Universe expansion

Newbie here, pls bear with me:

The universe is expanding, if so, the size of the universe is given by how
far the stellar bodies at the edges of the universe have traveled, right?
Let's consider a star at the edge of the universe, that star emits energy in
all directions, some of that energy is emitted toward the direction of the
expansion of the universe, but the universe doesn't expand at the speed of
light, what happens to that energy, then? assuming it is able to keep
traveling in the direction of the expansion, it'd mean the universe in fact
is expanding at the speed of light, wouldn't it?

Thx,

Guillermo

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:29:06 GMT, "G.P" wrote:

Newbie here, pls bear with me:

The universe is expanding, if so, the size of the universe is given by how
far the stellar bodies at the edges of the universe have traveled, right?
Let's consider a star at the edge of the universe, that star emits energy in
all directions, some of that energy is emitted toward the direction of the
expansion of the universe, but the universe doesn't expand at the speed of
light, what happens to that energy, then? assuming it is able to keep
traveling in the direction of the expansion, it'd mean the universe in fact
is expanding at the speed of light, wouldn't it?

This is assuming that some of us believe in the "big bang" theory.
Personally I believe that in either the "steady state" theory, or
(shock horror) some more modern radical (more shock horror, this will
have the olduns throwing their hands in the air, just watch) thinking,
such as the "what if" theory.

This theory goes something like this,

What if our basic concepts of astronomy are wrong, what if by some
strange quirk, newtons laws of gravity, einsteins theories of
relativity etc.. ONLY applied to our small part of the great scheme of
things.

And outside of our current perceptions different radical laws of
"nature" applied?.

Let me explain this further, a while ago people thought the Earth was
flat, and based everything upon that, people were lambasted and even
executed for even daring to suggest that the world wasnt flat but
round.

Take for Instance our own Sun, we use that as a reference point for
other stars, and base a Lot of thought about stars on our sun, but
"what if" our Sun is actauly very unique?.

A good example of this is pet dogs, we think of them in human terms,
in other words in our arrogance we have translated our thought
processes into those of a dog, we THINK we know what they are
THINKING, but as none of us have ever been Dogs (well except for my
first wife that is), we DONT really know what Dogs are thinking, but
given all available information, its a pretty fair bet we are correct,
BUT not certain, so the "what if" applies here..

If we find something strange out there, we first look to see if any
current physical laws apply to it, then if we cant find any, we try
and find another explantion for it, but in human terms, "what if" the
explantion for something is outside of our own conceptions of the
universe, rather like trying to explain what a TV is to a Dog..


--
---
The two most abundant elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
Why is the ratio of Hydrogen to Stupidity less in usenet than anywhere else in the universe?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:29:06 GMT, "G.P" wrote:

Newbie here, pls bear with me:

The universe is expanding, if so, the size of the universe is given by
how
far the stellar bodies at the edges of the universe have traveled,
right?
Let's consider a star at the edge of the universe, that star emits
energy in
all directions, some of that energy is emitted toward the direction of
the
expansion of the universe, but the universe doesn't expand at the speed
of
light, what happens to that energy, then? assuming it is able to keep
traveling in the direction of the expansion, it'd mean the universe in
fact
is expanding at the speed of light, wouldn't it?

This is assuming that some of us believe in the "big bang" theory.
Personally I believe that in either the "steady state" theory, or
(shock horror) some more modern radical (more shock horror, this will
have the olduns throwing their hands in the air, just watch) thinking,
such as the "what if" theory.

This theory goes something like this,

What if our basic concepts of astronomy are wrong, what if by some
strange quirk, newtons laws of gravity, einsteins theories of
relativity etc.. ONLY applied to our small part of the great scheme of
things.

And outside of our current perceptions different radical laws of
"nature" applied?.

indeed, what if? there is no way you can answer this question, so what is
the use?
Assuming, on the other hand, that our local laws of nature, DO apply
anywhere, we have been able to predict many natural phenomena pretty well!

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 23:25:42 +0200, "username" e-mail@adress wrote:


And outside of our current perceptions different radical laws of
"nature" applied?.

indeed, what if? there is no way you can answer this question, so what is
the use?

The "use" is in asking the question in the first place, not the
question itself

Throughout recorded history people have asked "what if" and been told
its just the way it is why bother asking, yet those people that
actually asked "what if" have gone on to make some great discoveries

"The world is flat, thats all there is, to think anything else is
stupid, we have explained it many times, and the evidence is
overwhelming, its DEFINATELY flat"

"yeah but what if?"

Et Al



--
---
The two most abundant elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
Why is the ratio of Hydrogen to Stupidity less in usenet than anywhere else in the universe?

Steve@nospam wrote,

...what if by some strange quirk, newtons laws of gravity, einsteins
theories of
relativity etc.. ONLY applied to our small part of the great scheme of
things.

......"what if" the explantion for
something is outside of our own
conceptions of the universe....

A good example is the bedrock axiom that holds the speed of light to be
constant all the way to the limit of visibility.. with the presumption
that it is also constant all the way to the BB itself. The doctrine of
universal c-invariance, of course, is rooted in void-space, that is, the
premise that space is functionally void or 'nothing'.
But "what if" space is indeed 'Something' and 'what if'
that Something is a dynamic fluid medium with the propensity for
expansion, compression and flow? 'What if' there is a *density gradient*
in this medium that shows up at extreme cosmological distances, making
the speed of light higher in that denser space? And what happens to
light that propagates from that denser space into 'our' less-dense
space? Does it slow, losing amplitude, or does it remain constant? And
what does this say about the recent 1a supernova data showing the most
ancient light "dimmer than it should be" at a given redshift?
Under the void-space/ universal c-invariance regime,
the excessive 1a SN dimming is interpreted as "accelerating expansion"
of the universe. But if the dimming is caused by a density-gradient
c-drop, it would swing the expansion curve away from 'accelerating
expansion' toward decelerating expansion.. and a closed universe.
Not just Loonytooners but a few maverik 'mainstreamers'
are actually daring to question the doctrine of universal c-invariance.
See-

http://ldolphin.org/setterfield/earlycosmos.html

http://theory.ic.ac.uk/~magueijo/vsl.html

Although these guys haven't connected the c-drop to a density gradient
in the spatial medium, at least they are peeking 'outside the box' of
current dogma.

BTW, a density-gradient c-drop is *not* a 'tired light' theory. All
'tired light' models are predicated on universal c-invariance.

And what about 'gravity waves'? Unlike EM radiation which is a
transverse wave, GW radiation is longitudinal, that is, a
compression-rarefaction analogous to a sound wave, propagating at c. But
propagating thru 'What'?
oc

To reply by e-mail please use anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:44:55 -0700 (PDT), (Bill
Sheppard) wrote:

Although these guys haven't connected the c-drop to a density gradient
in the spatial medium, at least they are peeking 'outside the box' of
current dogma.
Good thoughtful post, and I thought it would have people up in arms.

I dont think I totally concur with your conclusions, but I do like the
way you are asking "what if", and the examples you cite as well.

It seems to me that modern astronomy is being bogged down with this
Dogma, and people are stopping asking the "yeah but what if" question


--
---
The two most abundant elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
Why is the ratio of Hydrogen to Stupidity less in usenet than anywhere else in the universe?

Steve@nospam wrote,

I dont think I totally concur with your
conclusions, but I do like the way you
are asking "what if", and the examples
you cite as well.

Actually you were the one presenting the "what if" format (not to be
outflanked by Bertg), and I was just following your cue. On what
point(s) do you not concur?
It seems to me that modern astronomy is being bogged down with this
Dogma,
and people are stopping asking the "yeah but what if" question...

Yeah, the Dogma of void-space/ universal c-invariance, and the cosmology
based on it, may one day be found in the same league with the flat Earth
and geocentrism.
oc

To reply by e-mail please use anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 11:48:04 -0700 (PDT), (Bill
Sheppard) wrote:


Actually you were the one presenting the "what if" format (not to be
outflanked by Bertg), and I was just following your cue. On what
point(s) do you not concur?
Space as a "fluid"

--
---
The two most abundant elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
Why is the ratio of Hydrogen to Stupidity less in usenet than anywhere else in the universe?

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Steve@nospam wrote,
A good example is the bedrock axiom that holds the speed of light to be
constant all the way to the limit of visibility.. with the presumption
that it is also constant all the way to the BB itself. The doctrine of
universal c-invariance, of course, is rooted in void-space, that is, the
premise that space is functionally void or 'nothing'.

One of the unstated assumptions, when people come up with these more "out
there" speculations, is the assumption that you can change one rule or law
or constant (such as C in this case) and everything else will operate as
before, except light will travel at a different speed. Or there's the
creationist proposal that radioactive dating is flawed because radioactive
decay rates used to be different that they are now.

The trouble with these ideas is the implications involved in changing basic
constants. For instance, changing C changes the results that you get from
e=mc^2, which means (among other things) that the amount of energy that a
star gets from fusing hydrogen to form helium will change. This means that
the whole "main sequence" chart for types of stars would be different, and
the difference would be detectable. In the real world, however, stars 5
billion light years away look just like the ones next door.

In the case of the radioactive decay change, that would require a change in
the strong nuclear force. Among other problems, this would also change
stellar fusion behaviour. It's been stated by cosmologists that the physical
laws of the universe are so finely tuned that even a small change would
result in a universe incapable of supporting life or even stars.

Getting back to Bill's speculation, while there's certainly nothing wrong
with proposing "way out" ideas, the onus is always on the person proposing
an alternative to mainstream beliefs to come up with reasons why we should
take them seriously. At minimum, the new theory must explain existing
observations as well as the existing theory; in addition, it must also
either explain some observation that the existing theory can't, or it must
make a prediction that can be checked which wouldn't follow from the
existing theory. If it doesn't do these things, then really the only
reasonable reaction is "Uh huh. So?"

Dennis Taylor wrote,

One of the unstated assumptions...... is
the assumption that you can change one
rule or law or constant (such as C in this
case) and everything else will operate as before, except light will
travel at a
different speed......
The trouble with these ideas is the
implications involved in changing basic
constants. For instance, changing C
changes the results that you get from e=mc^2, which means (among other
things) that the amount of energy that a
star gets from fusing hydrogen to form
helium will change. This means that the
whole "main sequence" chart for types of stars would be different, and
the
difference would be detectable.

Yes Dennis, all that you state is absolutely true under the void-space
regime.. that is, the premise that space is a functional void or
'nothingness' all the way to the limit of visibility, and thence back to
the BB itself. Under void-space, you cannot change c without violating
the other constants, as you state.
But the point you're missing is- if space, far from
being "nothing", is an expansible, compressible fluid, it will display a
*density gradient* across the expansion of the universe.. and the speed
of light will drop with the thinning of the spatial medium (as by
analogy, the speed of sound in air drops with thinning air density
^altitude). The greatest density-gradient (and greatest c-drop) will
occur in the early universe immediately following the BB, leveling out
on a log curve to the present value. *Some* of the density-gradient
c-drop will appear in the most ancient light visible to us, rendering
that light 'dimmer than it should be' at a given redshift, just as is
observed in the recent 1a SN data.
NOW, c is always constant *locally*, in the absence of
a density-gradient in the spatial medium, and all the other constants
are likewise fixed 'locally'. "Local" in this case applies out to
several billion LY, where the density-gradient remains negligible, c
remains constant, and relativity 'works' acceptably well. At greater
distances the spatial density and c begin climbing exponentially.
There within that denser space, c is constant locally,
just as c is constant here, locally. In that denser space, all constants
including the Lorentz invariance are fixed, just as they are fixed here,
locally. The prime variable from one location to another in the
universe is spatial density. The relative value of c varies with space
density. Light propagating from denser space into less-dense space will
lose amplitude due to the *relative* drop in c between the two
locations.

In the real world, however, stars 5 billion light years away look just
like the ones
next door.

Yes at 5 BLY they look the same. At 10+ BLY they still "look" the same,
with the exception of being dimmer due to c-drop.

But then, if space is functionally void, none of the foregoing applies.
We are stuck with a 'one-shot' BB, ever-accelerating expansion of the
"nothing", universal c-invariance, and an open-ended entropic run down
back to 'nothing'.
oc

To reply by e-mail please use anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@