|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
Dear bjacoby:
wrote in message ... In sci.astro Randy Poe wrote: Randy, My pet theory is NOT the old one called "tired light". I propose NO loss of light frequency over distance. OK, then you're going to have to explain why you believe "the distance shifts the light" but there's no change in frequency over distance. How do you get a red shift without a change in frequency? The difference is that "tired light" postulates that light shifts or loses energy (whichis frequency) as it travels over astronomical distances. I postulate that the light is traveling that distance WITHOUT losing energy but in fact gets shifted ONLY at the obeservation point because of the angle that is present between the path of the light and the diminsions within which we exist. How would the light know how to deform? How would the light know how much to deform based on its travel history? What happens to the energy it had just before deformation into our "space"? David A. Smith |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
In sci.astro George Dishman wrote:
That's what I understood from your web page. Now if you drew a second figure as I suggested for the emitting end, the distance across the lab would be very small so the difference between the wavelength along the chord and that along the tangent would be negligible. That supports your contention that there would be a wavelength difference between the ends. I think you have homed in on the weak spot in the theory, though I do not believe the emitting end is it. I believe that there is NO shift in frequency at the emitting end at all, nor during the passages of the light through space in whatever dimension. I believe the shift is a result of the angle formed with "our" space and the higher dimensions in which the light is traveling. Your point about light in a lab is well taken, however, because I am NOT implying that light can ONLY travel in higher dimensions. In a lab, light from here to there goes right through 3-D space like always. Just like you can see a ship sail out of the harbor... until it gets far enough away that the curvature of the earth prevents you from seeing it in the straight- line path. But my argument is to speculate on a situation where the light from the distant ship actually could penetrate the ocean and still reach the shore. Then the ship could be seen BEYOND the horizon! If the residents of the harbor thought the earth was flat, they might never guess the light from the ship was actually not coming through the air! That is until they started to notice some odd properties of the light from distant ships. However, consider how many wave crests are emitted per second and how many are received per second. If the length of the chord is not changing, the numbers should be the same as there is no suggestion of loss of crests along the line. That suggests to me that the frequency should be the same even though the wavelength has changed. Yes, you've sort of homed in on it. The interaction between light along the chord and light as we observe it is not exactly specified here. If you want me to exactly specify the equations for this interaction, I can't do that beyond the geometry I've pointed out. We are both flatlanders here and this interface is pretty much unexplored territory! Multiply the wavelength by the frequency to get the "speed of light" (perhaps a misnomer in this hypothesis). If this product has its usual value of c at the emitting end, what value does it have at the receiving end for a quasar at z=5? My "bottom line" assumption has been that indeed freq x wavelength = c. And that indeed by the common relativistic argument that *somehow* c is always the speed of light measured in WHATEVER frame of reference one chooses to measure it in. For this reason looking at the geometry, one notes that if both frequencies are (chord and tangent) are the same then the tangent light has to be have a velocity greater than c. By the above assumption that can't be the case, so therefore somehow, if c is always the same the frequency must be lower and thus the observed light red shifted in some manner. That is my arguement though as I have stated so far I haven't actually looked into relativistic implications say, in the case of situations where velocities are very high. The bottom line is that I think you would find that instruments sensitive to wavelength would measure a red shift while instruments sensitive to frequency would not. Also the speed of light would appear to be reduced for distant objects and would exhibit higher values of aberration. At least these seem to be testable predictions that your model makes IMO. What do you think? I don't think you'd find a difference between the two instruments (because f x w = c everywhere) This make ratio of frequencies the same as the inverse ratio of wavelengths. But you are right-on in looking for a testable prediction. I'm just not sure what it is! By making the flatland hypothesis, I've suggested the existance of higher unseen dimensions with which we usually do not interact. Now clearly such an interface OUGHT to have implications in our observable world. What those might be are probably beyond my mathematical abilities to venture a prediction at this time! :-) It is very interesting speculation, though. Bjacoby -- SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me! |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
CeeBee wrote in message . 6.84...
"George Dishman" wrote in sci.astro: I'd like to give him a chance to moderate his style and argue his case on scientific grounds, but we will have to see if he takes the hint. Fair enough. -- CeeBee Gentlemen, While I appreciate your manners in taking this honourable position, as I have not had extensive training in KungFu (your advanced math), I will reserve the right to resort to street fighting if provoked (my understanding of basic logical arguement) Regards Jim G |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
Jim Greenfield wrote: Dale Trynor wrote in message ... Jim Greenfield wrote: With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing the heavens. Dale Trynor wrote: [snip] light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7 billion years for the trip = light and mass travelling about the universe for 27.4 by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!! You might want to review how a theory I have been promoting that gives some interesting predictions that are related to this, providing you haven't already done so. After the parts that look at how time gravitational dilation can be shown to expand space you can then look at how it examines how a coaleasing neutron star gives an inflation like appearance for any inside observers. You will note how it predicts that while the original diameters have gone from a few km diameter to light years across instantly from the prospective of each individual neutron they will still only be able to gage the size of their universe depending on how long light has had to travel. In one light second they will only observe whatever parts of their universe that light can travel in that one second and this would not change the fact that there really is light years of distance still hidden. This gives the prospective of having started from that single point even while in some ways this is only an illusion equally shared by every other point particle. So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss? Now aren't we just so privileged to live at the center of it all? This idea of a center is very peculiar in this special theory because of how it also postulates the existence of white holes. After you review the site and have time to think about it you will have seen how and why it predicts that our universe is a black hole within another universe. The thing about black holes is they draw matter etc into them and if you were inside of a larger space within one you would see what looks like white holes pulling in matter from the older outer universe into ours. Attempts to model these white holes as they would first appear based on how a traveler would observe one while entering our universe from the outside, tends to suggest the possibility that they might appear to curve into our universe and may even appear in different locations while in actuality being the one surface. They might in some reverse sort of way be considered as the center of our universes as easily as its outside. More studies needed. Sorry about the site neglect this hobby dose not pay. http://dalet.9cy.com/ (And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??) I would like to hear what your opinions might be on this theory after you give it some thought. Sorry Dale, You are obviously a 'thinker' rather than a 'swallower', but I doubt we'll agree anytime soon. Dale Trynor wrote: I have to admit that this hypothesis on white holes is a bit speculative even for me, especially the idea that they might appear in different locations and of a rather small comparative volume relitive to the universe its must now apear inside of, while in some ways is still actuality the one single huge surface. Note that time in this theory also changes volume, so it a bit confusing about what size really is here. While I don't believe the generally accepted ideas about the big bang its still not really that much worse than the present idea that if you had a telescope powerful enough to observe the early universe that one would might be able to observe a smaller universe. Still it stretches my mind to imagine how one could measure a smaller circumference for a universe the closer you look towards the big bang even if it is just just shortly after creation. I believe I read somewhere that this could in principle work by distorting the paths in such a way as to allow that sort of otherwise contradictory observation. Its however worth pointing out how one might get similar predictions for the way one might observe a much smaller surface areas relative to our universe for white holes in this alternative theory. I don't accept the concept of 'negative' energy (push and pull are both positive), The idea of them being repulsive might in some ways be argued as an illusion, remember that while beneath such a horizon, objects appearing to be repelled are really just being pulled inwards. Might be a bit like saying objects are being gravitationally repelled from the sky. In one of the gadenkens where I examine how such things as worm holes would work I examine how an astronaut in a space craft between two black holes would observe what appears like a repulsive gravity at the center of his craft. Having a craft that could do this in our normal space would not only produce the same effect for our astronaut observer but result in a craft that displays faster time relative to us. This is still not that different from observing faster time on a satellite outside of our gravity well. Negative energy appears to be rather essential to explain how such things as the quantum vacuum and or ZPE dose not vaporize us all. If it were all positive energy it would indeed be fantastic. Note that the theory I promote leads to the idea that gravity is in part due to the differences in concentration of this quantum vacuum, however by changing it, one also changes the scale of any references one could use to measure such differences. I suppose you could say that it postulates that the quantum vacuum puts matter in its place so that space can exists. If you missed it look for a posting I did on how Casimir plates might be argued to be used a preferred reference frame if this quantum vacuum did not increase an an equivalent way. Gravitational contraction ignores the idea that space itself could increase. or 'space-time'; both of which I guess you consider (that 'curve' word!) What led me into the idea of how a white hole should appear was the question of examining how an astronaut in orbit around a black hole and or traveling with a light beam through a gravitational lens might or might not be able to observe the curve in the light paths using material tools. If you were for example to put a space craft into an orbit where the light paths will also orbit the same object, 3m in the case of a black hole, and then attempt to model how our astronauts could or could not observe the curved path of the light by letting it travel through the craft while also using a rigid ruler, one then examines how the two different predictions would work. Its important in these gadenkens that the craft would also be stabilized by gyroscopes otherwise his rotation would allow a valid argument to show how he would observe this curvature in the light, however if one cannot use gyroscopes to detect this rotation then it cannot still be considered rotating in the frame of reference of our travelers. This rotation is slight and is of the same sort that one would have by keeping a satellite facing towards the earths as it completes its orbits. The point is that if one can somehow show that our astronauts rulers must also curve to match the light paths then one can also show another example where even curvature itself is relative. One gets similar prediction using an accelerating elevator gadenken giving two observers different observations when they attempt to measure the light path. The accelerating elevator observers will insists that the light path curved as it passed through the elevator, while our non accelerating observer sees the light unaffected . Pushing this whole speculation to the extreme where one passes by this 3m level, "where the light would have originally been bent to the point where it could in principle travel completely around the black hole" and if our astronaut would now also insisted that its actually flat from his prospective, and then try to determine who is right, gives an interesting possibility that it doesn't end here. If it dose appear to curve in reverse for him as he dips below this level, should also suggest that it could appear to pinch off into a curved surface that now appears to repel gravitationally. However how he would observe the other parts of what our outside observers would agree was a circular event horizon becomes even more speculative because of the way our astronaut traveler can only observe small parts of what now appears to him as a white hole, at any one time and place. A continued space expansion from our astronauts prospective i.e., light cones, could then be used to argue how this surface becomes censored from his ability to observe this reverse curvature in its entirety. In the theory I promote it gets more complicated because of the way our traveler is also now measuring a smaller area of space because of the way all his references have also become shrunken relative to our prospective. That would mean that our astronaut is in actually measuring a smaller area of curvature making the difficulty of measuring such curves in the light paths even more difficult. Keep thinkin Jim G |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
wrote in message ... In sci.astro George Dishman wrote: I think you have homed in on the weak spot in the theory, though I do not believe the emitting end is it. I believe that there is NO shift in frequency at the emitting end at all, nor during the passages of the light through space in whatever dimension. I believe the shift is a result of the angle formed with "our" space and the higher dimensions in which the light is traveling. Your point about light in a lab is well taken, however, because I am NOT implying that light can ONLY travel in higher dimensions. In a lab, light from here to there goes right through 3-D space like always. Just like you can see a ship sail out of the harbor... until it gets far enough away that the curvature of the earth prevents you from seeing it in the straight- line path. That's only because we are used to seeing the ship from a few feet above the surface. Put your eye level with the surface of the water and its a different story. However, my point supported you on this as at short range the chord and tangent are indistinguishable. But my argument is to speculate on a situation where the light from the distant ship actually could penetrate the ocean and still reach the shore. Then the ship could be seen BEYOND the horizon! There is no horizon for a flatlander. If the residents of the harbor thought the earth was flat, they might never guess the light from the ship was actually not coming through the air! That is until they started to notice some odd properties of the light from distant ships. There is no air for a flatlander, they live at the surface of the water. However, consider how many wave crests are emitted per second and how many are received per second. If the length of the chord is not changing, the numbers should be the same as there is no suggestion of loss of crests along the line. That suggests to me that the frequency should be the same even though the wavelength has changed. Yes, you've sort of homed in on it. The interaction between light along the chord and light as we observe it is not exactly specified here. If you want me to exactly specify the equations for this interaction, I can't do that beyond the geometry I've pointed out. We are both flatlanders here and this interface is pretty much unexplored territory! Sure, but you assume the frequency is unchanged in drawing as you show the lines normal to the chord equally spaced at both ends. Multiply the wavelength by the frequency to get the "speed of light" (perhaps a misnomer in this hypothesis). If this product has its usual value of c at the emitting end, what value does it have at the receiving end for a quasar at z=5? My "bottom line" assumption has been that indeed freq x wavelength = c. That is not what is shown on the diagram. And that indeed by the common relativistic argument that *somehow* c is always the speed of light measured in WHATEVER frame of reference one chooses to measure it in. That's a different matter. You would need to draw worldlines for the observer at different speeds to investigate that. For this reason looking at the geometry, one notes that if both frequencies are (chord and tangent) are the same then the tangent light has to be have a velocity greater than c. By the above assumption that can't be the case, so therefore somehow, if c is always the same the frequency must be lower and thus the observed light red shifted in some manner. That is my arguement though as I have stated so far I haven't actually looked into relativistic implications say, in the case of situations where velocities are very high. Sure, but I think you need to resolve the conflict in the non-moving observer case first. The bottom line is that I think you would find that instruments sensitive to wavelength would measure a red shift while instruments sensitive to frequency would not. Also the speed of light would appear to be reduced for distant objects and would exhibit higher values of aberration. At least these seem to be testable predictions that your model makes IMO. What do you think? I don't think you'd find a difference between the two instruments (because f x w = c everywhere) This make ratio of frequencies the same as the inverse ratio of wavelengths. But you are right-on in looking for a testable prediction. I'm just not sure what it is! By making the flatland hypothesis, I've suggested the existance of higher unseen dimensions with which we usually do not interact. Now clearly such an interface OUGHT to have implications in our observable world. What those might be are probably beyond my mathematical abilities to venture a prediction at this time! :-) It is very interesting speculation, though. One current line of thinking is that gravity is weaker than the other forces because it 'leaks' into other dimensions. You might start he http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5.html Incidentally, if you treat your extra dimesion as time, you are very close to representing conventional gravitational red-shift. George |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message om... Gentlemen, While I appreciate your manners in taking this honourable position, as I have not had extensive training in KungFu (your advanced math), I will reserve the right to resort to street fighting if provoked (my understanding of basic logical arguement) Sure, but when you say the BB is wrong because you think the universe is infinite, and then people point out that the BB says the universe is probably infinite, perhaps you should stop and think. Maybe you just found out you are on the same side of the street as the rest of us. George |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
In message , Jim
Greenfield writes With mounting conjecture that we 'are not alone' in the universe, it might be timely to appreciate how truly fortunate WE are in viewing the heavens. We are fortunate whatever the case may be. Apparently we are close to the position of the 'singularity' from which the universe sprung into being some 13.7 billion years ago, and can see its glory in all directions. Not so those poor souls at the extremities! If as claimed, the edge of the universe is 13.7 bly away, the total width becomes 27.4 bly, and so they are only able to 'see' as far as us (half of it). Apparently you have been totally misinformed. AND this doesn't take into account the fact that the material of their home has travelled out from "The Big Bang" for 13.7 billion years (and that's allowing light speed for matter), and then emmitted light back to us that is claimed to have also taken 13.7 billion years for the trip = light and mass travelling about the universe for 27.4 by then, when it is only 13.7 to begin with!! So what do those beings see? Not us, as they are more light years away than the earth's age, and certainly not behind us (in their view), as we are at the 13.7 limit of their view. And what if they look outward? Are they gazing into an inky abyss? You have assumed that nothing has happened in 14 billion years. Not a very good assumption to make. Now aren't we just so privileged to live at the center of it all? We are privileged, yes, but we are not at the centre of the Universe, we are at the centre of our field of view. (And isn't 'The Big Bang' such an imaginitive load of rubbish??) The Big Bang has already popped once, we don't need it to pop again. -- The Universe http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk RC |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
In sci.astro \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote:
How would the light know how to deform? How would the light know how much to deform based on its travel history? What happens to the energy it had just before deformation into our "space"? Light "knows" how much to deform not based on "travel history" but rather on geometry. The "deformation" depending upon the angle the light makes with space. That angle is a function of the distance from which the light arrives. As to what happens to the energy? THAT is a good question! My current assumption is it stays in higher dimensions. Bjacoby -- SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me! |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
In sci.astro George Dishman wrote:
But my argument is to speculate on a situation where the light from the distant ship actually could penetrate the ocean and still reach the shore. Then the ship could be seen BEYOND the horizon! There is no horizon for a flatlander. Well, yes, but I'm talking 3-D flatlanders. Hmmm. Maybe there's no "horizon" there either. But anyway, my example is only meant to be thought-provoking not an exact replica of the 4-D case. If the residents of the harbor thought the earth was flat, they might never guess the light from the ship was actually not coming through the air! That is until they started to notice some odd properties of the light from distant ships. There is no air for a flatlander, they live at the surface of the water. 3-D "flatlanders": namely us. Analogies are often rather imperfect thinking tools. Sure, but you assume the frequency is unchanged in drawing as you show the lines normal to the chord equally spaced at both ends. The drawing doesn't display time. It shows an increase in wavelength (red shift), but time (frequency) is not explicit. That is not what is shown on the diagram. Perhaps. The exact nature of this interface beyond the production of red shift (as I've outlined) hasn't been mathematically worked out. I'd call the diagram more "thought provoking" than a true representation. However, I don't think the basic geometry is wrong. For example, I believe my calculation of the "diameter" of the universe follows correctly regardless of the details of the 4-D to 3-D red shift producing interface. But if you have any suggestions as to how the 3-D - 4-D red shifting interface might work, I'd love to hear it. Perhaps you could suggest a better diagram to show what I've been saying? And that indeed by the common relativistic argument that *somehow* c is always the speed of light measured in WHATEVER frame of reference one chooses to measure it in. That's a different matter. You would need to draw worldlines for the observer at different speeds to investigate that. Sure, but I think you need to resolve the conflict in the non-moving observer case first. yes. One current line of thinking is that gravity is weaker than the other forces because it 'leaks' into other dimensions. You might start he Interesting, though the theory isn't really about gravity at all at this point. http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5.html I'll check it out. Incidentally, if you treat your extra dimesion as time, you are very close to representing conventional gravitational red-shift. That is interesting since I've noted that extra dimensions seem to appear to denizens of the reduced space as "time" events. bjacoby -- SPAM-Guard! Remove .users (if present) to email me! |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Popping The Big Bang
Dear bjacoby:
wrote in message ... In sci.astro \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote: How would the light know how to deform? How would the light know how much to deform based on its travel history? What happens to the energy it had just before deformation into our "space"? Light "knows" how much to deform not based on "travel history" but rather on geometry. The "deformation" depending upon the angle the light makes with space. That angle is a function of the distance from which the light arrives. As to what happens to the energy? THAT is a good question! My current assumption is it stays in higher dimensions. You are aware that conventional wisdom has the set of dimensions known as space alter very slightly with time? So that "where does the energy go" is not a problem. And it agrees with local experiment. David A. Smith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Most Distant X-Ray Jet Yet Discovered Provides Clues To Big Bang | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 17th 03 04:18 PM |
alternatives to the big bang | Innes Johnson | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 8th 03 12:18 AM |
A dialogue between Mr. Big BANG and Mr. Steady STATE | Marcel Luttgens | Astronomy Misc | 12 | August 6th 03 06:15 AM |
Big bang question - Dumb perhaps | Graytown | History | 14 | August 3rd 03 09:50 PM |
One pillar down for Big Bang Theory | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 21st 03 12:27 PM |