They say that space is not just expanding, but expanding quicker and quicker and the galaxies furtherest away, are the ones speeding up the quickest and this all started about 7.5 billion years ago? When the galaxy is around 14 billion years old. They don't know what causes this, but have a name called dark energy to try and explain it, but without physical solid proof. My theory does and the key to my theory is repelling magnets and the effects of multiple magnets repelling.
When the universe popped into existence, there was mayhem in the beginning, that resulted in loads of hydrogen, that eventually gave birth to the very first stars and they where huge, so big, that they would dwarf the biggest stars we have now. When these huge stars existed, the universe was still expanding, but not as quick as today, why? Because those early stars had not gone super nova and when a star goes super nova, it creates the heavier elements. Once those huge stars explode, they leave all sorts of gasses and elements from the explosion. These elements and gasses form new stars, but with one extra ingredient. A powerful magnetic field. (I'm thinking that at the centre of every galaxy, this is the place where this huge star used to be, just leaving a black hole behind)
It's my theory that with the birth of all these new stars, that produce magnetic forces. All the stars in a galaxy, overall, combine and form some sort of powerful magnetic web, that combines it's strength through the galaxies main black hole in the centre. This magnetic field that's created, stretches far beyond the galaxy itself and interacts with other galaxies and it's that effect what's causing the galaxies furtherest away, to be pushed away quicker. As we all know, when you use several magnets when repelling, the gap between them gets bigger the further away you are from the first magnet.
There is a test you can do to see why I think this and that is. If you get yourself 5 magnets and arrange them to repel each other within a tube so they don't flip. You'll see that the gap between each magnet is bigger, the further you are from the first magnet. So it would look like this:
[]---[]------[]---------[]--------------[]
It's that effect, that I think is causing the universe to expanding quicker and quicker, because of the new formed stars that have been created and that are still being created. So more and more magnetic forces are acting upon each other. It's like slowly turning up the voltage, it's getting more powerful. I also think the magnetic interaction with all the stars in a galaxy, is what causes the outer stars of a galaxy to move just as quick as the stars closer into a galaxy.
This will stop one day, when all the gases that form new stars, have been used up. With no new stars forming and no magnetic forces being created, this will switch off the repelling effect and all the black holes in the universe will start to swallow up everything, even other black holes, until there is only one left and who knows what will happen then. Maybe the energy that caused the big bang in the first place, will be crushed back into existence, then it all starts again.
QUOTE (phnx+May 25 2012, 09:46 PM)
They say that space is not just expanding, but expanding quicker and quicker and the galaxies furtherest away, are the ones speeding up the quickest and this all started about 7.5 billion years ago? When the galaxy is around 14 billion years old. They don't know what causes this, but have a name called dark energy to try and explain it, but without physical solid proof. My theory does and the key to my theory is repelling magnets and the effects of multiple magnets repelling.
When the universe popped into existence, there was mayhem in the beginning, that resulted in loads of hydrogen, that eventually gave birth to the very first stars and they where huge, so big, that they would dwarf the biggest stars we have now. When these huge stars existed, the universe was still expanding, but not as quick as today, why? Because those early stars had not gone super nova and when a star goes super nova, it creates the heavier elements. Once those huge stars explode, they leave all sorts of gasses and elements from the explosion. These elements and gasses form new stars, but with one extra ingredient. A powerful magnetic field. (I'm thinking that at the centre of every galaxy, this is the place where this huge star used to be, just leaving a black hole behind)
It's my theory that with the birth of all these new stars, that produce magnetic forces. All the stars in a galaxy, overall, combine and form some sort of powerful magnetic web, that combines it's strength through the galaxies main black hole in the centre. This magnetic field that's created, stretches far beyond the galaxy itself and interacts with other galaxies and it's that effect what's causing the galaxies furtherest away, to be pushed away quicker. As we all know, when you use several magnets when repelling, the gap between them gets bigger the further away you are from the first magnet.
There is a test you can do to see why I think this and that is. If you get yourself 5 magnets and arrange them to repel each other within a tube so they don't flip. You'll see that the gap between each magnet is bigger, the further you are from the first magnet. So it would look like this:
[]---[]------[]---------[]--------------[]
It's that effect, that I think is causing the universe to expanding quicker and quicker, because of the new formed stars that have been created and that are still being created. So more and more magnetic forces are acting upon each other. It's like slowly turning up the voltage, it's getting more powerful. I also think the magnetic interaction with all the stars in a galaxy, is what causes the outer stars of a galaxy to move just as quick as the stars closer into a galaxy.
This will stop one day, when all the gases that form new stars, have been used up. With no new stars forming and no magnetic forces being created, this will switch off the repelling effect and all the black holes in the universe will start to swallow up everything, even other black holes, until there is only one left and who knows what will happen then. Maybe the energy that caused the big bang in the first place, will be crushed back into existence, then it all starts again.
We do know what causes this. You're he one that doesn't.
When the universe popped into existence, there was mayhem in the beginning, that resulted in loads of hydrogen, that eventually gave birth to the very first stars and they where huge, so big, that they would dwarf the biggest stars we have now. When these huge stars existed, the universe was still expanding, but not as quick as today, why? Because those early stars had not gone super nova and when a star goes super nova, it creates the heavier elements. Once those huge stars explode, they leave all sorts of gasses and elements from the explosion. These elements and gasses form new stars, but with one extra ingredient. A powerful magnetic field. (I'm thinking that at the centre of every galaxy, this is the place where this huge star used to be, just leaving a black hole behind)
It's my theory that with the birth of all these new stars, that produce magnetic forces. All the stars in a galaxy, overall, combine and form some sort of powerful magnetic web, that combines it's strength through the galaxies main black hole in the centre. This magnetic field that's created, stretches far beyond the galaxy itself and interacts with other galaxies and it's that effect what's causing the galaxies furtherest away, to be pushed away quicker. As we all know, when you use several magnets when repelling, the gap between them gets bigger the further away you are from the first magnet.
There is a test you can do to see why I think this and that is. If you get yourself 5 magnets and arrange them to repel each other within a tube so they don't flip. You'll see that the gap between each magnet is bigger, the further you are from the first magnet. So it would look like this:
[]---[]------[]---------[]--------------[]
It's that effect, that I think is causing the universe to expanding quicker and quicker, because of the new formed stars that have been created and that are still being created. So more and more magnetic forces are acting upon each other. It's like slowly turning up the voltage, it's getting more powerful. I also think the magnetic interaction with all the stars in a galaxy, is what causes the outer stars of a galaxy to move just as quick as the stars closer into a galaxy.
This will stop one day, when all the gases that form new stars, have been used up. With no new stars forming and no magnetic forces being created, this will switch off the repelling effect and all the black holes in the universe will start to swallow up everything, even other black holes, until there is only one left and who knows what will happen then. Maybe the energy that caused the big bang in the first place, will be crushed back into existence, then it all starts again.
We do know what causes this. You're he one that doesn't.
Guest 2, he's obviously just talking thinking a viable theory has been offered and confirmed, but can't cite his source.
PHNX, I think your idea is a stroke of genius! I don't have 5 magnets handy, so I will have to assume you did the experiment to confirm the results. You must find a way to have magnetic forces line up to produce such an effect for the entire universe,or have chain reactions of such an effect that would spread throughout the universe.
Magnetic forces have long been under-researched, unlike the electro- part of the electromagnetic (em) lightwave. A Theory of Everything (TOE) will have to include the magnetic force as an essential component of how the universe works.
Have you thought about how well magnet spacing may work to propel vehicles? You will need to know the extent of the magnetic fields produced by different sizes and types of magnets, and also the extent of research already performed on the use of magnets to turn electric motors and fans.
I think if you are really interested, you will find much work has been done in that area. Even if your idea cannot work to expand space, it might work on smaller scales.
PHNX, I think your idea is a stroke of genius! I don't have 5 magnets handy, so I will have to assume you did the experiment to confirm the results. You must find a way to have magnetic forces line up to produce such an effect for the entire universe,or have chain reactions of such an effect that would spread throughout the universe.
Magnetic forces have long been under-researched, unlike the electro- part of the electromagnetic (em) lightwave. A Theory of Everything (TOE) will have to include the magnetic force as an essential component of how the universe works.
Have you thought about how well magnet spacing may work to propel vehicles? You will need to know the extent of the magnetic fields produced by different sizes and types of magnets, and also the extent of research already performed on the use of magnets to turn electric motors and fans.
I think if you are really interested, you will find much work has been done in that area. Even if your idea cannot work to expand space, it might work on smaller scales.
Other scientists believe that it's the magnetic forces in the universe that's causing the expansion of space, it's called dark magnetism. It's the same sort of theory as mine and they have found magnetic forces in the middle of nowhere between galaxies. These show up as clumps of what they call dark energy.
Not every galaxy is moving away from us. The Andromeda galaxy is actually heading towards us. If it's southern part of the galaxy is exposed to our northern part of our galaxy, or the other way around, then that would suggest that magnetic forces are responsible for the acceleration of far away galaxies. In theory.
I suppose you could make a tunnel like system where single independent carriages carry a huge electro magnet to propel the passenger train at the front. It would most certainty take advantage of the effect of the gap you get when using multiple magnets to repel. It kind of defies the law of everything has a equal and opposite reaction.
Not every galaxy is moving away from us. The Andromeda galaxy is actually heading towards us. If it's southern part of the galaxy is exposed to our northern part of our galaxy, or the other way around, then that would suggest that magnetic forces are responsible for the acceleration of far away galaxies. In theory.
I suppose you could make a tunnel like system where single independent carriages carry a huge electro magnet to propel the passenger train at the front. It would most certainty take advantage of the effect of the gap you get when using multiple magnets to repel. It kind of defies the law of everything has a equal and opposite reaction.
QUOTE
Other scientists believe that it's the magnetic forces in the universe that's causing the expansion of space, it's called dark magnetism.
Nonsense. What scientists? Cite your sources. If you don't know something, don't just make it up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Other scientists believe that it's the magnetic forces in the universe that's causing the expansion of space, it's called dark magnetism. |
Nonsense. What scientists? Cite your sources. If you don't know something, don't just make it up.
It's the same sort of theory as mine and they have found magnetic forces in the middle of nowhere between galaxies. These show up as clumps of what they call dark energy.
Not every galaxy is moving away from us. The Andromeda galaxy is actually heading towards us. If it's southern part of the galaxy is exposed to our northern part of our galaxy, or the other way around, then that would suggest that magnetic forces are responsible for the acceleration of far away galaxies. In theory.
This is simply woo-woo.
Then cite it.
AlexG, you are obviously a sad silly person who has nothing better to do other than display your arrogance and lack of up to date information.
http://www.uv.es/olalgon/publico/CV.html
Common sense is the foundation that holds the fountain of knowledge. You lack foundation AlexG. It's because of people like you we need signs saying, big hole! Danger of falling.
http://www.uv.es/olalgon/publico/CV.html
Common sense is the foundation that holds the fountain of knowledge. You lack foundation AlexG. It's because of people like you we need signs saying, big hole! Danger of falling.
Nice. Alex is a dumbass for asking for confirmation of a thoroughly stupid suggestion without scientific merit, and you suggest a Google search.
Will it turn up your own crackpot site, as well as a thousand others like it, whose "authors" can barely read, much less reason?
What should the search terms be, you ignorant ficke? That entire stream of garbage?
Loser.
Will it turn up your own crackpot site, as well as a thousand others like it, whose "authors" can barely read, much less reason?
QUOTE
They have confirmed so called orphan fields in no man's land volumes of deep space where so far there are no known or viable hypothesized astrophysical or magnetohydrodynamics processes that can generate and maintain them there so far from galaxies.
What should the search terms be, you ignorant ficke? That entire stream of garbage?
Loser.
I know this crank has been here before. The style is familiar.
So you both don't think that the magnetic forces in the universe have no effect on nothing? I've never used this site before , so don't assume I'm someone else.
Just a few links to keep you happy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...00921144135.htm
http://ehbritten.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/dark-magnetism.html
If you need to learn more about magnets, then I suggest you get learning, instead of criticising everyone who posts on the forum.
What's theories have you posted on this site, or don't you get ideas of your own?
Just a few links to keep you happy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...00921144135.htm
http://ehbritten.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/dark-magnetism.html
If you need to learn more about magnets, then I suggest you get learning, instead of criticising everyone who posts on the forum.
What's theories have you posted on this site, or don't you get ideas of your own?
The Universal Constant of gravity, G, is changing as the Universe expands. As the Universe is expanding, so is this planet. That’s why the Earth’s surface is riddled with stretch marks and the continental plates are moving as much as they are. Why "gravity' is changing as space-time "proceeds", I have no idea, but since mass-energy causes space-time to "bend", which Einstein identified as the effect we call "gravity", we can assume that mass-energy is changing quite rapidly over space-time as well. We see all these changes as "expansion", but maybe that is just how this sui generis Universe is creating itself. ... Intriguing stuff!
QUOTE
As the Universe is expanding, so is this planet. That’s why the Earth’s surface is riddled with stretch marks...
Another one...
Pray tell, do you think the sun has an iron core, or a neutron star remnant at its centre?
I think that "Dark energy" is a misguided name for the 3D magnetic force that is pushing the universe apart. Imagine that the centre of each galaxy is an induced magnetic hub around which the stars in that galaxy rotate. The hub may look like a super huge black hole but it is an electromagnetic force field only, and it could be weightless. As you observe like magnetic poles repel.
CliveS
CliveS
So Bob Elliston, you're a believer in the big rip theory? There is certain evidence to suggest this, like the pace between electrons and their nucleus. But there is no proof that in the past or future the gap between them has changed at all.
As for the earth expanding, that's just the magma rising to create a solid surface and this is what causes mountains. separate plates are being forces into each other by the expanding sea floor and other areas where magma rises from the ground. The earth is like a lava lamp, with a shell. Convection is the cause of it.
QUOTE (acsindg+Jul 19 2012, 05:13 PM)
I think that "Dark energy" is a misguided name for the 3D magnetic force that is pushing the universe apart. Imagine that the centre of each galaxy is an induced magnetic hub around which the stars in that galaxy rotate. The hub may look like a super huge black hole but it is an electromagnetic force field only, and it could be weightless. As you observe like magnetic poles repel.
CliveS
That's what I'm saying, but with more words.
CliveS
That's what I'm saying, but with more words.
What you doing spamming my thread? It has nothing to do with the expansion of space so please delete those last two posts, thanks.
[Moderator: No problem.]
[Moderator: No problem.]
QUOTE (phnx+May 25 2012, 09:46 PM)
They say that space is not just expanding, but expanding quicker and quicker and the galaxies furtherest away, are the ones speeding up the quickest and this all started about 7.5 billion years ago? When the galaxy is around 14 billion years old. They don't know what causes this, but have a name called dark energy to try and explain it, but without physical solid proof. My theory does and the key to my theory is repelling magnets and the effects of multiple magnets repelling.
When the universe popped into existence, there was mayhem in the beginning, that resulted in loads of hydrogen, that eventually gave birth to the very first stars and they where huge, so big, that they would dwarf the biggest stars we have now. When these huge stars existed, the universe was still expanding, but not as quick as today, why? Because those early stars had not gone super nova and when a star goes super nova, it creates the heavier elements. Once those huge stars explode, they leave all sorts of gasses and elements from the explosion. These elements and gasses form new stars, but with one extra ingredient. A powerful magnetic field. (I'm thinking that at the centre of every galaxy, this is the place where this huge star used to be, just leaving a black hole behind)
It's my theory that with the birth of all these new stars, that produce magnetic forces. All the stars in a galaxy, overall, combine and form some sort of powerful magnetic web, that combines it's strength through the galaxies main black hole in the centre. This magnetic field that's created, stretches far beyond the galaxy itself and interacts with other galaxies and it's that effect what's causing the galaxies furtherest away, to be pushed away quicker. As we all know, when you use several magnets when repelling, the gap between them gets bigger the further away you are from the first magnet.
There is a test you can do to see why I think this and that is. If you get yourself 5 magnets and arrange them to repel each other within a tube so they don't flip. You'll see that the gap between each magnet is bigger, the further you are from the first magnet. So it would look like this:
[]---[]------[]---------[]--------------[]
It's that effect, that I think is causing the universe to expanding quicker and quicker, because of the new formed stars that have been created and that are still being created. So more and more magnetic forces are acting upon each other. It's like slowly turning up the voltage, it's getting more powerful. I also think the magnetic interaction with all the stars in a galaxy, is what causes the outer stars of a galaxy to move just as quick as the stars closer into a galaxy.
This will stop one day, when all the gases that form new stars, have been used up. With no new stars forming and no magnetic forces being created, this will switch off the repelling effect and all the black holes in the universe will start to swallow up everything, even other black holes, until there is only one left and who knows what will happen then. Maybe the energy that caused the big bang in the first place, will be crushed back into existence, then it all starts again.
Thought I should share my point of "view"...
You are (according to my thoughts) on the right track.... but what if.... space was formed from an anomali inside a one dimensional frame called time (this is based on the fact that energy space and mass interacts with time in a way that time seams to be a physical part of everything)
This anomali creates our space/time from pure time (say timefrequency becomes so unstable that it converts some of its energy into space/time and energy, at first this tiny universe is small, filled with pure energy...
But mass/gravity has an effect to slow down time and then when time goes under a critical timefrequency it also will be converted to space/time... This is a chainreaction based on the total amount of gravity/mass our universe has gathered... and as our universe expands the more mass our universe will contain... (might be positive or negative energy)... thus our universe is both expanding and... accelerating its journey outwards... in fact when our universe movement reach a critical speedfrequency... it will be converted back to time...
I have in fact a bunch of thoughts about this, including the strange behaviours of quntum particles, where/what the Higgs boson is... and how our universe is built... all created from this time "theory/mindplay"
And the reason I post this here is because I have not ever seen someone consider time have some sort of physical properties even if time is more out of our dimensional strucure... I thought that it might be considered...
[edit]
btw: I am not a researcher... I am an simpel steel worker... with no science skills whatsoever, I am just "thinking"
When the universe popped into existence, there was mayhem in the beginning, that resulted in loads of hydrogen, that eventually gave birth to the very first stars and they where huge, so big, that they would dwarf the biggest stars we have now. When these huge stars existed, the universe was still expanding, but not as quick as today, why? Because those early stars had not gone super nova and when a star goes super nova, it creates the heavier elements. Once those huge stars explode, they leave all sorts of gasses and elements from the explosion. These elements and gasses form new stars, but with one extra ingredient. A powerful magnetic field. (I'm thinking that at the centre of every galaxy, this is the place where this huge star used to be, just leaving a black hole behind)
It's my theory that with the birth of all these new stars, that produce magnetic forces. All the stars in a galaxy, overall, combine and form some sort of powerful magnetic web, that combines it's strength through the galaxies main black hole in the centre. This magnetic field that's created, stretches far beyond the galaxy itself and interacts with other galaxies and it's that effect what's causing the galaxies furtherest away, to be pushed away quicker. As we all know, when you use several magnets when repelling, the gap between them gets bigger the further away you are from the first magnet.
There is a test you can do to see why I think this and that is. If you get yourself 5 magnets and arrange them to repel each other within a tube so they don't flip. You'll see that the gap between each magnet is bigger, the further you are from the first magnet. So it would look like this:
[]---[]------[]---------[]--------------[]
It's that effect, that I think is causing the universe to expanding quicker and quicker, because of the new formed stars that have been created and that are still being created. So more and more magnetic forces are acting upon each other. It's like slowly turning up the voltage, it's getting more powerful. I also think the magnetic interaction with all the stars in a galaxy, is what causes the outer stars of a galaxy to move just as quick as the stars closer into a galaxy.
This will stop one day, when all the gases that form new stars, have been used up. With no new stars forming and no magnetic forces being created, this will switch off the repelling effect and all the black holes in the universe will start to swallow up everything, even other black holes, until there is only one left and who knows what will happen then. Maybe the energy that caused the big bang in the first place, will be crushed back into existence, then it all starts again.
Thought I should share my point of "view"...
You are (according to my thoughts) on the right track.... but what if.... space was formed from an anomali inside a one dimensional frame called time (this is based on the fact that energy space and mass interacts with time in a way that time seams to be a physical part of everything)
This anomali creates our space/time from pure time (say timefrequency becomes so unstable that it converts some of its energy into space/time and energy, at first this tiny universe is small, filled with pure energy...
But mass/gravity has an effect to slow down time and then when time goes under a critical timefrequency it also will be converted to space/time... This is a chainreaction based on the total amount of gravity/mass our universe has gathered... and as our universe expands the more mass our universe will contain... (might be positive or negative energy)... thus our universe is both expanding and... accelerating its journey outwards... in fact when our universe movement reach a critical speedfrequency... it will be converted back to time...
I have in fact a bunch of thoughts about this, including the strange behaviours of quntum particles, where/what the Higgs boson is... and how our universe is built... all created from this time "theory/mindplay"
And the reason I post this here is because I have not ever seen someone consider time have some sort of physical properties even if time is more out of our dimensional strucure... I thought that it might be considered...
[edit]
btw: I am not a researcher... I am an simpel steel worker... with no science skills whatsoever, I am just "thinking"
QUOTE (phnx+Jun 18 2012, 11:59 PM)
AlexG, you are obviously a sad silly person who has nothing better to do other than display your arrogance and lack of up to date information.
http://www.uv.es/olalgon/publico/CV.html
Common sense is the foundation that holds the fountain of knowledge. You lack foundation AlexG. It's because of people like you we need signs saying, big hole! Danger of falling.
You should take your own advice and apply it to learning physics. What does that link have to do with answering AlexG query? Citing magazine articles is stupid. The journalists trying to explain physics to the masses are 'door knobs'.
http://www.uv.es/olalgon/publico/CV.html
Common sense is the foundation that holds the fountain of knowledge. You lack foundation AlexG. It's because of people like you we need signs saying, big hole! Danger of falling.
You should take your own advice and apply it to learning physics. What does that link have to do with answering AlexG query? Citing magazine articles is stupid. The journalists trying to explain physics to the masses are 'door knobs'.
The only thing I can think of where time relates to my theory, is when the universe, suddenly accelerated. When it was around 7.5 billion years old, the first stars created, had gone super nova and created the heavier elements, to then go on to form stars with a magnetic field. That explains the sudden acceleration, in my theory. [Moderator: Suspended 10 days for misuse of the word theory in a scientific context. Also completely at odds with observation that stars are hot and that interstellar magnetism can play no role in intragalactic dynamics when a dipole field drops off rapidly with distance. In short, this idea is all sorts of awful.]
Your theory of time creating mass as it stretches is imaginative to say the least. But I don't think mass is being created by stretched time. What mass and gas we have now in the universe is all there will be. There would be evidence of something being created near a black hole if your theory is correct, as that would be the only place that could explain it. Not not much makes it out of a black hole.
Your theory of time creating mass as it stretches is imaginative to say the least. But I don't think mass is being created by stretched time. What mass and gas we have now in the universe is all there will be. There would be evidence of something being created near a black hole if your theory is correct, as that would be the only place that could explain it. Not not much makes it out of a black hole.
QUOTE (phnx+Jul 29 2012, 10:51 PM)
The only thing I can think of where time relates to my theory, is when the universe, suddenly accelerated. When it was around 7.5 billion years old, the first stars created, had gone super nova and created the heavier elements, to then go on to form stars with a magnetic field. That explains the sudden acceleration, in my theory. [Moderator: Suspended 10 days for misuse of the word theory in a scientific context. Also completely at odds with observation that stars are hot and that interstellar magnetism can play no role in intragalactic dynamics when a dipole field drops off rapidly with distance. In short, this idea is all sorts of awful.]
Your theory of time creating mass as it stretches is imaginative to say the least. But I don't think mass is being created by stretched time. What mass and gas we have now in the universe is all there will be. There would be evidence of something being created near a black hole if your theory is correct, as that would be the only place that could explain it. Not not much makes it out of a black hole.
well... What I was suggesting even though I am not a scientist...
Was that in order to create such a magnetic field or whatever it now is... There must have been mass to begin with... Further as far as I understand, the mass could not have been in the same spot... otherwise we could not call it instellar magnetism... (suggesting something must have created our universe first and... then let the universe expand)
The reason I suggested time is that time is a variable as far as I am concerned (until someone show me that it is not) because it seems that it is possible to manipulate time...
Second I learned in school math (not any high education though) that if you do something on one side you must do something within the calculation on the other side...
So I figured that if space grow and we live in space/time and none of these seems to be constants, then time has to give.... ofcourse I have no math that proves or even suggest this... just my common sense which by the way not might be so true (how should I know?)
And for the black hole thing... well in my mindplay of our space, everything outside it is a black hole (as in it has no space)... And if we could be surronded by no space , then why could we not have spots of nospace inside of our space? Things are traveling into a black hole with growing acceleration just as our universe is expanding outwards with growing acceleration.... (then we come to the question what is nospace - but it does not need to be answered here)
More, I did not mean that time "stretched" to create our space... what I meant was more of, some of the timefrequency (if I may call it so) was altered somehow, perhaps a collision between two timefrequencies that anihilated each other, and as it was, something else also had to happen, for example our space birth and expansion...
Anyway there is a bunch of theories about how the universe was created and thus how and why the universe expands, everything from a big mother universe buble that gives birth to other universes... To outerdimensional membanes that collide and creates a universe... So with that in mind no "thaeory" is wrong until "proven" otherwise... not even your theory, but... it must work from the start/birth of the universe, how it allows movement and an as far we know: a movement with an increasing speed...
//Thank you for yor time... and I hope you might find your answer...
Your theory of time creating mass as it stretches is imaginative to say the least. But I don't think mass is being created by stretched time. What mass and gas we have now in the universe is all there will be. There would be evidence of something being created near a black hole if your theory is correct, as that would be the only place that could explain it. Not not much makes it out of a black hole.
well... What I was suggesting even though I am not a scientist...
Was that in order to create such a magnetic field or whatever it now is... There must have been mass to begin with... Further as far as I understand, the mass could not have been in the same spot... otherwise we could not call it instellar magnetism... (suggesting something must have created our universe first and... then let the universe expand)
The reason I suggested time is that time is a variable as far as I am concerned (until someone show me that it is not) because it seems that it is possible to manipulate time...
Second I learned in school math (not any high education though) that if you do something on one side you must do something within the calculation on the other side...
So I figured that if space grow and we live in space/time and none of these seems to be constants, then time has to give.... ofcourse I have no math that proves or even suggest this... just my common sense which by the way not might be so true (how should I know?)
And for the black hole thing... well in my mindplay of our space, everything outside it is a black hole (as in it has no space)... And if we could be surronded by no space , then why could we not have spots of nospace inside of our space? Things are traveling into a black hole with growing acceleration just as our universe is expanding outwards with growing acceleration.... (then we come to the question what is nospace - but it does not need to be answered here)
More, I did not mean that time "stretched" to create our space... what I meant was more of, some of the timefrequency (if I may call it so) was altered somehow, perhaps a collision between two timefrequencies that anihilated each other, and as it was, something else also had to happen, for example our space birth and expansion...
Anyway there is a bunch of theories about how the universe was created and thus how and why the universe expands, everything from a big mother universe buble that gives birth to other universes... To outerdimensional membanes that collide and creates a universe... So with that in mind no "thaeory" is wrong until "proven" otherwise... not even your theory, but... it must work from the start/birth of the universe, how it allows movement and an as far we know: a movement with an increasing speed...
//Thank you for yor time... and I hope you might find your answer...
QUOTE (phnx+Jul 29 2012, 10:51 PM)
The only thing I can think of where time relates to my theory, is when the universe, suddenly accelerated. When it was around 7.5 billion years old, the first stars created, had gone super nova and created the heavier elements, to then go on to form stars with a magnetic field. That explains the sudden acceleration, in my theory. [Moderator: Suspended 10 days for misuse of the word theory in a scientific context. Also completely at odds with observation that stars are hot and that interstellar magnetism can play no role in intragalactic dynamics when a dipole field drops off rapidly with distance. In short, this idea is all sorts of awful.]
Your theory of time creating mass as it stretches is imaginative to say the least. But I don't think mass is being created by stretched time. What mass and gas we have now in the universe is all there will be. There would be evidence of something being created near a black hole if your theory is correct, as that would be the only place that could explain it. Not not much makes it out of a black hole.
The proof behind my theory is physical. Have you played with magnets before? Do you know what happens when multiple magnets are repelling? Search the internet for dark magnetism and tell me the the magnetic field drops off and has no interaction with other magnetic fields created by other stars. You know that dark matter map they have? That's magnetism and it's effect.
Your theory of time creating mass as it stretches is imaginative to say the least. But I don't think mass is being created by stretched time. What mass and gas we have now in the universe is all there will be. There would be evidence of something being created near a black hole if your theory is correct, as that would be the only place that could explain it. Not not much makes it out of a black hole.
The proof behind my theory is physical. Have you played with magnets before? Do you know what happens when multiple magnets are repelling? Search the internet for dark magnetism and tell me the the magnetic field drops off and has no interaction with other magnetic fields created by other stars. You know that dark matter map they have? That's magnetism and it's effect.
QUOTE (phnx+Aug 9 2012, 10:46 AM)
The proof behind my theory is physical. Have you played with magnets before? Do you know what happens when multiple magnets are repelling? Search the internet for dark magnetism and tell me the the magnetic field drops off and has no interaction with other magnetic fields created by other stars. You know that dark matter map they have? That's magnetism and it's effect.
Yes but I just thought of something...
Is it so that dark matter is like our matter with the difference that it is just working backwards? (spinning the other way around). Then as far as I understand it, it would attract each other? Like two magnets with opposite charges (or how you say in your language - like minus and plus?)
If so then it would not cause any expansion at all? Just a total annihilation, until only one form of matter get's the upperhand?
Yes but I just thought of something...
Is it so that dark matter is like our matter with the difference that it is just working backwards? (spinning the other way around). Then as far as I understand it, it would attract each other? Like two magnets with opposite charges (or how you say in your language - like minus and plus?)
If so then it would not cause any expansion at all? Just a total annihilation, until only one form of matter get's the upperhand?
QUOTE
dark magnetism and tell me the the magnetic field drops off and has no interaction with other magnetic fields created by other stars. You know that dark matter map they have? That's magnetism and it's effect.
An electron it is a charge in motion and will therefore create a magnetic field. But once it is placed in electron orbitals even though all the electrons are still charges in motion, the magnetic fields cancel so we get little magnetic output.
One way to simulate this is with a wave tank. If we have one generator, we can see the waves. Say now we have two generators, one at each end of the tank, but 180 degree out of phase. Since the troughs and crests will cancel, in the middle there will be no wave, even though we are adding energy. The energy is hidden in the wave addition. If it was not hidden, we would be destroying energy.
We can get this hidden energy to show itself, by simply placing a partition in the stillness in the middle of the tank. This will disrupt the wave cancellation allowing the hidden energy wave to rise out of the water. It was always there, but hidden due to wave addition.
Here is a scenario. We have out two wave generators pumping out energy as waves. We measure the wattage to maintain an energy balance. These cancel to form a calm in the middle. That wattage is hidden in the stillness for now. We place a little toy boat that quietly floats. We wish to pull some of the hidden energy our of the stillness to move our boat (universe). We simply add a partition to the void to release the hidden energy.
QUOTE (phnx+Jul 29 2012, 10:51 PM)
The only thing I can think of where time relates to my theory, is when the universe, suddenly accelerated. When it was around 7.5 billion years old, the first stars created, had gone super nova and created the heavier elements, to then go on to form stars with a magnetic field. That explains the sudden acceleration, in my theory. [Moderator: Suspended 10 days for misuse of the word theory in a scientific context. Also completely at odds with observation that stars are hot and that interstellar magnetism can play no role in intragalactic dynamics when a dipole field drops off rapidly with distance. In short, this idea is all sorts of awful.]
Your theory of time creating mass as it stretches is imaginative to say the least. But I don't think mass is being created by stretched time. What mass and gas we have now in the universe is all there will be. There would be evidence of something being created near a black hole if your theory is correct, as that would be the only place that could explain it. Not not much makes it out of a black hole.
I'm not leaping to the poster's defense, but really?
If the guy isn't consistently mean or untrained in science, yet babbles away, trolling other's posts and spouting total BS, he's more than welcome? What ever happened to gentle but firm correction of the poster's misconceptions?
Your fits of capricious suspension and banning are just going further to support my view that this forum is simply a waste of time to anyone but trolls.
Very sad. And so easily repaired, if the admin gave you some proper tools. Fυcking clown.
Here's a little something for the viewers until rpenner slaps his thigh with his riding crop. Something I thought of posting some time ago and thought better of, since you seemed to be making some progress towards an even hand in your "moderation":
Your theory of time creating mass as it stretches is imaginative to say the least. But I don't think mass is being created by stretched time. What mass and gas we have now in the universe is all there will be. There would be evidence of something being created near a black hole if your theory is correct, as that would be the only place that could explain it. Not not much makes it out of a black hole.
I'm not leaping to the poster's defense, but really?
If the guy isn't consistently mean or untrained in science, yet babbles away, trolling other's posts and spouting total BS, he's more than welcome? What ever happened to gentle but firm correction of the poster's misconceptions?
Your fits of capricious suspension and banning are just going further to support my view that this forum is simply a waste of time to anyone but trolls.
Very sad. And so easily repaired, if the admin gave you some proper tools. Fυcking clown.
Here's a little something for the viewers until rpenner slaps his thigh with his riding crop. Something I thought of posting some time ago and thought better of, since you seemed to be making some progress towards an even hand in your "moderation":
QUOTE
Rpenner, are you jealous, or just petulant?
You banned me for "being consistently mean", which is utter bullshit. If you have access to log files, you'll be able to see that I have posted more helpful answers to kids and students as a guest, or as Sapo, than I have since this place went to hell. Your capricious moderation would be 'moderated' by the presense of a few more moderators who might not get their knickers in a knot so easily.
I am consistently mean to fools and trolls. I am steadfast in the desire to help guide the people who really want an asnwer, or to ask an honest question. Most of the 'users' online here at any one time are robots trying to harvest data, for God's sakes, and a good chunk of the rest are mentioned above.
How many posts does the bot 'mofeoasse' have? He's always online. Posting, posting, and never a post shows up.. Funny.
You allow Robbitty-whoever and who knows how many more free reign to spew complete and utter garbage unrefuted, while banning people who tick you off? Look at your outdated signature.
You allow the many times banned Amrit and many others to use sockpuppet accounts. Do you have no effective tools to moderate?
You selectively edited the five or so threads that the 'artist' in question spammed on permanent magnets, to delete the one in which I responded to the troll, without note or apology. Why delete the one thread that had responses?
You are a small man.
To the very few of the members who aren't brain-damaged: Why the hell are you here?
Yeah... Lulz.
You banned me for "being consistently mean", which is utter bullshit. If you have access to log files, you'll be able to see that I have posted more helpful answers to kids and students as a guest, or as Sapo, than I have since this place went to hell. Your capricious moderation would be 'moderated' by the presense of a few more moderators who might not get their knickers in a knot so easily.
I am consistently mean to fools and trolls. I am steadfast in the desire to help guide the people who really want an asnwer, or to ask an honest question. Most of the 'users' online here at any one time are robots trying to harvest data, for God's sakes, and a good chunk of the rest are mentioned above.
How many posts does the bot 'mofeoasse' have? He's always online. Posting, posting, and never a post shows up.. Funny.
You allow Robbitty-whoever and who knows how many more free reign to spew complete and utter garbage unrefuted, while banning people who tick you off? Look at your outdated signature.
You allow the many times banned Amrit and many others to use sockpuppet accounts. Do you have no effective tools to moderate?
You selectively edited the five or so threads that the 'artist' in question spammed on permanent magnets, to delete the one in which I responded to the troll, without note or apology. Why delete the one thread that had responses?
You are a small man.
To the very few of the members who aren't brain-damaged: Why the hell are you here?
Yeah... Lulz.
QUOTE (phnx+Aug 9 2012, 10:46 AM)
The proof behind my theory is physical. Have you played with magnets before?
Woah, has obviously employed an astonishingly high 92+ Tera Gauss Near-Earth Asteroid Attractor Beanie to enhance his already 27 year braindeceased condition?
ps;- go shite somewhere else.
Woah, has obviously employed an astonishingly high 92+ Tera Gauss Near-Earth Asteroid Attractor Beanie to enhance his already 27 year braindeceased condition?
ps;- go shite somewhere else.
This is the perfect place to shite, you trolls eat my shite and without my shite, you'd go hungry. You should change you name to Amanda, because you don't speak like no lady.
If universal space-time is expanding, that means that time is speeding up, relative to the beginning of the universe. In the beginning, time was moving slower because of contracted space-time, compared to today. If this is true, what we should observe are distant phenomena outputting less energy compared the same phenomena today.
As an analogous example, we have two camp fires burning wood. One is in a slow or contracted reference and other in a fast or expanded reference. We sit watching both side-by-side measuring their heat output. The fast reference is cranking fire while the slow or contracted reference is only trickling fire due to its slower time. If we have a star the size of our sun, a billion light years away, its output by being from a slower reference time of the universe (less expanded) should be a trickle compared to the modern close star (distant star aged slower).
If we look at a same a star a billion light years away (one camp fire) when space-time was contracted, and other star, that is close (other camp fire) does the distant star show only a fraction of the output, due to the slower references. Is this observed or do they output the same as today?
As an analogous example, we have two camp fires burning wood. One is in a slow or contracted reference and other in a fast or expanded reference. We sit watching both side-by-side measuring their heat output. The fast reference is cranking fire while the slow or contracted reference is only trickling fire due to its slower time. If we have a star the size of our sun, a billion light years away, its output by being from a slower reference time of the universe (less expanded) should be a trickle compared to the modern close star (distant star aged slower).
If we look at a same a star a billion light years away (one camp fire) when space-time was contracted, and other star, that is close (other camp fire) does the distant star show only a fraction of the output, due to the slower references. Is this observed or do they output the same as today?
QUOTE (MDT+Aug 12 2012, 04:25 PM)
If universal space-time is expanding, that means that time is speeding up, relative to the beginning of the universe. In the beginning, time was moving slower because of contracted space-time, compared to today. If this is true, what we should observe are distant phenomena outputting less energy compared the same phenomena today.
As an analogous example, we have two camp fires burning wood. One is in a slow or contracted reference and other in a fast or expanded reference. We sit watching both side-by-side measuring their heat output. The fast reference is cranking fire while the slow or contracted reference is only trickling fire due to its slower time. If we have a star the size of our sun, a billion light years away, its output by being from a slower reference time of the universe (less expanded) should be a trickle compared to the modern close star (distant star aged slower).
If we look at a same a star a billion light years away (one camp fire) when space-time was contracted, and other star, that is close (other camp fire) does the distant star show only a fraction of the output, due to the slower references. Is this observed or do they output the same as today?
I should imagine that (camp fire) that seem to be moving away from us, will be slightly younger than ours. It will only look younger to us, as time is relative. But how young to us will depend on the speed. According to the maths, if two galaxies are 4,200 megaparsecs away from each other and have a redshift greater than 1.4, then it's currently moving away from us, faster than the speed of light.
As an analogous example, we have two camp fires burning wood. One is in a slow or contracted reference and other in a fast or expanded reference. We sit watching both side-by-side measuring their heat output. The fast reference is cranking fire while the slow or contracted reference is only trickling fire due to its slower time. If we have a star the size of our sun, a billion light years away, its output by being from a slower reference time of the universe (less expanded) should be a trickle compared to the modern close star (distant star aged slower).
If we look at a same a star a billion light years away (one camp fire) when space-time was contracted, and other star, that is close (other camp fire) does the distant star show only a fraction of the output, due to the slower references. Is this observed or do they output the same as today?
I should imagine that (camp fire) that seem to be moving away from us, will be slightly younger than ours. It will only look younger to us, as time is relative. But how young to us will depend on the speed. According to the maths, if two galaxies are 4,200 megaparsecs away from each other and have a redshift greater than 1.4, then it's currently moving away from us, faster than the speed of light.
You might be wondering how we could possibly see a galaxy that is moving away from us faster than the speed of light! The answer is that the motion of the galaxy now has no effect whatsoever on the light that it emitted billions of years ago. The light doesn't care what the galaxy is doing; it just cares about the stretching of space between its current location and us. So we can easily imagine a situation where the galaxy was not moving faster than the speed of light at the moment the light was emitted; therefore, the light was able to "outrun" the expansion of space and move towards us, while the galaxy moved away from us as the universe expanded.
QUOTE (phnx+Aug 13 2012, 10:08 AM)
You might be wondering how we could possibly see a galaxy that is moving away from us faster than the speed of light! The answer is that the motion of the galaxy now has no effect whatsoever on the light that it emitted billions of years ago. The light doesn't care what the galaxy is doing; it just cares about the stretching of space between its current location and us. So we can easily imagine a situation where the galaxy was not moving faster than the speed of light at the moment the light was emitted; therefore, the light was able to "outrun" the expansion of space and move towards us, while the galaxy moved away from us as the universe expanded.
The logic of that is partially wrong.
Why is the light so strongly red-shifted unless the galaxy was moving away from us? Or is it that we are now moving away as well?
It is not the light currently coming from the galaxy that is visible. Space maybe expanding faster than the speed of light and hence it will never get here. (Swimming against a head-current so technically going backwards at the same time as swimming forwards.)
The logic of that is partially wrong.
Why is the light so strongly red-shifted unless the galaxy was moving away from us? Or is it that we are now moving away as well?
It is not the light currently coming from the galaxy that is visible. Space maybe expanding faster than the speed of light and hence it will never get here. (Swimming against a head-current so technically going backwards at the same time as swimming forwards.)
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Aug 13 2012, 06:46 PM)
The logic of that is partially wrong.
Why is the light so strongly red-shifted unless the galaxy was moving away from us? Or is it that we are now moving away as well?
It is not the light currently coming from the galaxy that is visible. Space maybe expanding faster than the speed of light and hence it will never get here. (Swimming against a head-current so technically going backwards at the same time as swimming forwards.)
mind play:
You are running away at the speed of light...
As an example I take Elisabeth (the poster) who is standing on an absolutely positioned rock in space and looking towards you...
Then you turn on a flashlight... would that flashlight's light follow you? meaning you should see the light forever, or would the light travels towards Elisabeth? One could think of it as the light flashed towards Elisabeth also should stop in space and not travel at all, just stand still, it would however travel from you at the speed of light.
Either way... I thought it was established that something traveling fast enough or was near a huge amount of gravity get less time (time slows down). Time is a movement both in space and the timedirection, it is a combined force - so to speak both must be... (I am trying to use your language, which is sometimes quite hard as a non native, so hopefully you understand me),
Now if you have maximum speed, perhaps it is at light speed, perhaps it may be faster... Then time would slow down to infinite zero, and this cause an impossible situation as movement requires time.
This suggest that with an high enough acceleration up to maximum speed, the object that is accelerating will become something else, my guess static - or if you wish, a black hole. Or as in my mindplay space without time, where an object can't possible know where it should be, as it has no time to decide when it should be there... it would be everywhere. Or a big black surronding within a bubble of somewhat slow going time in space.
(Late Edit: Gravity also slows down time, suggesting that the "black" surronding, "space / notime" would have infinite gravity and perhaps may cause an acceleration and expansion to a certain degree - depending on how fast the mass in our space/time is going until reaching maximum speed.)
I guess I sound like a person smoking a lot of stuff and taking drugs... (I do not - I do not even drink), But still I think that this ideas makes some sence.
But then again, everyone with an idea think it makes sence, otherwhise it would not have been presented.
Why is the light so strongly red-shifted unless the galaxy was moving away from us? Or is it that we are now moving away as well?
It is not the light currently coming from the galaxy that is visible. Space maybe expanding faster than the speed of light and hence it will never get here. (Swimming against a head-current so technically going backwards at the same time as swimming forwards.)
mind play:
You are running away at the speed of light...
As an example I take Elisabeth (the poster) who is standing on an absolutely positioned rock in space and looking towards you...
Then you turn on a flashlight... would that flashlight's light follow you? meaning you should see the light forever, or would the light travels towards Elisabeth? One could think of it as the light flashed towards Elisabeth also should stop in space and not travel at all, just stand still, it would however travel from you at the speed of light.
Either way... I thought it was established that something traveling fast enough or was near a huge amount of gravity get less time (time slows down). Time is a movement both in space and the timedirection, it is a combined force - so to speak both must be... (I am trying to use your language, which is sometimes quite hard as a non native, so hopefully you understand me),
Now if you have maximum speed, perhaps it is at light speed, perhaps it may be faster... Then time would slow down to infinite zero, and this cause an impossible situation as movement requires time.
This suggest that with an high enough acceleration up to maximum speed, the object that is accelerating will become something else, my guess static - or if you wish, a black hole. Or as in my mindplay space without time, where an object can't possible know where it should be, as it has no time to decide when it should be there... it would be everywhere. Or a big black surronding within a bubble of somewhat slow going time in space.
(Late Edit: Gravity also slows down time, suggesting that the "black" surronding, "space / notime" would have infinite gravity and perhaps may cause an acceleration and expansion to a certain degree - depending on how fast the mass in our space/time is going until reaching maximum speed.)
I guess I sound like a person smoking a lot of stuff and taking drugs... (I do not - I do not even drink), But still I think that this ideas makes some sence.
But then again, everyone with an idea think it makes sence, otherwhise it would not have been presented.
QUOTE
But still I think that this ideas makes some sence.
No it doesn't. You don't seem to know anything about relativity and the propagation of light.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Aug 13 2012, 06:46 PM)
The logic of that is partially wrong.
Why is the light so strongly red-shifted unless the galaxy was moving away from us? Or is it that we are now moving away as well?
It is not the light currently coming from the galaxy that is visible. Space maybe expanding faster than the speed of light and hence it will never get here. (Swimming against a head-current so technically going backwards at the same time as swimming forwards.)
The galaxies are moving away from each other in this scenario.
Galaxies with a 1.69 redshift are on the verge of their light not reaching us, not 1.4, that was wrong. The two galaxies must be at a distance of 4,740 megaparsecs (130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers) and redshift of 1.69. That scenario is now reaching the critical point, while galaxies at a redshift of 1.4 are still emitting light that will eventually reach us.
This is assuming the universe is infinitely big, because that distance of 4,740 magaparsecs is huge.
Why is the light so strongly red-shifted unless the galaxy was moving away from us? Or is it that we are now moving away as well?
It is not the light currently coming from the galaxy that is visible. Space maybe expanding faster than the speed of light and hence it will never get here. (Swimming against a head-current so technically going backwards at the same time as swimming forwards.)
The galaxies are moving away from each other in this scenario.
Galaxies with a 1.69 redshift are on the verge of their light not reaching us, not 1.4, that was wrong. The two galaxies must be at a distance of 4,740 megaparsecs (130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers) and redshift of 1.69. That scenario is now reaching the critical point, while galaxies at a redshift of 1.4 are still emitting light that will eventually reach us.
This is assuming the universe is infinitely big, because that distance of 4,740 magaparsecs is huge.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 13 2012, 11:08 PM)
No it doesn't. You don't seem to know anything about relativity and the propagation of light.
No! actually no I do not...
However the STR in my view says that the speed of light is relative to the observer, that means the flashlight I sent out would travel away from me at the speed of light... But actually stand still in space (until someone decide to observe it)...
That means the flash light beam is traveling towards Elisabeth (the observer) at the speed of light as well as away from me at the speed of light... that would mean 2C ???
This is with current theories, not possible (on a kindergarden level)... but possible has no saying. Unless time and now is different for me and Elisabeth and I do not see the same that what Elisabeth is seeing...
Never mind... it seems that I have to do some reading first... Then readjust my mindplay, unfortunatly this is a bit dangerous, as the science is fixed towards it's truths and everything outside it is "garbage" if it not fits I hope I will keep my unwritten brain intact.
//Thank you - perhaps I join in much later (or not).
One concern I have, has to do with the twin experiment associated with special relativity. One twin will age slower if he is in motion close to the speed of light. This means that galaxies moving near the speed of light should age slower. Aging slower, among many things, means the expected galactic energy output will be a fraction of what it would be compare to local observations of our own galaxy (assume same size). It will output the same energy but take longer since its time has slowed (less per unit of our time). The red shift is only be half of the special relativity effect.
Here is the scenario, we have a galaxy 1 billion light years away. So what we see is light from 1 billion years ago. The universe was smaller and the velocity was different from today. So this twin should be different in time and space. The red shift gives us a distance affect (wavelength change). The rate of energy output is one time related affect that should run parallel if this is SR dependent.
If only distance is changing but not time, what we have is a different phenomena in play that is not connected to space-time but only space.
Here is the scenario, we have a galaxy 1 billion light years away. So what we see is light from 1 billion years ago. The universe was smaller and the velocity was different from today. So this twin should be different in time and space. The red shift gives us a distance affect (wavelength change). The rate of energy output is one time related affect that should run parallel if this is SR dependent.
If only distance is changing but not time, what we have is a different phenomena in play that is not connected to space-time but only space.
QUOTE
However the STR in my view says that the speed of light is relative to the observer
No, what it says is that the speed of light is the same for any observer in any inertial frame, regardless of relative movement.
@Guest,
If Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" then how fast is Alice moving away from Bob? -C2.
If Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" then how fast is Alice moving away from Bob? -C2.
QUOTE (Guest+Aug 14 2012, 02:09 PM)
. ...One twin will age slower if he is in motion close to the speed of light. This means that galaxies moving near the speed of light should age slower. ...
One twin, that stays "at rest",
"observes" the other
Observe means the "accelerating" twin returns
to rest speed to be observed as have "aged slower".
Observe means the "accelerating" twin returns
to rest speed to be observed as have "aged slower".
This means that galaxies moving near the speed of light
In regards to Universe expansion in B.Bang
Our galaxy based on the observation is moving on 600KM/S ,what do you think will happen if galaxy stops?in physics prospective?!
One twin, that stays "at rest",
"observes" the other
QUOTE
twin will age slower
if he is in motion close to the speed of light.
if he is in motion close to the speed of light.
Observe means the "accelerating" twin returns
to rest speed to be observed as have "aged slower".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| twin will age slower if he is in motion close to the speed of light. |
Observe means the "accelerating" twin returns
to rest speed to be observed as have "aged slower".
This means that galaxies moving near the speed of light
appear so to the distant observer. One would not be allowed (by physical constraints) to get the galaxy observed, to suddenly accelerate off at the speed of light, toward the observer's position, thereby allowing the observer to, first-hand, check the galaxy for age discrepancies?
The distant galaxy "appears" to be moving away from the observer "at the speed of light", because:
-- the observer and the distant galaxy are separated by a great distance?
-- the observer and the distant galaxy both share a rapidly expanding universe?
-- both?
-- you need to study the subject more?
-- all of the above?
The distant galaxy "appears" to be moving away from the observer "at the speed of light", because:
-- the observer and the distant galaxy are separated by a great distance?
-- the observer and the distant galaxy both share a rapidly expanding universe?
-- both?
-- you need to study the subject more?
-- all of the above?
QUOTE (Confused1+Aug 15 2012, 03:14 PM)
@Guest,
If Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" then how fast is Alice moving away from Bob? -C2.
If they were twins they would only notice an age difference if one suffered a change of direction (acceleration) and met up again, otherwise they would never know who aged the most.
What would happen if they sent messages to each other? Surely that would give the clue away?
If the situation was entirely symmetrical there would be no difference in ages. While travelling they would appear to each other to be aging faster but when they reunite they find they are the same age.
If Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" then how fast is Alice moving away from Bob? -C2.
If they were twins they would only notice an age difference if one suffered a change of direction (acceleration) and met up again, otherwise they would never know who aged the most.
What would happen if they sent messages to each other? Surely that would give the clue away?
If the situation was entirely symmetrical there would be no difference in ages. While travelling they would appear to each other to be aging faster but when they reunite they find they are the same age.
And again..
If Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" then how fast is Alice moving away from Bob?
The answer is simple(?): until you can answer this question correctly you haven't got to first base.
-C2.
If Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" then how fast is Alice moving away from Bob?
The answer is simple(?): until you can answer this question correctly you haven't got to first base.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused1+Aug 15 2012, 11:46 PM)
And again..
If Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" then how fast is Alice moving away from Bob?
The answer is simple(?): until you can answer this question correctly you haven't got to first base.
-C2.
If the answer was simple I would be able to say it, but it ain't that simple.
OK if Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" then how fast is Alice moving away from Bob?
You would like us to say "closed to the speed of light", but I'll show how that is wrong.
Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" and Alice doesn't like the ever increasing separation so accelerates to the exact same speed so the distance between them from then on should remain the same.
Bob is annoyed and wants space between them so accelerates away from Alice at nearly the speed of light. Now when you add the first speed and the second speed it adds to close to twice the speed of light.
Is it possible to attain such a speed?
If Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" then how fast is Alice moving away from Bob?
The answer is simple(?): until you can answer this question correctly you haven't got to first base.
-C2.
If the answer was simple I would be able to say it, but it ain't that simple.
OK if Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" then how fast is Alice moving away from Bob?
You would like us to say "closed to the speed of light", but I'll show how that is wrong.
Bob is moving away from Alice at "close to the speed of light" and Alice doesn't like the ever increasing separation so accelerates to the exact same speed so the distance between them from then on should remain the same.
Bob is annoyed and wants space between them so accelerates away from Alice at nearly the speed of light. Now when you add the first speed and the second speed it adds to close to twice the speed of light.
Is it possible to attain such a speed?
Bobitty once again showing he can't keep up with the simplest question without introducing frames of reference he doesn't even realize he is adding.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Aug 16 2012, 12:34 AM)
Bobitty once again showing he can't keep up with the simplest question without introducing frames of reference he doesn't even realize he is adding.
How do you add frames of reference then? That might be the answer to my problem.
How do you add frames of reference then? That might be the answer to my problem.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Aug 15 2012, 06:53 PM)
How do you add frames of reference then? That might be the answer to my problem.
You're adding a frame of reference when you try to discuss anything other than the relative speed between the two initial frames.
You're adding a frame of reference when you try to discuss anything other than the relative speed between the two initial frames.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Aug 16 2012, 01:01 AM)
You're adding a frame of reference when you try to discuss anything other than the relative speed between the two initial frames.
so adding did not mean the mathematical process of addition but rather used as a word like "complicating" or "confounding"?
so adding did not mean the mathematical process of addition but rather used as a word like "complicating" or "confounding"?
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Aug 15 2012, 07:16 PM)
so adding did not mean the mathematical process of addition but rather used as a word like "complicating" or "confounding"?
No, I mean you start with two and add a third. But you do seem completely confounded.
No, I mean you start with two and add a third. But you do seem completely confounded.
Strange things do happen but Alice moving away from Bob faster (or slower) than Bob moves away from Alice isn't one of them. -C2.
If we started with a star of mass M, it would generate a given space-time well as defined by GR. If we exploded that star, since the local mass density will lower, the space-time well around the star will expand. Since space-time is expanding, energy output from the expanding star will red shift. In this case, the expansion of space-time is an effect with the moving mass/energy the cause that is leading space-time.
The current model of expanding space-time has space-time leading mass/energy, or the expansion of space-time causes the effect which are massive galaxies to move apart. How do you tell the difference between these two scenarios from millions of light years away since all the parts look the same? The only difference is the assumed cause and effect, with one reference needing to add something invisible that has not been proven in the lab. Does that addition of an unproven variable violate the rules of the scientific method?
Adding something unproven could lead to practical utility but might create a conceptual illusion. As an example, say I needed the assumption of unicorns to make my math work, so it can make accurate predictions. I need the unicorns to add hidden energy here and there in the process. Once the unicorns do that, now my math works. Does this prove unicorns now exist, even without lab work, since if unicorns were not real, how could the math work so well?
There seems to be a trend.
The current model of expanding space-time has space-time leading mass/energy, or the expansion of space-time causes the effect which are massive galaxies to move apart. How do you tell the difference between these two scenarios from millions of light years away since all the parts look the same? The only difference is the assumed cause and effect, with one reference needing to add something invisible that has not been proven in the lab. Does that addition of an unproven variable violate the rules of the scientific method?
Adding something unproven could lead to practical utility but might create a conceptual illusion. As an example, say I needed the assumption of unicorns to make my math work, so it can make accurate predictions. I need the unicorns to add hidden energy here and there in the process. Once the unicorns do that, now my math works. Does this prove unicorns now exist, even without lab work, since if unicorns were not real, how could the math work so well?
There seems to be a trend.
QUOTE (MDT+Aug 16 2012, 02:26 PM)
If we started with a star of mass M, it would generate a given space-time well as defined by GR. If we exploded that star, since the local mass density will lower, the space-time well around the star will expand. Since space-time is expanding, energy output from the expanding star will red shift. In this case, the expansion of space-time is an effect with the moving mass/energy the cause that is leading space-time.
The current model of expanding space-time has space-time leading mass/energy, or the expansion of space-time causes the effect which are massive galaxies to move apart. How do you tell the difference between these two scenarios from millions of light years away since all the parts look the same? The only difference is the assumed cause and effect, with one reference needing to add something invisible that has not been proven in the lab. Does that addition of an unproven variable violate the rules of the scientific method?
Adding something unproven could lead to practical utility but might create a conceptual illusion. As an example, say I needed the assumption of unicorns to make my math work, so it can make accurate predictions. I need the unicorns to add hidden energy here and there in the process. Once the unicorns do that, now my math works. Does this prove unicorns now exist, even without lab work, since if unicorns were not real, how could the math work so well?
There seems to be a trend.
Well said...
Some math do not work, therefore a 11'th or something dimension is invented (a unicorn) then the math work, and many accept this to be a physics truth...
thats the reason for my view of our universe, really it is - and if you could read my language, and my blog about it, it clearly states that this is a boot in the physics behind... because of the many truths that exists...
I do not think it is due to magnetic fields, but I can't say it is not...
In fact... for what I am concerned we might as well be a result from a bigger universe splitting bigger atoms in a bigger CERN... A tiny fraction of space and time between the collison and the measurment...
What I am saying is... don't a$$hole each other that much, no one nows anything, yet...
The current model of expanding space-time has space-time leading mass/energy, or the expansion of space-time causes the effect which are massive galaxies to move apart. How do you tell the difference between these two scenarios from millions of light years away since all the parts look the same? The only difference is the assumed cause and effect, with one reference needing to add something invisible that has not been proven in the lab. Does that addition of an unproven variable violate the rules of the scientific method?
Adding something unproven could lead to practical utility but might create a conceptual illusion. As an example, say I needed the assumption of unicorns to make my math work, so it can make accurate predictions. I need the unicorns to add hidden energy here and there in the process. Once the unicorns do that, now my math works. Does this prove unicorns now exist, even without lab work, since if unicorns were not real, how could the math work so well?
There seems to be a trend.
Well said...
Some math do not work, therefore a 11'th or something dimension is invented (a unicorn) then the math work, and many accept this to be a physics truth...
thats the reason for my view of our universe, really it is - and if you could read my language, and my blog about it, it clearly states that this is a boot in the physics behind... because of the many truths that exists...
I do not think it is due to magnetic fields, but I can't say it is not...
In fact... for what I am concerned we might as well be a result from a bigger universe splitting bigger atoms in a bigger CERN... A tiny fraction of space and time between the collison and the measurment...
What I am saying is... don't a$$hole each other that much, no one nows anything, yet...
It's only a theory, we can only speculate. Who knows what effect all the high powered Magnetar stars have and all the other stars that there are in the universe. I just know that if arranged correctly, magnets repel at a slightly increased distance the more magnets you use. The whole universe seems to have a magnetic force no matter where you are and if these magnetic fields are linked and interact with it's neighbours and vice versa, then it safe to assume the basics of the magnetic principles.
Did you guys read about that mother galaxy they found.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/734225/thumbs/o-SUPERMOM-570.jpg?3
The distant galaxy makes new stars at a rate of about 740 a year - compared to the one new star made in the Milky Way every twelve months.
That's something that will change a few theories.
Did you guys read about that mother galaxy they found.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/734225/thumbs/o-SUPERMOM-570.jpg?3
The distant galaxy makes new stars at a rate of about 740 a year - compared to the one new star made in the Milky Way every twelve months.
That's something that will change a few theories.
QUOTE (phnx+Aug 18 2012, 07:18 PM)
It's only a theory, we can only speculate. Who knows what effect all the high powered Magnetar stars have and all the other stars that there are in the universe. I just know that if arranged correctly, magnets repel at a slightly increased distance the more magnets you use. The whole universe seems to have a magnetic force no matter where you are and if these magnetic fields are linked and interact with it's neighbours and vice versa, then it safe to assume the basics of the magnetic principles.
Did you guys read about that mother galaxy they found.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/734225/thumbs/o-SUPERMOM-570.jpg?3
The distant galaxy makes new stars at a rate of about 740 a year - compared to the one new star made in the Milky Way every twelve months.
That's something that will change a few theories.
Yeah I saw that a couple days back . Good post . Strange 5.7 billion light years .
SuperMom-570.jpg?3
It is a wonder. seriously
Did you guys read about that mother galaxy they found.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/734225/thumbs/o-SUPERMOM-570.jpg?3
The distant galaxy makes new stars at a rate of about 740 a year - compared to the one new star made in the Milky Way every twelve months.
That's something that will change a few theories.
Yeah I saw that a couple days back . Good post . Strange 5.7 billion light years .
SuperMom-570.jpg?3
It is a wonder. seriously
'Magnetic highway' found at solar system's edge
With all the excitement surrounding Curiosity's first full chemical analysis of Martian soil this week, it's easy to forget about another, much more distant robotic explorer. Voyager 1 could soon leave our solar system and cross over into interstellar space, the first time any human-made object has left the cosy confines of our planetary neighbourhood.
Yesterday, NASA announced that on its way out, Voyager 1 – which has been travelling through our solar system since 1977 – has encountered a new region of the solar system. It has been dubbed a "magnetic highway".
The solar wind blows charged particles from the sun's upper atmosphere around the solar system, creating an enormous "bubble" known as the heliosphere. Charged particles travel along magnetic field lines, and the magnetic highway is thought to be the result of the sun's magnetic field connecting up with field lines in the clouds of gas and dust of interstellar space.
The highway allows particles with low energy from the heliosphere to jet into interstellar space at high speed and high energy particles from the outside to rush in, an interaction that has been observed around other stars by the Hubble Space Telescope.
Cosmic-ray clue
The magnetic highway was identified when Voyager encountered intense cosmic radiation. The obvious interpretation would be that this happened because Voyager had finally reached interstellar space, yet its instruments did not detect any change in the direction of the magnetic field, which we would expect to see when leaving the heliosphere. This led researchers to conclude that Voyager was in a hitherto unknown region representing a bridge between the solar system and interstellar space.
Cosmic rays routinely enter the heliosphere, but we are shielded from their potentially damaging effects by the Earth's magnetic field. "The magnetic highway gives us an insight into how the cosmic rays get in," says Timothy Horbury of Imperial College London.
"Everything we've seen [from Voyager] is not what we expected to see," Horbury says. "People have been working on this for a long time. Just about every expectation we've had has been confounded so far."
Voyager reached the termination shock – the region of the outer solar system where the solar wind starts to slow – in 2003, but it may be several months to a couple of years before the craft fully escapes the solar system. NASA scientists now say the magnetic highway may be the "very last layer between us and interstellar space".[I]
Copied from http://www.newscientist.com/
With all the excitement surrounding Curiosity's first full chemical analysis of Martian soil this week, it's easy to forget about another, much more distant robotic explorer. Voyager 1 could soon leave our solar system and cross over into interstellar space, the first time any human-made object has left the cosy confines of our planetary neighbourhood.
Yesterday, NASA announced that on its way out, Voyager 1 – which has been travelling through our solar system since 1977 – has encountered a new region of the solar system. It has been dubbed a "magnetic highway".
The solar wind blows charged particles from the sun's upper atmosphere around the solar system, creating an enormous "bubble" known as the heliosphere. Charged particles travel along magnetic field lines, and the magnetic highway is thought to be the result of the sun's magnetic field connecting up with field lines in the clouds of gas and dust of interstellar space.
The highway allows particles with low energy from the heliosphere to jet into interstellar space at high speed and high energy particles from the outside to rush in, an interaction that has been observed around other stars by the Hubble Space Telescope.
Cosmic-ray clue
The magnetic highway was identified when Voyager encountered intense cosmic radiation. The obvious interpretation would be that this happened because Voyager had finally reached interstellar space, yet its instruments did not detect any change in the direction of the magnetic field, which we would expect to see when leaving the heliosphere. This led researchers to conclude that Voyager was in a hitherto unknown region representing a bridge between the solar system and interstellar space.
Cosmic rays routinely enter the heliosphere, but we are shielded from their potentially damaging effects by the Earth's magnetic field. "The magnetic highway gives us an insight into how the cosmic rays get in," says Timothy Horbury of Imperial College London.
"Everything we've seen [from Voyager] is not what we expected to see," Horbury says. "People have been working on this for a long time. Just about every expectation we've had has been confounded so far."
Voyager reached the termination shock – the region of the outer solar system where the solar wind starts to slow – in 2003, but it may be several months to a couple of years before the craft fully escapes the solar system. NASA scientists now say the magnetic highway may be the "very last layer between us and interstellar space".[I]
Copied from http://www.newscientist.com/
The reason why I posted that article was to bolster my theory of when I wrote. "All the stars in a galaxy, overall, combine and form some sort of powerful magnetic web." This doesn't prove its a magnetic force that's causing the expansion of space, but it certainly adds weight to my theory and confirms I was right about all the stars in a galaxy are indeed connected via their magnetic forces.
In regards to Universe expansion in B.Bang
Our galaxy based on the observation is moving on 600KM/S ,what do you think will happen if galaxy stops?in physics prospective?!
QUOTE (phnx+Dec 6 2012, 11:24 AM)
The reason why I posted that article was to bolster my theory of when I wrote. "All the stars in a galaxy, overall, combine and form some sort of powerful magnetic web." This doesn't prove its a magnetic force that's causing the expansion of space, but it certainly adds weight to my theory and confirms I was right about all the stars in a galaxy are indeed connected via their magnetic forces.
what you think about the universe being a heat bubble in the vastness of absolute zero ,
and you can't see past the bubble into absolute zero space . Confined by the totality of the heat bubble . Now consider hot moves to cold and carries moister with it .
God revelation is sexuality.
what you think about the universe being a heat bubble in the vastness of absolute zero ,
and you can't see past the bubble into absolute zero space . Confined by the totality of the heat bubble . Now consider hot moves to cold and carries moister with it .
God revelation is sexuality.
QUOTE (Mekigal+Dec 12 2012, 04:32 PM)
what you think about the universe being a heat bubble in the vastness of absolute zero ,
and you can't see past the bubble into absolute zero space . Confined by the totality of the heat bubble . Now consider hot moves to cold and carries moister with it .
God revelation is sexuality.
1. We are in the vastness of absolute zero and a star is obviously the heat bubble
2. Space is so vast, that we start seeing back in time if we look far enough and we just might be able to see the aftermath heat caused by the BB and maybe the first stars to ignite. Those first stars to ignite, are probably the center of every galaxy out there, only leaving a black hole behind as potential proof. I reckon the ejection of heavy elements created from that first star going super nova, seeded the remaining hydrogen to form more dense smaller stars, around the black hole.
3. I don't find it hard to imagine heat moving when it's in contact with the cold. That convection.
4. Not sure what god has to do with this conversation, but I do believe we are all part of the same energy that's made all the matter in the universe. If god is real, then I guess our mission is to observe creation, bare witness to what's what. But that's a whole new topic.
and you can't see past the bubble into absolute zero space . Confined by the totality of the heat bubble . Now consider hot moves to cold and carries moister with it .
God revelation is sexuality.
1. We are in the vastness of absolute zero and a star is obviously the heat bubble
2. Space is so vast, that we start seeing back in time if we look far enough and we just might be able to see the aftermath heat caused by the BB and maybe the first stars to ignite. Those first stars to ignite, are probably the center of every galaxy out there, only leaving a black hole behind as potential proof. I reckon the ejection of heavy elements created from that first star going super nova, seeded the remaining hydrogen to form more dense smaller stars, around the black hole.
3. I don't find it hard to imagine heat moving when it's in contact with the cold. That convection.
4. Not sure what god has to do with this conversation, but I do believe we are all part of the same energy that's made all the matter in the universe. If god is real, then I guess our mission is to observe creation, bare witness to what's what. But that's a whole new topic.
I like to think in terms of the speed of light, C, being the ground state or the zero state of the universe. I like it because this reference is absolute and not relative. This eliminates fudge factors. Based on this ground state, all you need is a single assumption; all references and phenomena in the universe, different from the C zero state, create a potential with C.
The model is simple; all that we see in the universe can be explained as the inertial relative diversity of the universe returning back to C. There are many paths leading to C, some of which compete with each other.
Gravity, GR, causes space-time to contract, which is in the direction of C the reference, with the black hole making it almost all the way. Smaller objects like stars can't reach C as a whole, but will partially reach C via fusion and mass burn; matter returns to C as energy.
Relative to SR, time slows as velocity approach C because the potential with C gets less and less.
In terms of the universal red shift, since the photons are lowering energy value as they expand wavelength, this means their potential is lowering. Or the red shift is another way back to C.
I realize most people are used to putting the earth reference as the center of observation, like in the middle ages. I used to do that, but it required too many bandaids since this was relative. Once I started to think in terms of the absolute reference, it got easy.
To create a universe we start at the C ground state. If we can slow energy below C, we can condense energy into mass and create inertial reference. Mass cannot move at C, so there is a wall to C, so mass cannot return the way it came. It has to find other ways back to C. The evolution of the universe is inertial finding a way home, driven by the universal potential with C.
For example, the early inflation did the red shift thing, which helped somewhat, but not enough. If combine SR, GR and red shift, to get us closer to C, we have rapid galaxy formation and expansion; 3 for 1.
The model is simple; all that we see in the universe can be explained as the inertial relative diversity of the universe returning back to C. There are many paths leading to C, some of which compete with each other.
Gravity, GR, causes space-time to contract, which is in the direction of C the reference, with the black hole making it almost all the way. Smaller objects like stars can't reach C as a whole, but will partially reach C via fusion and mass burn; matter returns to C as energy.
Relative to SR, time slows as velocity approach C because the potential with C gets less and less.
In terms of the universal red shift, since the photons are lowering energy value as they expand wavelength, this means their potential is lowering. Or the red shift is another way back to C.
I realize most people are used to putting the earth reference as the center of observation, like in the middle ages. I used to do that, but it required too many bandaids since this was relative. Once I started to think in terms of the absolute reference, it got easy.
To create a universe we start at the C ground state. If we can slow energy below C, we can condense energy into mass and create inertial reference. Mass cannot move at C, so there is a wall to C, so mass cannot return the way it came. It has to find other ways back to C. The evolution of the universe is inertial finding a way home, driven by the universal potential with C.
For example, the early inflation did the red shift thing, which helped somewhat, but not enough. If combine SR, GR and red shift, to get us closer to C, we have rapid galaxy formation and expansion; 3 for 1.
Totally meaningless garbage.
That's what I thought, but I don't speak that crazy talk. So it could of made sense to someone, maybe... Not me. What's he trying to say?
Bubble nucleation.
http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/footer/glossary.p...le%20nucleation
http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/footer/glossary.p...le%20nucleation
Multiverse' theory suggested by microwave background
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14372387
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14372387
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.