what if (on colliding galaxies)

On Sep 5, 2:37 am, "Painius" wrote:
"Saul Levy" wrote, re. the "octave-like" nature of the spatial medium :

Sure sounds like NUMEROLOGY, oldfart! lmao!

Numerology is NOT science.

No, no, Saul! Not numerology... it's "musical"! Keep
in mind that music is the ordering of vibrations in the
part of the spectrum we can hear. As you know, there
are other vibes that fill the Universe. And such a sort
of musical orderliness, an "octave-like" state isn't out
of line with science. Some of it may sound a little bit
mystical due to the infancy of the idea and the obvious
differences there are between the CBB model and the
mainstream ideas. But to me, it makes a lot of sense.

What in the hell does the clown think "string theory" implies if not a
highly-ordered vibrational complex underpinning physical reality?

On Sep 10, 7:19 am, oldcoot wrote:
On Sep 5, 2:37 am, "Painius" wrote:

"Saul Levy" wrote, re. the "octave-like" nature of the spatial medium :

Sure sounds like NUMEROLOGY, oldfart! lmao!

Numerology is NOT science.

No, no, Saul! Not numerology... it's "musical"! Keep
in mind that music is the ordering of vibrations in the
part of the spectrum we can hear. As you know, there
are other vibes that fill the Universe. And such a sort
of musical orderliness, an "octave-like" state isn't out
of line with science. Some of it may sound a little bit
mystical due to the infancy of the idea and the obvious
differences there are between the CBB model and the
mainstream ideas. But to me, it makes a lot of sense.

What in the hell does the clown think "string theory" implies if not a
highly-ordered vibrational complex underpinning physical reality?

Zionist/Nazi clowns of the mainstream status quo brown-nosed kind (aka
Saul Levy) don't have a deductive independent thought within their
bigoted and intellectually racist head.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

I'm not a rabbi, but I have been a teacher! So little you know,
BEERTbrain!

BradBoi's problem is that he's INSANE! lmao!

Nothing can be done about him.

Saul Levy


On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:38:16 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

BG A rabbi is a teacher,and Saul is not a teacher and can not ever be
called a rabbi. Think and talk straight BG,and get all that nasty ****
out of your head. You can and must do better than just being a biggot.
bert

Me a hard-core Jew, BradBoi? lmfjao!

What a ****TARD you are! lmao!

Why don't you IMPLODE your INSANE BRAIN?

Saul Levy


On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 23:54:40 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

On Sep 9, 7:38 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
BG A rabbi is a teacher,and Saul is not a teacher and can not ever be
called a rabbi. Think and talk straight BG,and get all that nasty ****
out of your head. You can and must do better than just being a biggot.
bert

You call the truth "biggot", so what exactly do you call a lie?

Notice how it's pretty much only the Old Testament thumping souls that
are opposed to intelligent other life, as well as opposed to all that
isn't of merely inert eye-candy.

It seems being a pretend-Atheist isn't a viable cloak for rabbi Saul.

Such hard core Jews like our good old Saul do not take kindly to
revising history or pretty much anything except that of an ever
expanding universe, thus a white godly expanding universe where them
galaxies do not collide, but otherwise at most only pass harmlessly in
the night.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

What planets and moons of Sirius B, BradBoi? lmfjao!

None are known to have existed.

So it's EASY to LOSE things that DON'T EXIST! lmao!

Saul Levy


On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 23:58:43 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

btw, where did the planets and moons of Sirius B go?

~ BG

So 42 km/s instead of Paine's estimate of 100.

Good job, Odysseus!

Saul Levy


On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:27:28 GMT, Odysseus
wrote:

BTW, you might find this 1997 paper, "M31 Transverse Velocity and Local
Group Mass from Satellite Kinematics" by van der Marel and Guhathakurta,
rather interesting:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3747

On Aug 7, 7:30 am, "GOD" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

You get a real kick out of intentionally tormenting and traumatizing
trillions upon trillions of mostly innocent souls, don't you. You
must be another DARPA Zionist/Nazi, cloaked as a born-again
Republican.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Here's what I get a kick out of: I get a real kick out of people who
consistently blame everyone and/or everything else but themselves for their
woes. As for the other, I must be a die-hard democrat. There is nothing
more important to me than freedom, especially freedom of choice!

--
Truth & Light

You think Bush and Cheney gave a choice of other than how a Muslim
should suffer or die?

Unlike yourself, at least I have done nothing wrong.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

Unlike many of the UNEDUCATED MORONS here, BradBoi, I'm not a racist.
lmfjao!

You'll have to do a LOT BETTER than that!

Did you forget to mention Hitler?

Saul Levy


On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:31:52 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

Zionist/Nazi clowns of the mainstream status quo brown-nosed kind (aka
Saul Levy) don't have a deductive independent thought within their
bigoted and intellectually racist head.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Sep 8, 11:06 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...

Painius I get very flustered when I read light has slowed down or
accelerated. bert

I know the feeling, Bert. On one hand you read
that nothing can exceed light speed, "c". And you
might somehow get the idea that light itself will
always travel at "c". Then you read that light can
and does sometimes go slower depending upon
the medium it is going through, that "c" is only the
*maximum* speed of light.

Then maybe you read about how one of the first
and best tests for relativity theory was the bending
of a star's light as it traveled past the Sun during a
full eclipse. And you know that anything, including
light, that travels a curved path is "accelerated".
Maybe you read a little more and find that when a
scientist says "accelerated", this could mean either
a speeding up *or* a slowing down. So what did
the star's light do? It couldn't have sped up. It was
already going "c", as fast as it could go. So, did it
slow down? Was it a "negative" acceleration? (Or
what i would call a "deceleration"?)

Apparently neither.

Well sure it slowed down. This is precisely what sets General
Relativity apart from Special Relativity.. or rather what *expands
upon* SR and its mandate of universal c-invariance. Traversing a
gravity well, a ray of star light deflects twice as much as it
'should' under the Newtonian model of gravity and the prediction of
SR. Why is this so? Obviously it spent more time in traversing the
gravity well than it 'should'. To wit, it slowed down. Then sped up
again upon exiting the gravity well. This prompted Einstein's seminal
statement:

"According to the (radically new) General Theory of Relativity, the
law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which
constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the Special
Theory of Relativity.. cannot claim unlimited validity. A curvature of
rays of light can only take place when the *velocity of propagation*
varies with position (in traversing a gravity well)."

With that observation, SR and lightspeed-invariance became a wholly
owned subsidiary of GR. GR became the natural extension/expansion of
SR.

Ripley's believe it or not, there's still some controversy
about all this. There are some scientists who believe
that Eddington's and later similar findings had errors
that were intolerable. That any such repositioning of
the starlight could have other, non-relativistic reasons.

And then there's the physicist's explanation of the
acceleration of a vectorial quantity. If the starlight ray
curves (changes direction) then the light is "accelerated"
whether or not the speed (magnitude) changes. The
speed can stay exactly the same, but as long as at least
the direction has changed, then the light is "accelerated".

So when Einstein said, ". . . A curvature of rays of light
can only take place when the *velocity of propagation*
varies with position (in traversing a gravity well)," even
he did not necessarily mean that the magnitude (speed)
must change, just the "direction". The velocity of the
propagation varies with changes in magnitude AND/OR
changes in direction.

But it only *described* the observation. It did not _explain_ it.

The next extension/expansion of Relativity itself is to _explain the
mechanism_ of why lightspeed varies as it does.

And that mechanism is the changing density (or PDT value) of the very
real spatial medium itself. The deeper you descend in a gravity well,
the less dense the spatial medium becomes, hence the slower
propagation speed of light therein.

Conversely, looking back closer and closer toward the Big Bang
("playing the tape backwards"), the more dense the spatial medium
becomes, and the higher the speed of light therein. This is the
*cosmological density gradient* and what Wolter called 'c-dilation'.
But the speed of light is always constant *locally* at any point
across the gradient. The constancy of the speed of light is never
violated *locally*, the Lorentz invariance is never violated, nor is
any other constant for that matter. The prime variable is the density
(PDT value) of the spatial medium itself climbing exponentially back
toward the BB. And as you pointed out previously, space itself
contracts concomitantly with the climbing PDT value.

Then, on top of everything else, you read that space
is expanding at an accelerated rate of speed.

That's the grand illusion of the Void-Space Paradigm which deems space
a universally-isotropic 'Nothing' all the way back to the BB, having
no concept of the cosmological density gradient.

And it's sometimes very hard to understand how so
many cosmologists can appear to remain unflustered
by all this.

Maybe it's like the holy man who, by day, preaches
devoutly to glassy-eyed followers from a holy book
written long ago, and then by night he sits alone in
his room knowing somewhere deep down inside that
he doesn't really have a clue that he's right about all
that. I guess some people will believe just about
anything if it is told to them by someone they trust.

Belief is an important feeling, but is it ever enough?
Evidence is a very important basis for belief, but this
can also not be enough if the evidence is subject to
interpretation, possibly false interpretation. It always
makes me secretly wonder if truth -- i mean real and
factual and TRUE truth -- is ever possible to attain in
the more flustering science disciplines.

One simple adjustment to the sitting paradigm is all it would take to
set it straight -- replace the 'void' of space with the Plenum of
space, recognizing it for what it demonstrates itself to be - the
dynamic, highly mobile Fluid that's compressible/expansible and
amenable to density (PDT) gradients.
And recognize its property of 'hyperfluidity', that
being itself inertia-less and frictionless, confers upon matter the
properties of of inertia and momentum.. which is directly responsible
for gravity-acceleration equivalence, the key to the mechanism of
gravity itself : gravity is the effect upon matter of
**accelerating**, flowing space.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net

"Greg Neill" wrote in message...
m...
Painius wrote:
"Greg Neill" wrote in message...
m...
Painius wrote:
"Greg Neill" wrote...
in message m...

. . .
The redshift values give us the radial velocities. It's
comparison of the radial velocities for different distances
that give us the acceleration.

Why is this seen as an acceleration? E.g., a galaxy seen
at, say, 8 billion light years away has a higher redshift
than a galaxy that's 4 billion light years away. So the
farther galaxy 8 billion years ago was going faster than
the closer galaxy 4 billion years ago. If galaxies were
going slower 4 billion years ago than they were 8 billion
years ago, wouldn't this indicate that things are slowing
down?

The analysis is complicated slightly by the light transit
time. It has to be disentangled from the scenario in order
see the result.

It might help to see it in the following way. In another
four billion years the galaxy that we currently see as
4 billion light years distant will have moved further
away from us. Without acceleration we would suppose that
it would add a distance of 4 billion years multiplied by
the velocity obtained by the measured redshift value.
Instead what we find is that it will have moved an additional
distance above and beyond what it would be if it were to
keep a constant recession pace. Thus an acceleration is
ocurring. . . .

It is found that in 4 billion years the galaxy will have
moved an additional distance above and beyond what
it would be if it were to keep a constant recession pace.
And you say that you find this result by "disentangling"
the light-transit time from the scenario? If i read this
correctly, you are deducing this from the redshift
magnitudes that you measure for the galaxies that are
8 billion light years away? That these redshift values
are higher than would be expected if these galaxies
had kept a constant recession pace? From a time when
these galaxies were 4 billion light years away 4 billion
years ago?

Accounting for the light transit times removes a layer of
complication, but it's not the whole story (as you point
out). In order to come to the conclusion that space is
not only expanding but accelerating in that expansion,
we need to have a model of space and some measurements
to fit to that model. What we can measure are distances
and (radial) velocities, and in certain circumstances,
the ages of things.

If your model of space is a simple expansion with a fixed
Hubble constant, you expect things at a given distance to
have a given redshift in accord with that model. If the
expansion rate changes over time, then things are more tricky
because what we "see" is the result of the accumulation of
any changes that occurred up to the instant in time that
the light from a given object was emitted, plus whatever
happened to all the regions of space that the light travelled
through during its transit to us. The light from things
further away have less pre-emission history and more post-
emission history, if you follow.

So you deduce from this that the galaxies that appear
to be 4 billion light years away to us *now* are actually
more than 8 billion light years away, and those galaxies
that *presently* appear to us to be 8 billion light years
away are in reality more than 16 billion light years away?

Not quite. If you go strictly by the currently observed
distance we use our model to tell us how long ago the
light was emitted. Given that space has been expanding
while the light travelled to us, we can project backwards
to tell us what the distance actually was when the light
was emitted. During that same interval of time that the
light was travelling to us, the object has continued to
move away, too. So "now", it should be much further away
than what we directly perceive. How much further away it
is depends upon the Hubble "constant" and whether it really
is constant over time and distance.

So the galaxies that appear to be 4 billion light years
away are traveling at an accelerated pace that would
average out to be over 1 billion light years per billion
years, or 1 light year per year or about 6 trillion miles
per year... or over c? So space is not only expanding
faster than light velocity, but is actually accelerating
well beyond light velocity?

The specific figures for expansion rate depend upon the
model. But it is true that for *any* given positive
expansion there must be a distance at which the recession
velocity will equal the speed of light, and beyond that
it will exceed the speed of light.

What that means for us as observers is that there is a
cosmic horizon beyond which we cannot see. Light from
the events taking place at the horizon is redshifted to
nil energy, and light from beyond it can never reach us;
we are effectively cut off from the rest of the universe
that lies outside that horizon.

First, i really don't follow how cosmologists can just,
with a sweep of the mathematician's pencil, ignore the
"disentangled" light-transit time. Because it seems to
me that the light-transit time is a very real and crucial
factor in this. How do you know that by disentangling
the light-transit time from the scenario that you aren't
introducing an unconscionable amount of error?

One has to rely on the model, which must meet the burden
of agreeing with the current physics (Equations of
General Relativity for permissible shape and evolution
of space) and empirical observation.

Cosmology is attempting to discover and refine a model that
meets these burdens. It is an ongoing process, and I don't
think the game is over. It's not like the Science taught in
highschool where the results are hard and fast and based
upon a very well supported, "tried and true" model (Newtonian
Mechanics). This is the ragged edge of physics where not
everything is settled.

Secondly, it seems to me that when you *allow* the
light-transit time back into the scenario, you have to
deal with the fact that galaxies that can be seen near
to us in the past are going slower than galaxies that
we can see from farther back in the past. The farther
the galaxy appears to us, the farther back in time we
are looking, and the faster is the galaxy's velocity.
And the nearer to us in the past the galaxy appears to
us, the later in time we are looking, the closer to us
in time we are seeing, and the slower is the galaxy's
velocity.

Can you see how this is very, very difficult for people
who are not scientists to understand?

Yes. We mere humans are used to dealing with a local
environment where "now" is the same for all of it and
lightspeed appears to be infinite. Our working mental
model of the world does not include light transit time
effects for what we see around us.

And it is especially frustrating that everytime i have
seen this seeming paradox brought up, scientists say
something about "relativistic effects" and disappear.
Very frustrating.

Things do get complicated very quickly when you are dealing
with things on the scale of the Universe, since you need to
turn immediately to solutions of the equations of General
Relativity to formulate your models. Without plowing right
into the mathematics, all you can do is pick and choose and
describe some of the observed effects.

Thank you, Greg! Your response helps to relieve
the frustration a good deal. Arrogance-free and
matter-of-fact answers are always appreciated!

I'm wondering... Do you think there might be a
way to sense the accelerating expansion (or any
other type of state) of the Universe on a local,
observable, perhaps even measurable level?

It just seems as if this ought to be possible, if not
now, then some time in the future. And i just
wonder how it might be done?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net