Speed of light...

I have no question about the possibility universe expanding at ANY rate,
but lets say 1meter/sec.

But acceleration, A=FM, at some rate needs an energy input.

The OBSERVATION of red shifts, some different than others, to me don't
necessarily mean the universe is STILL expanding at an accelerating rate.
After all, the light we are OBSERVING left its source a long time ago, and
that observed phenomenom may have since ceased the day after.

Thanks for the links. I will check them out. Frankly, I don't think we
have much more of a handle on these questions than when philosophers were
convinced the heart of all matter was "the aether" ;o)

chuck petterson

skepticsm does not detract from my curiousity

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Chuck Where does the energy to expand space at an "accelerated" rate
come from is another of natures mysteries. We all love mysteries. Big
clue is its space that is inflating,and the answer has to come from a
better understanding of the structure of space. That space has a
force. Does this space energy have a limit? Will the acceleration turn
off when it reaches the speed of "c"? Does it conform to the square
law,but in reverse?(getting stronger instead of weaken over spacetime) ?
Chuck this month Thomas Gold died (a great astrophysicist) He had a
idea that fits well with me,and it went like this "The universe is
constantly producing matter,and infinitely expanding." Chuck could this
be natures balancing act ? The production of "matter" pushes space
apart?? More matter also produces more gravity. Again that darn dog
chasing its tail. Chuck best to keep in mind nothing in the universe
is ever perfectly at rest.(Heisenberg knew that) Bert PS Like to
say I admired Thomas Gold he gave us what pulsars are "rapidly spinning
neutron stars." His friends were Hoyle,and Bondi(that's good
company.) I don't have any smart friends any more. I out lived them. My
friends now are all virtual(internet) and I'm very happy with that

I have no question about the possibility universe expanding at ANY rate,
but lets say 1meter/sec.

But acceleration, A=FM, at some rate needs an energy input.

The OBSERVATION of red shifts, some different than others, to me don't
necessarily mean the universe is STILL expanding at an accelerating rate.
After all, the light we are OBSERVING left its source a long time ago, and
that observed phenomenom may have since ceased the day after.

Thanks for the links. I will check them out. Frankly, I don't think we
have much more of a handle on these questions than when philosophers were
convinced the heart of all matter was "the aether" ;o)

chuck petterson

skepticsm does not detract from my curiousity

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Chuck Where does the energy to expand space at an "accelerated" rate
come from is another of natures mysteries. We all love mysteries. Big
clue is its space that is inflating,and the answer has to come from a
better understanding of the structure of space. That space has a
force. Does this space energy have a limit? Will the acceleration turn
off when it reaches the speed of "c"? Does it conform to the square
law,but in reverse?(getting stronger instead of weaken over spacetime) ?
Chuck this month Thomas Gold died (a great astrophysicist) He had a
idea that fits well with me,and it went like this "The universe is
constantly producing matter,and infinitely expanding." Chuck could this
be natures balancing act ? The production of "matter" pushes space
apart?? More matter also produces more gravity. Again that darn dog
chasing its tail. Chuck best to keep in mind nothing in the universe
is ever perfectly at rest.(Heisenberg knew that) Bert PS Like to
say I admired Thomas Gold he gave us what pulsars are "rapidly spinning
neutron stars." His friends were Hoyle,and Bondi(that's good
company.) I don't have any smart friends any more. I out lived them. My
friends now are all virtual(internet) and I'm very happy with that

Chuck Where does the energy to expand space at an "accelerated" rate
come from is another of natures mysteries. We all love mysteries. Big
clue is its space that is inflating,and the answer has to come from a
better understanding of the structure of space. That space has a
force. Does this space energy have a limit? Will the acceleration turn
off when it reaches the speed of "c"? Does it conform to the square
law,but in reverse?(getting stronger instead of weaken over spacetime) ?
Chuck this month Thomas Gold died (a great astrophysicist) He had a
idea that fits well with me,and it went like this "The universe is
constantly producing matter,and infinitely expanding." Chuck could this
be natures balancing act ? The production of "matter" pushes space
apart?? More matter also produces more gravity. Again that darn dog
chasing its tail. Chuck best to keep in mind nothing in the universe
is ever perfectly at rest.(Heisenberg knew that) Bert PS Like to
say I admired Thomas Gold he gave us what pulsars are "rapidly spinning
neutron stars." His friends were Hoyle,and Bondi(that's good
company.) I don't have any smart friends any more. I out lived them. My
friends now are all virtual(internet) and I'm very happy with that

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Such a cosmological density gradient might exist if space is
*not* a 'pure void' but is a very real medium amenable to compression/
rarefaction and density gradients. If so, then the most ancient light,
propagating from denser space into 'our' less-dense space *would* lose
amplitude, just as is seen in the anomalous dimming of the distant 1a
SN. And 'ever-accelerating expansion' would be a grand illusion based on
the 'pure void' assumption. The expansion curve would swing away from
'accelerating expansion' toward DEcelerating expansion and a closed
universe.

I have a basic question here. Please indulge an old man with a little
education.

I have a big problem with the stated concept of "ever accelerating
expansion" I don't have a practical problem with the concept of an ever
expanding universe, since if some force is applied to matter and there is no
friction encountered the matter will move forever.

HOWEVER, the term acceleration means there is a rate of change of the speed
the matter is traveling at. In order for this to happen there has to be an
applied force.

I have no argument against the universe coasting along, getting larger all
the time. I do have a fundamental problem with it getting bigger faster
every second.

If the indication is the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, where
does the energy come from?

Or are the acceleration comments just sloppy science?

chuck petterson

From Corey L.:

What would happen to the red shift of
light for very distant objects if there was
some sort of phenomena related to the
very distant leading edge of the
remnants of the Big Bang?

Although there is no 'edge' to the BB as Mr. Webb pointed out, take a
look at this Hubble Deep Field pic. It shows the most distant object yet
imaged (in 1996), a galaxy of extreme redshift lying at the very edge of
visibility- http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960628.html

Other HST imaging concentrates on type 1a supernovae, the 'standard
candle' of luminosity at cosmological distances. Well, the most distant
1a SN are found to appear 'dimmer than they should be' at a given
redshift. This anomalous dimming is interpreted as further evidence of
'ever-accelerating expansion' of the universe. And this is based on the
assumption that space is 'pure void' or 'nothing'.

I guess I'm thinking of something like a
very slight difference in "universe
vacuum density" between where we are
at now,.... that might cause an effect like this with light that has
passed through it?

Exactly. Such a cosmological density gradient might exist if space is
*not* a 'pure void' but is a very real medium amenable to compression/
rarefaction and density gradients. If so, then the most ancient light,
propagating from denser space into 'our' less-dense space *would* lose
amplitude, just as is seen in the anomalous dimming of the distant 1a
SN. And 'ever-accelerating expansion' would be a grand illusion based on
the 'pure void' assumption. The expansion curve would swing away from
'accelerating expansion' toward DEcelerating expansion and a closed
universe.

All 'tired light' theories BTW, are predicated on the space-as-pure-void
assumption.

oc

In order to make the "Big Bang" theory work they needed more mass in the
universe. Some egghead dreamed up "Dark Matter". It is only some nerds wet
dream. Can you believe in something you can,t see, can't feel, can't
prove??
"Corey Lawson" corey.lawson@att-dot-net wrote in message
...
What would happen to the red shift of light for very distant objects if
there was some sort of phenomena related to the very distant leading
edge of the remnants of the Big Bang? I guess I'm thinking that on a
classical scale when light passes through a material, it slows down in
that material, and these effects are definitely observable. Of course,
there are other phenomenae (i.e., absorbtion spectra) that are also
observed, but I'm conveniently assuming that the scale of things cancels
them out.

I guess what I'm trying to articulate is what if the concept of "dark
matter" or whatever does exist Way Out There, and while not directly
affecting light like we see with classical optics (i.e., chromatic
aberation, absorption spectra, etc), there are manifestations on the
behavior of light at a large enough scale that are analogous to some of
these behaviors, but because at the distances involved some of them just
get cancelled out, and what we are left with is just red shift?

What if way out at the edge of our known universe, there are objects
even more distant than what the edge of the universe is at right now,
and their light has been coming through the leading edge of the Big
Bang, but somehow been phase-shifted to make it appear that they're
going away faster, but they really aren't, and that because we do not
have a portal for light that does go purely through a vacuum for 15
billion light years, that it can't really be directly observed?

I guess I'm thinking of something like a very slight difference in
"universe vacuum density" between where we are at now, the outer limits
of the Big bang, and whatever lies past it, that might cause an effect
like this with light that has passed through it?

What happens if light is passing through a wave front in a very slightly
non-full vacuum universe, could the motion of that wave front distort
light in the same way as if that light was coming straight through a
pure vacuum from a source moving the same way?

On 7/8/2004 14:26, Rumprider wrote:

In order to make the "Big Bang" theory work they needed more mass in the
universe. Some egghead dreamed up "Dark Matter". It is only some nerds wet
dream. Can you believe in something you can,t see, can't feel, can't
prove??

.... well I can't prove that you're here, so ... ;-)

On 7/8/2004 14:26, Rumprider wrote:

In order to make the "Big Bang" theory work they needed more mass in the
universe. Some egghead dreamed up "Dark Matter". It is only some nerds wet
dream. Can you believe in something you can,t see, can't feel, can't
prove??

.... well I can't prove that you're here, so ... ;-)

In order to make the "Big Bang" theory work they needed more mass in the
universe. Some egghead dreamed up "Dark Matter". It is only some nerds wet
dream. Can you believe in something you can,t see, can't feel, can't
prove??
"Corey Lawson" corey.lawson@att-dot-net wrote in message
...
What would happen to the red shift of light for very distant objects if
there was some sort of phenomena related to the very distant leading
edge of the remnants of the Big Bang? I guess I'm thinking that on a
classical scale when light passes through a material, it slows down in
that material, and these effects are definitely observable. Of course,
there are other phenomenae (i.e., absorbtion spectra) that are also
observed, but I'm conveniently assuming that the scale of things cancels
them out.

I guess what I'm trying to articulate is what if the concept of "dark
matter" or whatever does exist Way Out There, and while not directly
affecting light like we see with classical optics (i.e., chromatic
aberation, absorption spectra, etc), there are manifestations on the
behavior of light at a large enough scale that are analogous to some of
these behaviors, but because at the distances involved some of them just
get cancelled out, and what we are left with is just red shift?

What if way out at the edge of our known universe, there are objects
even more distant than what the edge of the universe is at right now,
and their light has been coming through the leading edge of the Big
Bang, but somehow been phase-shifted to make it appear that they're
going away faster, but they really aren't, and that because we do not
have a portal for light that does go purely through a vacuum for 15
billion light years, that it can't really be directly observed?

I guess I'm thinking of something like a very slight difference in
"universe vacuum density" between where we are at now, the outer limits
of the Big bang, and whatever lies past it, that might cause an effect
like this with light that has passed through it?

What happens if light is passing through a wave front in a very slightly
non-full vacuum universe, could the motion of that wave front distort
light in the same way as if that light was coming straight through a
pure vacuum from a source moving the same way?