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

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!

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

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

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

"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

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

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!

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!

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