#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Steve@nospam wrote,
Space as a "fluid" Check out the flowing-space model of gravity - http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/W...plications.htm www.olypen.com/hcwarren/ oc To reply by e-mail please use anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net Change 'at' to@ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hi oc and Steve What if there is a sameness about the universe
expanding,and a rocket leaving the earth and going into deep space? It would go like this. The big bang explosion catapulted the material of the universe with the energy to escape from the gravitational pull of the rest of the material(escape velocity) Like a rocket going fast enough to escape Earthy's gravity. This creates an "open universe" and will expand forever. This is what the red shift is showing us. This means galaxies are moving away from each other and creating huge spaces between,as the universe inflates. The universe is getting colder and colder,and its future is easy to theorize. There will come a time of complete dark matter. Astronomers call this spacetime the "Big Chill" The big mystery is why is this expansion accelerating? Would it have been better to have the universe fall back on itself? That would give the effect of time running backwards. By collapsing back down to an infinitely small,dense spot leading to another big bang. Bert |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Bert wrote,
The big mystery is why is this expansion accelerating? The big question is- Is "accelerating expansion" really occuring in present time? Or is this really a grand illusion created by assuming c to be constant all the way to the limit of visibility? Universal c-invariance is an edict of pure fiat taken on pure faith. On the other hand, some credentilaed 'mainstreamers' are now suspecting c was greater in the early cosmos (see previous post). If this is the case, the most ancient light appearing "dimmer than it should be" at a given redshift is due to amplitude-drop, not 'accelerating expansion'. Would it have been better to have the universe fall back on itself? That's exactly what you'd have, a closed universe, if "accererating expansion in present time" is a bunch of baloney. Our visible cosmos will eventually enter its Contration phase leading to the Big Crunch in the far future. ...leading to another big bang. =A0 =A0 =A0 Bert Yep. From the standpoint of the *visible cosmos* a BB-Big Crunch reciprocation would be experienced. BUT from the imaginal 'outside' frame of referance, the larger continuously-running Process is seen.. in which *our visible cosmos* is like a dustbunny embedded in the flow. oc To reply by e-mail please use anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net Change 'at' to@ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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?" |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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@ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Hi oc I have a theory that light always travels at the set speed of "C"
even going through air glass,water. In a lab Cambridge Ma they super cooled sodium and claimed the photons going though were slowed to 3 mph(that's hour) They are lost to tell us where it got the energy to instantly get back to light speed,after leaving the sodium. I have presented this theory in my news group "New Theories",and it was received rather well. Bert |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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? Thx, Guillermo 'Lo G.P. -- "The universe is expanding, . . ." "What? What is expanding?" "The universe. The universe is expanding." "Yes, but WHAT exactly IS expanding?" "Space, of course." "OHHhhh... SPACE is expanding! RIIIIiiiight." "Yes, SPACE is expanding." "But isn't space just SPACE? Isn't space a VOID???" "Er, uhm..." "Isn't that why they call it SPACE? Because it's VOID?" "Well, uhm, there IS sort of... uhm... an 'Energy Density' to space, and THAT'S what's expanding. Yup, the energy density." "RIIIIiiiight." ( if we expand our minds, what precisely "expands?" ) Arrogant Question?:... Are we and the Universe getting more dense? or less dense? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Sweet home, oh Precious Earth, The ONLY home we know, Tell us what you need of worth, And we can make it so. Do you want our hearts to beat And thrive within your air? Then teach us what we know we need So we can learn to care. Paine Ellsworth |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What if the universe is infinitely big. That could be the reason the
Earth looks like its in the middle of it. Than every where can look like its in the middle. Everything would look the same in every direction. If we can think infinitely dense,as taking up no space, Than why can't we think the universe is taking up all the space in the world. I think it is infinitely better think. Bert |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Painius mused,
"Yes, SPACE is expanding." "But isn't space just SPACE? Isn't space a VOID???" "Er, uhm..." "Isn't that why they call it SPACE? Because it's VOID?" "Well, uhm, there IS sort of... uhm... an 'Energy Density' to space, and THAT'S what's expanding. Yup, the energy density." "RIIIIiiiight." ( if we expand our minds, what precisely "expands?" ) Arrogant Question?:... Are we and the Universe getting more dense? or less dense? Science is at its next crossroads on the question "What is space?". It's the same position as that of the ancient Greeks on the question of the 'pneuma'- the ineffible yet all-prevasive 'Something' that gives power to the storms, gives flight to the birds, and confers the breath of life. They couldn't quantify it or isolate it, but could only deduce its existance by *what it does*, its effects. Today we know the 'pneuma' is simply the air- from which the word pneumatic is derived. Likewise the existance of a pre-existant, underlying Spatial Medium (or VED) is patently obvious by *what it does*, its effects. It conducts EM radiation at a fixed velocty, it supports and sustains all atomic structure, its *flow* is the mechanism of the fundamental forces including gravity, it fixes and mediates Newtonian and Keplerian law and the laws of inertia, resisting acceleration of matter while remaining frictionless to matter once accelerated (hyperfluidity). Its existance is demonstrated by its bounty of effects. Yet science still clings to the superstition of a "void", a pure 'nothingness' that paradoxically is undergoing "ever-accelerating expansion" (how can "nothing" expand? Hmmm). The "void" therefore invokes further superstition-- "messenger particles", flying photons, gravitons etc. to conduct energy across the 'void'.. much as the medieval religionists needed their imps and angels. Science is faced with fact that space is obviously 'Something' very, very profound. Yet in its need to cling to the void-space paradigm, it invokes further occultish-sounding terms like 'dark matter', dark energy, 'quintessence' etc. to evade any inferance of the "Something that shall not be named". This superstition of void-space, of course, ties directly back to the old 'aether' theories and the religious pogroms in Europe and especially Britain to stamp them out in the 16th and 17th centuries. A modern concept the VED shows it is not the 'aether' of the old theorists. The very term 'ether' bespeaks that which is spiritous, insubstantial, and of secondary status to the 'real' world of matter/ energy. The VED (vacuum energy density) by contrast, is seen as the Primary Reality, a standing-wave field with resolution below the Planck length, with *energy density* far exceeding any energy level of the material universe. The VED upends the old 'aether' model on its head, making the material universe the ephemoral, superfluous 'dustbunny' tagging along for the ride. Space is our modern-day 'pneuma'. oc To reply by e-mail please use anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net Change 'at' to@ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | SETI | 8 | May 26th 04 04:45 PM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 22nd 04 09:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 22nd 04 08:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Station | 0 | May 21st 04 08:02 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Policy | 0 | May 21st 04 08:00 AM |