Comments on: Cosmic Backlighting: The Cosmic Microwave Background http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/ Blogging one sidereal day at a time Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:26:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Star Stryder » Blog Archive » Random- by Pamela L. Gay http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/comment-page-1/#comment-18486 Star Stryder » Blog Archive » Random- by Pamela L. Gay Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:22:20 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/#comment-18486 [...] entering and struggling to figure out what to submit. I’m looking at these three posts: 1, 2, 3. What do you [...] [...] entering and struggling to figure out what to submit. I’m looking at these three posts: 1, 2, 3. What do you [...]

]]> By: Lucille http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/comment-page-1/#comment-6465 Lucille Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:18:48 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/#comment-6465 hi i enjoyed the read hi i enjoyed the read

]]> By: Star Stryder » Blog Archive » Time is T + 500,000 years Stars - Go, Galaxies - GoHubble, De-ionization underway- by Pamela L. Gay http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/comment-page-1/#comment-3550 Star Stryder » Blog Archive » Time is T + 500,000 years Stars - Go, Galaxies - GoHubble, De-ionization underway- by Pamela L. Gay Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:57:55 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/#comment-3550 [...] Over the course of almost 400 millennia, the universe evolved from pure energy, to atomic nuclei, to full atoms with electrons. At that last, wonderful, electron grabbing moment, at T + 372,000 years the Cosmic Microwave Background came into existence. [...] [...] Over the course of almost 400 millennia, the universe evolved from pure energy, to atomic nuclei, to full atoms with electrons. At that last, wonderful, electron grabbing moment, at T + 372,000 years the Cosmic Microwave Background came into existence. [...]

]]> By: Time is T + 500,000 years. Stars - Go, Galaxies - Go. Hubble, De-ionization underway at Pamela L. Gay http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/comment-page-1/#comment-3549 Time is T + 500,000 years. Stars - Go, Galaxies - Go. Hubble, De-ionization underway at Pamela L. Gay Tue, 10 Jul 2007 23:55:47 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/#comment-3549 [...] Over the course of almost 400 millennia, the universe evolved from pure energy, to atomic nuclei, to full atoms with electrons. At that last, wonderful, electron grabbing moment, at T + 372,000 years the Cosmic Microwave Background came into existence. [...] [...] Over the course of almost 400 millennia, the universe evolved from pure energy, to atomic nuclei, to full atoms with electrons. At that last, wonderful, electron grabbing moment, at T + 372,000 years the Cosmic Microwave Background came into existence. [...]

]]> By: HoosierHoops http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/comment-page-1/#comment-2994 HoosierHoops Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:09:03 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/#comment-2994 awesome post: 1) so someone calculated the plasma expansion to 380k years right? that had to be a mind boggling calculation..seems like there would be alot of fudge room for processes over 3800 centuries.. a nuclear explosion happens so fast and expands so quickly..well i just get my mind around that timeframe. 2) so energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light..right? So i read the astronomers have calculated the mass of the universe and have determined not enough mass exists in visible mass for gravity to work right? But adding known mass with dark mass..could you not then calculate for energy? You would have a number for how much energy existed at the big bang.. right? so in other words: mass plus dark mass = total mass E= total mass x c squared Sorry it's probably a stupid question awesome post:
1) so someone calculated the plasma expansion to 380k years right? that had to be a mind boggling calculation..seems like there would be alot of fudge room for processes over 3800 centuries..
a nuclear explosion happens so fast and expands so quickly..well i just get my mind around that timeframe.
2) so energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light..right?
So i read the astronomers have calculated the mass of the universe and have determined not enough mass exists in visible mass for gravity to work right?
But adding known mass with dark mass..could you not then calculate for energy? You would have a number for how much energy existed at the big bang.. right?
so in other words:
mass plus dark mass = total mass
E= total mass x c squared
Sorry it’s probably a stupid question

]]> By: Stephen http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/comment-page-1/#comment-2993 Stephen Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:56:42 +0000 http://www.starstryder.com/2007/06/29/cosmic-backlighting-the-cosmic-microwave-background/#comment-2993 Certain information in the Universe is conserved - like charge. My guess is that when the electrons were formed with negative charge, the positive charge was also created. Partical pairs must have been created at the same time and place. Some of that positive charge became the protons. So, when the Universe cooled enough so that electrons could bind to protons without getting torn away nearly instantly, it wasn't that these individual electrons recombined with their birthmate protons - it was more that positive and negative charged particles got together again. Someone decided to call that recombination. It's just a guess on my part. It wouldn't have been my first choice either. So, Steven Hawking says that black holes do not destroy information. As near as i can guess, information means things like charge. So, if you shine an electron gun at an isolated black hole for a long time, eventually, the Hawking Radiation spits out more negatively charged particles than positive. Though what mechanism might make this happen isn't at all clear to me. Well, it wasn't all that clear to Steve either - he bet that information would not be preserved, and claims to have lost. One day, i'd like to be as stupid as Steve. Certain information in the Universe is conserved – like charge. My guess is that when the electrons were formed with negative charge, the positive charge was also created. Partical pairs must have been created at the same time and place. Some of that positive charge became the protons.

So, when the Universe cooled enough so that electrons could bind to protons without getting torn away nearly instantly, it wasn’t that these individual electrons recombined with their birthmate protons – it was more that positive and negative charged particles got together again. Someone decided to call that recombination.

It’s just a guess on my part. It wouldn’t have been my first choice either.

So, Steven Hawking says that black holes do not destroy information. As near as i can guess, information means things like charge. So, if you shine an electron gun at an isolated black hole for a long time, eventually, the Hawking Radiation spits out more negatively charged particles than positive. Though what mechanism might make this happen isn’t at all clear to me. Well, it wasn’t all that clear to Steve either – he bet that information would not be preserved, and claims to have lost. One day, i’d like to be as stupid as Steve.

]]>