Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by snp.gupta

  1. ...

    The calculators you mention only calculate very specific details. We have enough trouble adding the perturbations that the planets cause on the orbits of asteroids over just a few tens of years...


    Many bodied problems just don't work well.






    We can even develop software to our specific needs..


    If you try to solve the perturbations of planets as a separate entry, it will be problematic. You have to deal with them in overall.


    For example:

    Dynamic universe model is a many body problem. It solved specifically,


    1. Formation of Non-collapsing Galaxy disks

    2. Expansion and contraction of universe.

    3. Missing mass and Circular velocity curves of stars

    4. Pioneer anomaly etc…


    We have to formulate our equations properly in many body problems, then implement them, that will do the trick..

  2. ...


    I'd urge anyone who wants to learn about cosmology to try to get the word "singularity" out of their head. It has gotten a lot of people confused. There is no scientific evidence of a singularity. The evidence points to a moment of very high density and temperature (but not infinite density, and not necessarily localized at a small region.)


    Some models, which are getting a lot of study currently, show that quantum effects reverse gravity at very high density, causing collapse to turn into a bounce, resulting in rapid expansion. those models essentially say that the Big Bang was a bounce.


    These are non-singular cosmology models, because there is no singularity.






    what is your openion, Bigbang is "singularity" or not?

  3. Not quite. Perhaps if we worked together?


    A real time universe map scaled to the largest systems doesn't have to represent NOW this very second, even last year's positions or the prior decade's or even the last several thousand years would be good enough to visualize the state of the as of yet non-visible universe (can't see light that hasn't reached us).


    Thats a nice idea sir, i would like to join you...


    May be we can take year 2000; 0,0 hours as basis. I see most data is available readily from catalogs. We have to calculate distances based on luminosities only... We have to write equations...


    I don't quite see what you'd hope to see from this, the distribution of mass would be broadly the same surely?


    No sir, Mass distribution may not be same...

    His Idea is correct. There may be some IMAGES for galaxies, which may cancel out eventually; I don’t know. I am just speculating……:)

  4. Well on the local scale we know it's not. That's close enough to real time. And it's highly likely that on all scales, if the cosms were to be arranged into their "now" configurations, all the inconsistent orientations and formations of various systems wouldn't interlock to become a single cosmic grid of neatness.

    So to answer, I don't believe the universe is isotropic on any scale, except if perhaps you mean the quantum scale. And I'm not even sure about that. But what do I know? :)


    Thank you,


    That is correct. We all would like to see your NOW results. Do you have them already???

  5. If we bypass the galactic scale and just go with superclusters (Wikipedia page), it'll probably be feasible.


    Also check out the galaxy filaments image.


    On the grander scales, we're told about great voids and whatnot. But if you think about it, since we're looking at a relatively "all at once" picture of things, how accurate is it to say that voids of such magnitude are scattered throughout our universe? I mention this because every several million light years away from us becomes a much different era of time, and the voids we see now might in fact not be real. The picture of the universe we end up with might be patches of newer formations joined with patches of older formations into a resulting shape that is far different than the shape would've been if each of its areas were mapped in its true position.


    Like I said, astronomers may account for such time differences when mapping the universe, but again I'm not sure.


    Do you observe the universe is isotropic in any scale?


    (I am sorry about my post about CMB in previous thread. Just I want provoke some thought. But not disturb the thread…..)

  6. In general terms I kind of sympathize, but you may have gotten off on the wrong foot by mentioning the 2D maps of the sky (e.g. the CMB maps referred to).

    2D sky maps wouldn't be changed by expansion.

    Maybe you should specify that you would like to see 3D maps of chunks of space, constructed to show realtime positions.


    there is also the issue of scale.

    On a small local scale, with individual stars, they have their own individual motions. And astronomers could determine where they are today and plot that. The map wouldn't look very different, I suspect, because the motions are so small. But one could do it.

    Thing is, you couldn't show that on the same 3D map that shows clusters of galaxies because the scale is so different.

    If a galaxy is a dot, then how do you show stars?

    Maybe what you are talking about would turn out to be an interactive map, where you could zoom, and change scale, and change your standpoint, view things from a different angle. Anyway yes it would be nice to have control of time and scale in the maps one uses. I'm not clear on how the information would be presented. It's not immediately obvious to me what the format would need to be, in order to make for a significant benefit. Maybe you have some specfic ideas?



    May I add a point here??? (See the boldface above)


    No part of sky CMB map is similar to any other part of sky.


    As one of our friend suggested, for CMB, one can give an analogy like some kind of fog. We see - well- fog and stare inside it. After some training of the eyes we see the faint contours of our neighboring house. It is simply because the fore ground radiation depends on the different sources like stars, Galaxies and astronomical bodies. They vary from place to place. The radiation differs depending on foreground. That’s why we see contours, what do you say?

  7. and we go on and on about the problems of using microwave evidence for the support of the BB theory


    but does mainstream astronomy and astrophysics get it , is the question ?


    I doubt it



    I dont know. how to convince them???:confused: If they want they can argue and convince us in a public forum like this. Or else they can go on publishing papers in an isolated way...:)


    As one of our friend suggested, for CMB, one can give an analogy like some kind of fog. We see - well- fog and stare inside it. After some training of the eyes we see the faint contours of our neighboring house. It is simply because the fore ground radiation depends on the different sources like stars, Galaxies and astronomical bodies. They vary from place to place. The radiation differs depending on foreground. That’s why we see contours…

  8. until we can at least eliminate 10,000 galaxies ( three dimensionaly) as the sourse of microwave radiation


    we can't use microwave radiation as evidence of BB theory


    Not only that; stars and other astronomical bodies also emit radiation in the same WMAP frequencies, they should eliminate all stars and dust clouds etc…


    They eliminated SUN , Planets, Moon, Galaxy disk. COBE by design collects samples of radiation not in the direction of COBE to SUN, but perpendicular to that direction. Other stars also like SUN, why should they keep stars?:)

  9. Originally Posted by north

    they havn't eliminated more than two or three galaxies because they don't have the capability!!


    so supporting BB with WMAP is an extremely weak argument if not really pointless


    of course not many people know this


    You are correct sir...


    CMB is generated from Stars, Galaxies, Dust & clouds other astronomical bodies. What do you say?

  10. I didn't check as of yet


    so are saying that NASA has eliminated ALL sources of microwaves from beyond say 3-4 galaxies away from us ?


    thats new


    I asked NASA how many galaxies they have eliminated as a source of microwaves , and the said , besides are own galaxy , maybe two or three , no more


    You are correct sir,:)

    Why eliminate only one or two…,:confused: they should remove all. Similarly all radiation from stars, all astronomical bodies and galaxies they should eliminate…


    Then only we can see if any thing remains! ;)

  11. There are a lot of galaxies, but relative to the amount of space they are extremely sparse. Unfortunately, I can't tell you definitively if anyone has done or not what you suggest, it seems like it would certainly be worthwhile to do.



    We can calculate the effective radiation of these galaxies, if not at least we can approximate their radiation, which was what I did…But ignoring totally is not correct.:)

  12. the thing is about WMAP is that the microwave back ground radiation is only local

    The dish antennae used MEASURES radiation from distant objects. For local you have to use some immersion thermometers, some thing like we put into our mouth, when we get fever.;)

    for there is only so many galaxies , which admit microwave radiation , which can be eliminated from being any source of microwave radiation

    Galaxies EMIT :-)microwave radiation, so do stars and other astronomical bodies. You are correct here. All this radiation should be eliminated, it was not done till now from say 1965. If you know any instance of such elimination, please let’s discuss….:confused:

    I know beacuse about two years ago I asked NASA this direct question

    I don’t know what you have asked NASA, what you have understood. :confused:

    and there are very few galaxies , very few

    Check for “ Galaxy Catalogs” in Google…:D

  13. I am not sure what you are asking. You have described the standard cosmological view so far as I can tell.


    Yes sir, I am saying about the standard cosmological view


    Yes sir, I am saying about the standard cosmological view

    No replies....:)


    Ok.. Let us discuss:-)


    What are WMAP sources?????;)

    How to explain them? What are they? 2008 WMAP sources paper & 2008 WMAP 5-yr data release ware taken to visualize the concepts.


    1. Here basically we argue that radiation is received in all frequency ranges from astronomical bodies from Radio, Far infrared, Quasars, QSOs, to Stars, Galaxies, and X-ray sources, such that they cover the Blackbody spectrum theoretically from one end to another.


    2. Large angular movements of WMAP in multiple of 22.5° start causing the thermal fluctuations, smaller angular movements near the radii of main-lobe gains will cause the maximum fluctuations and in very small angular movements systematic and measurement errors dominate the signals.


    3. In addition uneven Microwave dish gains from Main-lobes, Back-lobe and side-lobes cause the lot of errors in signals in Multipole moment maps. Calculation of Bigbang emitted radiation temperature using Vakradiation also given QORG catalog was used for showing the real astronomical bodies, which are in the vicinity of those WMAP sources given in 2003 year.


    4. Thus this paper fairly explains the Basic properties of CMB like Black body spectrum, WMAP sources, thermal fluctuations in multipole moment maps etc., with in the normal Physics framework, and with out using any Bigbang concepts

  14. Just for clarification, do you mean:

    a) It is not generated by any stars, galaxies, astronomical bodies, etc.


    b) It is not influenced, impacted, or changed by any stars, galaxies, astronimical bodies, etc.



    I mean to say...

    a) It is not generated by any stars, galaxies, astronomical bodies, etc.

  15. ..... Nobody (that I am aware of) has ever shown conclusively that either idea is correct or not.


    Probably because of time factor, you are confusing; I will change my statement as follows…


    CMB is radiation from Bigbang . It is not from any stars, Galaxies, any Astronomical bodies, or even from Interstellar dust / Inter-Galaxial dust. What do you say sir?

  16. snp; You should definitely put forward any ideas you have. There are people here who can either show you where your ideas are in error or help refine them into coherence. I have found the review process to be typically fair, if sometimes harsh. Be prepared for a lively discussion if you are proposing anything novel to current understanding.


    Good luck to you, sir. IMO advancement of knowledge is a worthwhile pursuit for anyone not struggling with basic survival.




    There are Ideas about

    1. This thread starting point….about WMAP / CMB…

    2. BTW the question of Big Bang versus Big Bounce…

    May be I will put forward about the first here, as I started the thread here. And universe model questions may be in some new thread , ok


    Radiation from Bigbang was from about 13.7 billion years old. It is not from any stars, Galaxies, any Astronomical bodies, or even from Interstellar dust / Inter-Galaxial dust. What do you say sir?

  17. ....... He is a working experimental particle physicist and he says that spacetimecontinuum is NOT required.


    Forget the continuum, he says, focus on the geometrical relationships. Einstein said essentially the same thing in 1916. Sev's statement in #2 is sophisticated, but as always with him (in my experience) it is consistent with conventional mainstream thinking. The guy supervises grad students doing their PhDs, so listen and ask followup questions to what he says.


    We have to be on the lookout here for egomaniacs with delusions of grandeur----people who don't listen, ask merely rhetorical questions, think their own ideas are especially brilliant, and generally act like jerks......




    Resp Martin sir,

    That’s what I also want to derive from you sir, I want to provoke a bit, hence I asked repeatedly same question.


    That is a correct answer…

    Warm regards


  18. Dear Gupta sir, thank you for making your viewpoint plain. Now I understand better what sort of discussion you want to have.


    I think there are two clear stages that we can see in how the scientific community has responded to the detection of the (around 2mm) Radiation in question.


    In the first stage, one wants to be skeptical and tolerant of all the alternative explanations proposed---and open to all the data in the relevant wavelength band.


    We know of sources of microwave radiation on earth, in the solar system, in the plane of our galaxy, and we know of point sources which we can see optically---active galaxies which emit both visible light and microwave etc.


    By the end of the first stage, with the vast bulk of the Radiation unaccounted for by alternative explanations, a consensus was reached. Our understanding "gelled".


    After that, those who studied the Background would routinely filter out nearby source radiation and the like because they wanted to study the Background and learn as much as possible. If you are going to analyze and map and measure you want to be sure you are looking at just the Old radiation, not recent microwave produced in our own galaxy.


    So cleaning out extraneous noise is not an attempt to prove the ancient origin. We now take that for granted. A consensus has been reached after due consideration, and anyone who still challenges it is immediately branded as a crackpot.


    Filtering out stuff that is not part of the old radiation is not a conspiracy to fool people, or to confirm an irrational prejudice. There is no longer any question or argument. There is nothing to prove, by filtering or not filtering. Now in the second stage, one filters in order to be able to perform the best possible analysis--to do technical things like measure the angular power spectrum, estimate curvature, model early universe structure formation, test ideas of inflation.


    The category of crackpot is critically associated with timing and community. Science is essentially a community activity governed by an ethic.

    If you belong to the community you implicitly agree to be tolerant and open-minded--consider evidence in objective rational manner---and to encourage differences of opinion up to a point.


    Then when a consensus is reached based on ample empirical evidence a member of the community is expected to go along with it, and give up their pet alternate theories. At a certain point the community agrees to stop arguing and move on.


    It is at this point that the crackpot label plays an important role. The people who continue to call attention to themselves by arguing must be branded and ostracized, so that the community can continue to function.


    It is not to be done lightly, requires people to act in good faith, and timing is critical. One has to encourage all kinds of creative disagreement and be very open-minded at the stage when that is important, and then ultimately one has to settle on a consensus and close ranks and move ahead to the next problems. We are talking about a 400 year old tradition and a human process, not something that could be programmed into a machine. Science is a living tradition---you can't predict when something will gel by applying strictly logical rules.


    Anyway Gupta sir, those are my thoughts on the general question of Crackpottery especially as applies to our discussion of the Background.


    BTW the question of Big Bang versus Big Bounce is still open, the timing is right for disagreement and thinking up alternatives in that department. If you are a maverick by nature you should maverize about something that is of current interest and not something that was settled 20-some years ago.

    Get with it, dude :D



    Respected Martin Sir,

    I thank you once again for such nice explanatory and practical worldly guidance…


    You are correct, in the first stage, say in 1965, after Penzias and Wilson , precision of optical and microwave instrumentation was not enough to resolve the sky into millions of stars and Galaxies as we see in today’s catalogs.


    Definitely we should not mistake the elderly decisions that time. It is all history now. What is my point of view is not to waste further of human intelligence and brain power.

    Definitely it is not my point of view…


    That’s why I am not arguing or agreeing about the second stage you have mentioned. [ Pussst… I don’t want to be branded and ostracized as Crackpot, lunatic or even M.A.D…..]:)


    Ok lets go into " BTW the question of Big Bang versus Big Bounce is still open, the timing is right for disagreement and thinking up alternatives in that department. "

    What shall I do for that sir, Shall I put forth some of my xxxxx ideas on that?????:D:D

    I want to work for the humanity and I don’t want to criticize any one…


    Thank you once again,

    Warm regards


  19. Do you mean you would like to know more about the origin of the CMB (cosmic microwave background)?


    If you want to know more about the CMB then you need something more introductory and general than the WMAP reports.


    Don't get confused by words like "extragalactic point sources". These would not be sources of the true CMB and they would presumably be filtered out of the data as much as possible.


    Have you tried wikipedia "Cosmic Microwave Background"?


    Have you checked Einstein-online to see if they have a CMB article?


    Thank you for your advice sir…


    I am bit new to this forum, I did posting in other forums. Posting on this subject is not new to me. For ref see::confused:


    *LINKS to Garbage removed*


    I read those fundamentals. You can test my knowledge, if you please.


    Now just I want to discuss WMAP point sources, over which they have published many papers. If they have filtered out and erased the sources and show clean CMB, that way they feel CMB is originated from Bigbang. :D Hence it is by the best way, by eliminating all witnesses against, proves Bigbang! :cool:


    Still if you people want to discuss about the possible origins of CMB other than from Bigbang you are welcome,:)


    Otherwise, hail Bigbang !!!!!:D

    Cheers !


    'How to prove it Experimentally???'

    .... impossible.....



    You are exactly correct sir, thank you for such a nice explanatory post…


    But you said in your earlier post as given below


    think rotation by that huge object and the mass or matter that is within that space


    and the consequences


    I am still confusing…:confused:


    You mean by Rotation space gets bent, is it????:confused:

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.