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!

"G.P" wrote in
le.rogers.com:

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





You are starting with a false premise. The universe does not have an
edge. An observer in any part of it will see the same general picture.
The usual analogy, is the surface of a balloon that is being inflated.
Points on the surface of the balloon get further apart as the balloon
expands. BTW the expansion (increase in scale factor) of the universe is
not limited to the speed of light. It has been proposed that at an early
epoch, the expansion rate was much greater than it is now, in fact many
times the speed of light (look up big bang inflation theory.) This is the
current vogue in cosmology but it has roughly the same status as the old
epicycle theory of planetary motion. I.e it is a band aid applied to get
the original big bang theory out of trouble. So far though, there is no
evidence that outright falsifies it.

Llanzlan.

"G.P" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
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?

It is thought that space itself expanded much faster than
the speed of light in the early moments of the universe,
outstripping the progress of the light.

Also, the universe as such does not have an "edge"; it's
a self-contained geometry (that's the theory anyways),
so it's not not possible for something "inside" to
ever reach a boundary. This would include light. What
it boils down to is that the idea of the universe as
a 3D explosion in a pre-existing space is incorrect. It
is an expansion of space itself, and there is no "outside"
as far as we 3D contents are concerned.

"G.P" wrote in message ble.rogers.com...
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


Unfortunately, since the universe doesn't have an edge, your question
doesn't really make sense.

And the universe is pretty clearly expanding faster than light.

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@