true? Finally, one of the farther out questions of quantum theory is
    whether the Universe began at all. If it doesn't exist then it didn't
    begin and the question of galaxy formation is moot and you should not
    be reading this post.

    These would seem to me to be the really muddy questions in cosmology.
    The question of galaxy formation is for dandies :-)


    usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

  3. #3
    Sam Wormley's Avatar
    Sam Wormley Guest

    Default From Dark Matter to Light

    Davoud wrote:

    Learning more about each piece "sheds light" on the other questions. :-)

    No Center

    Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

    WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory

    WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

  4. #4
    Davoud's Avatar
    Davoud Guest

    Default From Dark Matter to Light

    Sam Wormley wrote:

    Davoud replied:

    Sam Wormley again:

    This assertion, that the Universe has no center and no preferred
    directions, has lately been called into question based on WMAP
    findings, and long been questioned on logical and aesthetic grounds.
    Just as it doesn't make sense to the layman that the Universe isn't
    expanding from a starting point, it also doesn't make sense to some
    cosmologists. And if it turns out that the Universe is rotating, call
    of your bets.

    _SCIENCE_ , on WMAP Results:
    "But the map led to some mysteries, too. Within 6 months, one team had
    found a curious alignment of certain undulations in the CMB. Others
    soon found more correlations that suggested that the cosmos might be
    skewered like a meatball on a toothpick by an ³axis of evil.² That axis
    might show that the universe has a strange shape or is rotating. It
    could trash cosmologists¹ cherished assumption that the universe has no
    center and no special directions, the so-called cosmological principle
    that traces its origins to Copernicus. Or it could be a meaningless
    fluke. ³Everyone agrees it¹s there,² says Kate Land, a cosmologist
    at the University of Oxford in the U.K. ³But is it significant?²
    There¹s the rub: With only one universe to measure, it may be
    impossible to tell...." --Science 28 SEPTEMBER 2007 VOL 317

    The increasing rate of universal expansion constrains the amount of
    time that is available us to study these questions. It may well be that
    time and expansion have already obscured the Planck era so that we will
    never understand the beginning itself, let alone what (might have)
    happened before the beginning. We don't need to find all the answers by
    next Tuesday, but our Hubble volume is effectively shrinking; after a
    hundred billion years or so astronomers will be able to study only our
    own "supergalaxy;" they might reasonably, if wrongly, conclude that's
    all there is to the Universe.


    usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

  5. #5
    Chris L Peterson's Avatar
    Chris L Peterson Guest

    Default From Dark Matter to Light

    On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:12:30 GMT, Davoud <> wrote:

    Damn few. On logical and aesthetic grounds, the notion that the Universe
    might have a 3D center is bizarre. I've never heard any cosmologist
    suggest that such a point exists.

    The WMAP anisotropy is interesting, and potentially profound. But the
    possibility of some local structure in the _observable_ Universe is
    quite different from the idea that there is a center to the Universe as
    a whole.

    Chris L Peterson
    Cloudbait Observatory

  6. #6
    Sam Wormley's Avatar
    Sam Wormley Guest

    Default From Dark Matter to Light

    Davoud wrote:


    And those "curiosities" are in deed scrutinized by astronomer... but
    the over all theory of the expanding universe enjoys much support from
    may corners of physics and astronomy.

    Just one thing to think about... rotation of the universe... I ask
    rotating with respect to what?


  7. #7
    oriel36's Avatar
    oriel36 Guest

    Default From Dark Matter to Light

    On 23 Mar, 00:12, Davoud <> wrote:

    The greatest fiction created by empiricism or the 'scientific method'
    was to foist the belief that people before Copernicus,such as Ptolemy
    or the Christian Church , believed in an Earth centered Universe hence
    variations of this 'Copernican principle' Cosmological principle and
    so on.

    The astronomers at the time of Copernicus worked off am Earth centered
    solar system and Not an Earth centered Universe and Copernicus could
    work on the heliocentric arrangement without any worry of censure from
    the Church.There is an enormous difference between the perspective
    which Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo knew and the present contemporary
    fiction which forces the astronomical background that an Earth
    centered Universe was important when it was not.

    The highly respect bishop of Cusa argued against an Earth centered
    Universe long before Copernicus provided the details for the orbital
    motion of the Earth between Venus and Mars hence the background for
    the introduction of heliocentric reasoning is based strictly on the
    existing Ptolemaic astronomies of an Earth centered solar system

    To borrow the argument -

    Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of
    the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In
    that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would
    believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be
    at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus,
    A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's Hence Cusa
    could write in the early 15th century -

    "And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
    center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
    the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
    through the intellect, to which only learned ignorance is of help--that
    the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the
    world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere--
    having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa

    Copernicus affirms that genuine astronomers worked off the arrangement
    of soalr system objects and it is modern fiction to imagine that they
    concerned themselves with an Earth centered Universe -


    "Of all things visible, the highest is the heaven of the fixed stars.
    This, I see, is doubted by nobody. But the ancient philosophers wanted
    to arrange the planets in accordance with the duration of the
    revolutions. Their principle assumes that of objects moving equally
    fast, those farther away seem to travel more slowly, as is proved in
    Euclid's Optics. The moon revolves in the shortest period of time
    because, in their opinion, it runs on the smallest circle as the
    nearest to the earth. The highest planet, on the other hand, is
    Saturn, which completes the biggest circuit in the longest time. Below
    it is Jupiter, followed by Mars.

    With regard to Venus and Mercury, however, differences of opinion are
    found. For, these planets do not pass through every elongation from
    the sun, as the other planets do. Hence Venus and Mercury are located
    above the sun by some authorities, like Plato's Timaeus [38 D], but
    below the sun by others, like Ptolemy [Syntaxis, IX, 1] and many of
    the modems. Al-Bitruji places Venus above the sun, and Mercury below
    it. " COPERNICUS

    Many here may imagine that Darwinism is the major battleground in the
    ill-conceived idea that matters of faith are in conflict with
    investigations of terrestrial/celestial phenomena but the real root
    causes of this disasterous course humanity has found itself on is
    astronomical in nature.Very few can handle the astronomical reasoning
    which shows the ultra-secular empirical agenda as the most dangerous
    ideology known however they can only see the effects where men are
    roughly 3 minutes 56 seconds off the basic value for axial rotation
    through 360 degrees,can't recognise motions when they stare them in
    the face and believe in concepts such as this hideous Universal center/
    circumference notion .

    For the empiricist gearing up for an attack by intelligent design and
    Darwinism ,the real battle is astronomical in content whether any of
    you care to recognise it or not.The empirical foundations supplied by
    Newton/Flamsteed are about to come back in a relevent way so go ahead
    and promote this insane Universal idea of no center/circumference as
    it will tell everyone what is wrong with the approach rather than
    justifications of these notions

  8. #8
    Davoud's Avatar
    Davoud Guest

    Default From Dark Matter to Light


    Chris L Peterson:

    Au contraire, mon vieux ami pédant. It is the evidence to the contrary
    that gives a bizarre result, because it is in conflict with every
    constituent piece we know of in the Universe. If the best available
    theory from the best available evidence confirms that the Universe has
    no center of mass, that inflation did not begin in a very small
    central area and proceed in all directions, that will be the bizarre
    reality. I agree that the preponderance of evidence points to what I
    consider to be the bizarre result.

    You listen to Brahms. He's great! I listen to Bach. He's great, too!

    I think the work by the WMAP team represents one of mankind's great
    intellectual achievements, on a par with Bach's Suite #6 for
    Unaccompanied Cello. (Bach, of course, had an advantage. Say what you
    will about benighted European monarchs; at least Bach wasn't laboring
    in a place and in an era that was anti-education, anti-rational,
    anti-intellectual, anti-science, and deeply dedicated to the pursuit of


    usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

  9. #9
    Chris L Peterson's Avatar
    Chris L Peterson Guest

    Default From Dark Matter to Light

    On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:37:41 GMT, Davoud <> wrote:

    Perhaps I misunderstand you? Cosmology does not suggest that the
    Universe began as a single point and proceeded in all dimensions, except
    in an abstract mathematical sense. That sort of terminology is simply a
    poor language construct intended to give a sense of the Big Bang to
    those unable or unwilling to attempt a more fundamental understanding.
    Unfortunately, it has resulted in a widespread and extreme
    misunderstanding of the nature and origin of the Universe.

    With current theory, we understand that the Universe has no center of
    mass, no center of inflation, and no preferred directions in 3D space.
    That's quite natural, logical, and intuitive. If observations lead us to
    believe that there is a center of expansion or mass, most of the Big
    Bang theory goes out the door.

    Cosmology is a strange field, and it's anybody's guess what ideas will
    crop up, and what curious data will be collected by the likes of WMAP
    (as you say, a remarkable instrument and great achievement). I suspect,
    however, that the anomalous quadrupole data will be explained in some
    much more prosaic fashion than fundamentally altering the (suspected)
    structure of the Universe.

    We live in interesting times.

    Chris L Peterson
    Cloudbait Observatory

  10. #10
    Bill Forster's Avatar
    Bill Forster Guest

    Default From Dark Matter to Light

    "Davoud" <> wrote:

    Could we ever have observed the Planck era? Doesn't the electron soup
    that preceded the CMB release preclude observations of the universe prior
    to 380,000 years after the beginning?


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Unravelling the Dark Matter - Dark Energy Paradigm
    By Surfer in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2009, 02:06 PM
  2. Astronomers discover largest-ever dark matter structures spanning270M light-years
    By in forum UK Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2008, 10:52 AM
  3. Astronomers discover largest-ever dark matter structures spanning270M light-years
    By in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2008, 10:49 AM
  4. A Matter of Fact: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
    By Sam Wormley in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-27-2006, 10:20 PM
  5. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-16-2005, 03:13 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:01 AM.