[Fwd: Expanding space-time itself.]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Expanding space-time itself.
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:50:30 -0500
From: nightbat
Organization: Winstar Goodnet Inc. Copyright nightbat
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.,astronomy
References:


nightbat wrote

Dale Trynor wrote:

Jeff Relf wrote:

Hi Keith Stein, You concluded,
" I would assume that the 15 billion light year figure
for the radius of the universe is in fact
only a limit on the observable universe " .

How could one measure the radius of something that is
expanding space-time itself without a fifth dimension ?

[snip]

Dale Trynor wrote:
Hi Jeff, I just did a fairly long post that also covers this question,
on how space can be expanded in, The universe as a singular event?.
I know you must have seen this argument before but please take a closer
look and let me know what you think

By observing certain supernova,
the negative mass-energy of the false vacuum
is thought to be causing the accelerated expansion
of space-time.

[snip]

If this alternative theory becomes accepted it will also be another
argument for how the quantum vacuum, actually is the other side of
space, not simply a byproduct of space but its very cause.
Dale

nightbat

Well, according to fellow Maverick oc, fat chance.

ponder on,
the nightbat

PS: Maybe Zinni can further grasp this debate and add his input.

nightbat wrote:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Expanding space-time itself.
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:50:30 -0500
From: nightbat
Organization: Winstar Goodnet Inc. Copyright nightbat
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.,astronomy
References:


nightbat wrote

Dale Trynor wrote:

Jeff Relf wrote:

Hi Keith Stein, You concluded,
" I would assume that the 15 billion light year figure
for the radius of the universe is in fact
only a limit on the observable universe " .

How could one measure the radius of something that is
expanding space-time itself without a fifth dimension ?

[snip]

Dale Trynor wrote:
Hi Jeff, I just did a fairly long post that also covers this question,
on how space can be expanded in, The universe as a singular event?.
I know you must have seen this argument before but please take a closer
look and let me know what you think

By observing certain supernova,
the negative mass-energy of the false vacuum
is thought to be causing the accelerated expansion
of space-time.

[snip]

If this alternative theory becomes accepted it will also be another
argument for how the quantum vacuum, actually is the other side of
space, not simply a byproduct of space but its very cause.
Dale

nightbat

Well, according to fellow Maverick oc, fat chance.

Dale Trynor wrote:
I am a bit pessimistic as well as its been over a year and only hints I have
seen of its acceptance has been from the people more or less as cranky as me.
Everyone else seams to treat me with dead silence no mater what I post or who
I post this stuff too. Maybe they just don't know what to make of it and have
nothing to gain by sticking their nicks out by agreeing with it especially if
it turns out wrong and they look like fools if that happens.
But nightbat I have to ask you, and try and pretend at least for the moment
that the theory is right and is easily understood, do you really think it
would suddenly become popular just because it was correct. Why or why not.
Perhaps there really is truth in the old quote about the old guard and physics
really is advanced by its funerals etc., or is this something that only time
will tell.

By the way did you look at the posting sci.physics, The universe as a
singular event? or did you already understand the basis for the theory
anywise.

The thing that disturbs me most here is for the theory to be correct and yet
to be ignored until its rediscovery by someone else in the future, means that
precious time will have been lost in the pursuit of a reasonable understanding
of cosmology that we will not be able to get back.
Dale




ponder on,
the nightbat

PS: Maybe Zinni can further grasp this debate and add his input.

Who is Zinni ?.

nightbat wrote

Dale Trynor wrote:

nightbat wrote:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Expanding space-time itself.
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:50:30 -0500
From: nightbat
Organization: Winstar Goodnet Inc. Copyright nightbat
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.,astronomy
References:


nightbat wrote

Dale Trynor wrote:

Jeff Relf wrote:

Hi Keith Stein, You concluded,
" I would assume that the 15 billion light year figure
for the radius of the universe is in fact
only a limit on the observable universe " .

How could one measure the radius of something that is
expanding space-time itself without a fifth dimension ?

[snip]

Dale Trynor wrote:
Hi Jeff, I just did a fairly long post that also covers this question,
on how space can be expanded in, The universe as a singular event?.
I know you must have seen this argument before but please take a closer
look and let me know what you think

By observing certain supernova,
the negative mass-energy of the false vacuum
is thought to be causing the accelerated expansion
of space-time.

[snip]

If this alternative theory becomes accepted it will also be another
argument for how the quantum vacuum, actually is the other side of
space, not simply a byproduct of space but its very cause.
Dale

nightbat

Well, according to fellow Maverick oc, fat chance.

Dale Trynor wrote:
I am a bit pessimistic as well as its been over a year and only hints I have
seen of its acceptance has been from the people more or less as cranky as me.

nightbat

Cranky, then you haven't run across the self admitted troller, "
adjudicator ", ha, ha, cause he raised the bounty from $10,000,000 to
$10,000,000,000 after doodling with humble nightbat.

Dale
Everyone else seams to treat me with dead silence no mater what I post or who
I post this stuff too.

nightbat

Perhaps your spelling errors turns them off? Try getting a spell
checker for one. And perhaps you have opened a door some may be
hesitant to walk through.

Dale
Maybe they just don't know what to make of it and have
nothing to gain by sticking their nicks out by agreeing with it especially if
it turns out wrong and they look like fools if that happens.

nightbat

Well, if I recall correctly even Uncle Al responded with his
usually dead on arrival response.

Dale
But nightbat I have to ask you, and try and pretend at least for the moment
that the theory is right and is easily understood, do you really think it
would suddenly become popular just because it was correct.

nightbat

Let's pretend is for school time recess and extremely very deep
theoretical physics called imagination. A theory presented is just a
theory like millions of others presented. Unless it is postulate based
with disclosed internal consistent mathematics and allows for
independent confirmed observation or falsification and verified
predictions, what's its worth?

Dale
Why or why not.

nightbat

Physics doesn't concern itself with why or why not, just
fundamental physical process understanding, predictability, and
verifiable deducible facts. Speculating is for future stock traders,
used car purchases, and liberal arts majors. A useful theories worth is
its applicability to task at hand. When a scientist or other serious
researcher takes note and finds worth in it, he'll probably get back
with you.

Dale
Perhaps there really is truth in the old quote about the old guard and physics
really is advanced by its funerals etc., or is this something that only time
will tell.

nightbat

Scientists, as a general rule, have very little time, even for
funerals. That's an physics insider pun about the presumed old guard
wanting to hold on to its working postulates over possibly better ones.
Not true, the more able researcher tries using everything useful
possible at his disposal to further scientific understanding, for there
may be a Nobel waiting. There is a pecking order in grad school for
acceptance and academic recognition. But in the discovery arena the
playground is open.

Dale

By the way did you look at the posting sci.physics, The universe as a
singular event? or did you already understand the basis for the theory
anywise.

nightbat

Truthfully no, don't have the time to follow every blind lead
presented, just those that are dialoged briefly and come to my attention
via response of the substance regulars. And frankly your referenced
posted title alone would turn my and most serious researchers attention
off.

Dale

The thing that disturbs me most here is for the theory to be correct and yet
to be ignored until its rediscovery by someone else in the future, means that
precious time will have been lost in the pursuit of a reasonable understanding
of cosmology that we will not be able to get back.
Dale

nightbat

If it disturbs you stop thinking about it and as stated above, a
theory is only worth its useful applicability, not empty speculation.
One should be concerned with present practical science and applied
invention discovery not dwelling on possible future time lost based on
over overemphasized or imagined worth displayed circular logic. If
something displayed works, its applied. If it's unfounded pure
speculation, it's excrescence especially for trolls and sci fi
purveyors.



ponder on,
the nightbat

PS: Maybe Zinni can further grasp this debate and add his input.


Dale
Who is Zinni ?.

nightbat

A displayed serious alt.astronomy poster interested in dialoging
with relatively new substantive cosmological premises.

good luck,
the nightbat

From Dale Trynor:

Who is Zinni?

John Z. He's a relative newcomer to the NG, a dyed in the wool
void-spacer, but a real fun dude to rap with. Then there's stodgy ol'
Scott over there, avowed void-spacer to the end, going "Harrumph".g.
oc

nightbat wrote:

nightbat wrote

Dale Trynor wrote:

nightbat wrote:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Expanding space-time itself.
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 02:50:30 -0500
From: nightbat
Organization: Winstar Goodnet Inc. Copyright nightbat
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.,astronomy
References:


nightbat wrote

Dale Trynor wrote:

Jeff Relf wrote:

Hi Keith Stein, You concluded,

[snip]


Well, according to fellow Maverick oc, fat chance.

Dale Trynor wrote:
I am a bit pessimistic as well as its been over a year and only hints I have
seen of its acceptance has been from the people more or less as cranky as me.

nightbat

Cranky, then you haven't run across the self admitted troller, "
adjudicator ", ha, ha, cause he raised the bounty from $10,000,000 to
$10,000,000,000 after doodling with humble nightbat.

Dale Trynor wrote:
Any chance he might actually pay something at all, right now I would be happy with
an extra $19.99 ?. What was it you had to win at ?.



Dale
Everyone else seams to treat me with dead silence no mater what I post or who
I post this stuff too.

nightbat

Perhaps your spelling errors turns them off? Try getting a spell
checker for one. And perhaps you have opened a door some may be
hesitant to walk through.

I have spell check and even use it but I really wish it included science
terminology. Only choice I have is avoiding using any words that might require me to
pull out my 10 or so pound dictionary on science terms, its not worth the effort.
Its way bigger than the english dictionary and who really reviews or saves these
postings. To be honest I actually didn't know my spelling was that bad and that for
you to notice it means that perhaps I should look closer.



Dale
Maybe they just don't know what to make of it and have
nothing to gain by sticking their nicks out by agreeing with it especially if
it turns out wrong and they look like fools if that happens.

nightbat

Well, if I recall correctly even Uncle Al responded with his
usually dead on arrival response.

I know he did on one of my posts where I looked at a CP violation that required a
residual antigravity and on another post where I got the idea that an antimatter
version of iron might have been repelled by a conventional magnet made of regular
matter. Oddly enough I cant think of any time he ever responded negatively to this
alternative theory that deals with the idea that time dilation alone such as around
black holes should contract matter in such a way that you end up measuring more
space and it been one huge bunch of postings.

One thing I believe I have noticed here is that many people such as Jack Sarfatti
and or
the (S. Enterprize Company) are mostly ignored when they appear
to only post to themselves. However when they reply to other posters questions they
will tend to get very commonly flamed. I don't get flamed very often and I really
don't know why as the theory is rather controversial considering its significance
and how much new area it will cover.



Dale
But nightbat I have to ask you, and try and pretend at least for the moment
that the theory is right and is easily understood, do you really think it
would suddenly become popular just because it was correct.

nightbat

Let's pretend is for school time recess and extremely very deep
theoretical physics called imagination. A theory presented is just a
theory like millions of others presented. Unless it is postulate based
with disclosed internal consistent mathematics

Well it at least gives a gadenken that allows the easy application of math for the
prospective of two observers.

and allows for
independent confirmed observation or falsification and verified
predictions, what's its worth?

It dose all of that.



Dale
Why or why not.

nightbat

Physics doesn't concern itself with why or why not, just
fundamental physical process understanding, predictability, and
verifiable deducible facts.

Actually it dose that.

Speculating is for future stock traders,
used car purchases, and liberal arts majors. A useful theories worth is
its applicability to task at hand. When a scientist or other serious
researcher takes note and finds worth in it, he'll probably get back
with you.

Dale
Perhaps there really is truth in the old quote about the old guard and physics
really is advanced by its funerals etc., or is this something that only time
will tell.

nightbat

Scientists, as a general rule, have very little time, even for
funerals. That's an physics insider pun about the presumed old guard
wanting to hold on to its working postulates over possibly better ones.

Are you really sure, how do you know there are not acceptons. Its to be noted that
even this is subject to imperial experiment alto this would probably be more in the
range of psychology. Have there ever been any studies examining scientists and
objectivity. In reality how much proof is really needed that ufo's were really real
would it require, its to be noted here that I am not saying they exist only that its
questionable how much proof it would take to convince scientists and I am betting it
would take more than an actual ufo landed in someone's door yard to do this.


Not true, the more able researcher tries using everything useful
possible at his disposal to further scientific understanding, for there
may be a Nobel waiting. There is a pecking order in grad school for
acceptance and academic recognition. But in the discovery arena the
playground is open.

Dale

By the way did you look at the posting sci.physics, The universe as a
singular event? or did you already understand the basis for the theory
anywise.

nightbat

Truthfully no, don't have the time to follow every blind lead
presented, just those that are dialoged briefly and come to my attention
via response of the substance regulars. And frankly your referenced
posted title alone would turn my and most serious researchers attention
off.

I haven't posted it under any title for quite some time as I have only been posting
responses to other threads already started.



Dale

The thing that disturbs me most here is for the theory to be correct and yet
to be ignored until its rediscovery by someone else in the future, means that
precious time will have been lost in the pursuit of a reasonable understanding
of cosmology that we will not be able to get back.
Dale

nightbat

If it disturbs you stop thinking about it and as stated above, a
theory is only worth its useful applicability, not empty speculation.

I don't know how useful is a testable mechanism for space time creation.


One should be concerned with present practical science and applied
invention discovery not dwelling on possible future time lost based on
over overemphasized or imagined worth displayed circular logic. If
something displayed works, its applied. If it's unfounded pure
speculation, it's excrescence especially for trolls and sci fi
purveyors.

Obviously if its unfounded speculation its a waste of time, problem is it doesn't
appear to be that, it actually makes testable predictions..


PS: Maybe Zinni can further grasp this debate and add his input.


Dale
Who is Zinni ?.

nightbat

A displayed serious alt.astronomy poster interested in dialoging
with relatively new substantive cosmological premises.

Thanks for the info I will give him a chase to see what he says.

By the way did you examine the most recent posting outlining how this theory works
in the The universe as a singular event?. thread that reviews why time dilation
around black holes should result in more space. Some other responses by me goes into
more detail on why it gives predictions matching inflation theory if you want to
quickly scan over any posts with my name.

By the way where this original thread may have started from where I mentioned the
quantum vacuum actually being space, its a hypothesis as a result of the original
theory and requires a bit more to explain why. It dose appear to at least
superficially link quantum physics with cosmology so might be worth reviewing if you
come to any favorable conclusions on the original theory. Otherwise its a waste of
time.
Dale

The horizon of the universe maybe expanding close to "c" I can live with
that. We have to live with objects in motion close to "c' shrink in size
in the direction they are moving. We also find reality that spacetime
shrinks in the direction an object is moving(vacuum). oc I think this
comes under nature's balancing act Lets just say our universe is
expanding in an out ward direction,and shrinking in an inner direction.
We have a somewhat illuson because our telescopse only look towards the
universes horizon. Can't use a microscope to see foreshortning. Bert