1 centillion light years away

What might be out there? Can't be a wall. It must be someplace.




--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

On 7/07/2010 12:00 PM, LSMFT wrote:
What might be out there?

Out where?

Sylvia.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
So what's out that far? The Utgard and the giants. It's where Thor
goes to smash the bad giants and keep our universe intact.

And groove to Elvis during the down-times

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

LSMFT wrote:

What might be out there? Can't be a wall. It must be someplace.

We still don't know if the universe is bounded or not. If the universe
is bounded like the well of a black hole then it warps to an infinite
slope so there is no such distance as 1 centillion light years away but
there is a possible path to travel that distance. Curved space is wierd.

So what's out that far? The Utgard and the giants. It's where Thor
goes to smash the bad giants and keep our universe intact. Because
poetic descriptions of nothing are way more cool than instrumented
readings of nothing.

On Jul 6, 8:00*pm, LSMFT wrote:
What might be out there? *Can't be a wall. It must be someplace.

One million miles away. What new lands must lie there, on the surface
of the Earth, one million miles away? It can't be a wall; it must be
someplace.

Before the "inflationary hypothesis", this would embody the same error
that you would be believed to have been making. If you travelled a
centillion light years, you would just go around the Universe many
times, the Universe being (strictly speaking, being topologially
equivalent to; the notion of an embedding four-dimensional Euclidean
space being unneccessary) the three-dimensional surface of a four-
dimensional sphere 19 billion light-years in diameter.

But the modern theory notes that since the general expansion of the
Universe is driven by space itself expanding, the normal relativistic
laws of velocity addition do not apply; thus, places that are more
than 15 billion light years away are moving, relative to us, but not
relative to their local spacetime, faster than the speed of light, so
they are forever unobservable.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:

But the modern theory notes that since the general expansion of the
Universe is driven by space itself expanding, the normal relativistic
laws of velocity addition do not apply; thus, places that are more
than 15 billion light years away are moving, relative to us, but not
relative to their local spacetime, faster than the speed of light, so
they are forever unobservable.

If space is growing, shouldn't light take longer to reach us rather than
getting red shifted? That's the problem I have with a model that gets
rates faster than light. The red shift is not attenuation by distance
it is attenuation by energy content. Energy content is supposed to bne
effected by relativity.

In comparison locations farther and farther away would get more and more
red shifted and at some point the light gets blended with the background
radiation and so is unobservable because it's lost in the noise.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
In comparison locations farther and farther away would get more and more
red shifted and at some point the light gets blended with the background
radiation and so is unobservable because it's lost in the noise.

The cosmic microwave background noise first discovered (accidentally) by
Penzias and Wilson.

So has anyone tried the experiment of seeing if there is background noise at a
lower freq. than microwave? Or are we so inured of our precious big bang
theory to even bother to look?

Wouldn't it be interesting to observe harmonic noise at precisely Plank
interval distances? But maybe no one cares to imagine it. Look, I'm not
proposing an alternative cosmology, but I get a little annoyed with the
smugness of it all. As if we really understand it as well as we think we
do, esp. when we get into energy domains where the theory becomes impossible
to verify through experiment. Dark matter and dark energy my foot....

Dave

David Spain wrote:
[text that didn't format well]

And I get particularly annoyed with Thunderbird's
inability to format text properly. Why can't this
simple program deal with user input CR's and format
around them. Emacs has dealt with this for decades.
Thumbderbird only works on keyboards with no Enter
key.

D a v e

On 12/07/2010 12:45 PM, David Spain wrote:
David Spain wrote:
[text that didn't format well]

And I get particularly annoyed with Thunderbird's
inability to format text properly. Why can't this
simple program deal with user input CR's and format
around them. Emacs has dealt with this for decades.
Thumbderbird only works on keyboards with no Enter
key.

D a v e

I use Thunderbird, and don't understand the problem you're having.
Thunderbird wraps on input, so you don't need to use the enter key. If
you do press it, then Thunderbird assumes, not unreasonably, that you
want it in your posting.

Sylvia.

On 12/07/2010 12:41 PM, David Spain wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
In comparison locations farther and farther away would get more and more
red shifted and at some point the light gets blended with the background
radiation and so is unobservable because it's lost in the noise.

The cosmic microwave background noise first discovered (accidentally) by
Penzias and Wilson.

So has anyone tried the experiment of seeing if there is background
noise at a lower freq. than microwave? Or are we so inured of our
precious big bang
theory to even bother to look?

I understand that a number of frequencies have been examined. The
background radiation isn't expected to be at a single frequency - it's
expected to have a black-body spectrum. I believe that as far as it's
been measured, it does, with that temperature being about 3 degrees Kelvin.


Wouldn't it be interesting to observe harmonic noise at precisely Plank
interval distances? But maybe no one cares to imagine it. Look, I'm not
proposing an alternative cosmology, but I get a little annoyed with the
smugness of it all. As if we really understand it as well as we think we
do, esp. when we get into energy domains where the theory becomes
impossible to verify through experiment. Dark matter and dark energy my
foot....

The theory may break done in areas inaccessible to experiment, but what
of it? Until those areas become accessible, there is nothing but
speculation available, and no basis for changing the theory.

Sylvia.