two quick questions

Would the physical laws that we have determined on earth apply everywhere
else in the universe?

Just as sound changes speed when it enters a different medium, could light
somehow be manipulated as it travels through space and cause stellar objects
to appear either much closer or much more distant than actual?

Thanks,
Jason

Jason Watters wrote:
Would the physical laws that we have determined on earth apply everywhere
else in the universe?

Within our observable universe, the laws of physics are the same
"there" as "here".


Just as sound changes speed when it enters a different medium, could light
somehow be manipulated as it travels through space and cause stellar objects
to appear either much closer or much more distant than actual?


Everything we can measure is accurately modeled by either
relativity theory or the quantum mechanics. QM, SR or GTR
don't pretend to be theories of everything working is all
domains.

There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER! The reason I state
it that way is because we tell students that theories are
good until the are falsified by any single empirical
observation that counters the predictions of the theory.
Yet these theories QM, SR and GTR are remarkably correct
and useful.

Jason Watters wrote:
Would the physical laws that we have determined on earth apply everywhere
else in the universe?

Take a relaxed view on this for a while.

Newton believed that the planets behaved like objects do on the surface
of the planet insofar as if you throw a ball up in the air it will
eventually slow down ,stop and then pick up speed as it returns to the
surface of the planet.

Kepler refined the original Copernican insight to show that planets
slowed down and speeded up over the course of an annual obit giving
Newton his idea that terrestial ballistics applied to planetary motion
was the answer.

With our 21st century data,Newton's idea was not a bad attempt and he
did take awful shortcuts to get his ballistics agenda to work but
ultimately it can now only stands as an enormous testament to
pretension.

If you think about it carefully enough,you can get Keplerian motion by
concentrating on the Earth's compound orbital motions.The Earth orbits
the Sun and it also orbits,along with the rest of the solar system, in
one direction around the Milky Way axis.

A boat circles a buoy on a still lake and the motion of the boat will
be circular.If you introduce a current on the lake,the boat will circle
the buoy much like Keplerian orbital geometry insofar as it goes faster
as it moves with the current and slower when moving against the
current.

Applied to Keplerian motion ,the Earth's compound motions do the same
job as terrestial ballistics do and do much more.It grafts in the
Earth's galactic orbital motion as conditioning heliocentric orbital
motion and subsequently solves the puzzle of how Keplerian geometry
changes in generating ice ages without tampering with the stable
processes in the Sun.






Just as sound changes speed when it enters a different medium, could light
somehow be manipulated as it travels through space and cause stellar objects
to appear either much closer or much more distant than actual?

Thanks,
Jason

Newton was best when he was away from real astronomy and unfortunately
became too greedy in hijacking astronomical principles which he
manipulated with reckless abandon.He basically destroyed
Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity yet the cataloguers love him.

Unfortunately his disciples went way beyond even Newton's misconduct
which is why,despite the fact that Newton's Opticks has only limited
application with reflection,refraction and colors,they grafted in the
ballistics agenda.

http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/libra.../newton1-1.jpg

Look,do your best with becoming comfortable with the Earth's compound
heliocentric and galactic orbital motions and how they combine to
generate Keplerian orbital geometry and motion.It is far easier to work
with than the isolated solar system of Newton and his view on the rest
of the cosmos -

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."

Don't worry,the ghost of Newton is not going to haunt you although you
can count on the zombies running to his defence.

To Sam

The time traveller in H.G. Wells 1898 novel had the same conviction of
4 dimensional spacetime -

"'Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively
overlooked,' continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of
cheerfulness. 'Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension,
though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they

mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no
difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space except

that our consciousness moves along it. But some foolish people have got

hold of the wrong side of that idea. You have all heard what they have
to say about this Fourth Dimension?'"


http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

"It means that in our universe, 3-dimensional space and time form a
single indivisible new physical object which has 4 dimensions. All
physical laws and phenomena seem to require thinking about space and
time as this blended object. That's what Einstein's relativity theories
were all about. "

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

You can predict anything when you base concepts on a fictional 1898
novel and 100 years later spend a billion dollars trying to prove the
validity of a fictional narrative.

You people are actually scary,not because of what you believe for
indeed it is harmless nonsense but that you have convinced others who
know no better and cannot defend themselves against obvious trash.

Predictions in relativity/Newtonianism is like Wylie Coyote never
catching the roadrunner for both are ultimately cartoons.

Jason Watters wrote:
[Q1.] Would the physical laws that we have determined on earth apply
everywhere else in the universe?

There is evidence that physical laws are the same at great distances
and great times in the past.

The spectra of light radiated from reionized HI gas in distant quasers
has been observed. The spectra radiated from distant reionized HI gas
is similar to the spectra from gas in nearby objects, except it is
redshifted. This observation indicates that the basic structure and
physical laws involving hydrogen, the most prevalent substance in the
observed universe, is at great distances (and a great times in the
past) the same as the physical laws governing hydrogren on Earth in the
present. Using quasers sufficiently distant to reach back to 5% of the
current age of the universe, Tubbs concluded the spectra of HI gas was
similar at that early time as it is today.

Tubbs, A.D. Wolfe, A.M. March 1980. Evidence for large-scale uniformity
of physical laws. Astrophysical Journal, Letters, 236:L105-108.
NASA ADS Link:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJ...236L.105T

[Q2.] [C]ould light somehow be manipulated as it travels
through space and cause stellar objects to appear either much closer or
much more distant than actual?

Tubbs looked at reionized HI gas spectra at various distances from Sol.
There was no indication that the nature of the spectra changed at
farther, as opposed to closer, distances.

A quaser example used by Tubbs (1980) is "QSO B0235+1624", currently
overhead at J023838.93+163659.3. Although this 15.5 magnitude quaser
is not visible in most amateur telescopes, you can bring up a picture
of it using the Simbad query database and scrolling down the Aladin
Java Applet.
http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/sim-fid.pl

Studies using ionized hydrogen from quasers to probe the early universe
continues today. For an overview, see -
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~kstanek/astro200/hao2.pdf#search='21cm%20astronomy%20hydrogen%20spe ctra'

- Canopus56

To Canopus56

In 1920,they were no better or worse than Newton in how they viewed
the 'fixed stars' as powerful telescopes had yet to discover stellar
galactic island the rotation of stars around the galactic axis.

So,look at how they viewed the universe in 1920 -

"If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as a
whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us
is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite.
There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density."

Now watch this guy tell an enormous fib and uses Newton to do it -

"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite
island in the infinite ocean of space."

This is what Newton actually thought -

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."


So going back to the quoted text you see this guy in 1920 rejecting the
idea of stellar islands and the center about which these stars
rotate.It is actually quite funny with a little bit of effort and the
knowledge that it was written before galaxies were discovered.

So everyone gets to look at the relativistic conception -

"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite
island in the infinite ocean of space."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

And then they get to see this picture which makes the guy look like a
complete idiot -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0409/m51_hst.jpg

There were no finite stellar islands in 1920 to observe but not only is
the Universe compromised of stars organised into finite stellar
islands,there are billions of these rotating centers constituting the
universe itself.

Pity you all are stuck with a claustraphobic homocentric notions as a
testament to human silliness when before you is the breathtaking scale
of the Universe.

"rules" were different during the Plank epoch....as far as we know....

Doink

"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...
To Canopus56

In 1920,they were no better or worse than Newton in how they viewed
the 'fixed stars' as powerful telescopes had yet to discover stellar
galactic island the rotation of stars around the galactic axis.

So,look at how they viewed the universe in 1920 -

"If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as a
whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us
is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite.
There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density."

Now watch this guy tell an enormous fib and uses Newton to do it -

"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite
island in the infinite ocean of space."

This is what Newton actually thought -

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."


So going back to the quoted text you see this guy in 1920 rejecting the
idea of stellar islands and the center about which these stars
rotate.It is actually quite funny with a little bit of effort and the
knowledge that it was written before galaxies were discovered.

So everyone gets to look at the relativistic conception -

"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite
island in the infinite ocean of space."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

And then they get to see this picture which makes the guy look like a
complete idiot -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0409/m51_hst.jpg

There were no finite stellar islands in 1920 to observe but not only is
the Universe compromised of stars organised into finite stellar
islands,there are billions of these rotating centers constituting the
universe itself.

Pity you all are stuck with a claustraphobic homocentric notions as a
testament to human silliness when before you is the breathtaking scale
of the Universe.