We know that the universe is expanding at a rate of about 1000000 mi/hour. That means that, if it hasn't already, light will catch up, and collide with the edge of the universe. what happens to this light? does the fabric of the univer keep the light from penetrating? if it does, does the light simply bounce off, or does it keep pushing against the boundry which would slow down the photons significantly? or does it simply pass through as if there were nothing there, possibly into the next universe? if this happened, then we could be taking in light from other universes without even realizing it.
any responses or theories? im sure im not the first person to wonder what happens when something touches the edge of the universe.
Well there's no real edge for the light to catch up to. If you use the inflating balloon model of the universe to illustrate the point, all the galaxies would be dots that you draw on the balloon. As you inflate it, the dots move further away from each other as the rubber stretches.
Everything (all matter and energy--including light) is "inside" the rubber wall of the balloon. Not inside the balloon itself, but think of it as inside the rubber that makes up the wall. It's all expanding with everything else all the time.
Everything (all matter and energy--including light) is "inside" the rubber wall of the balloon. Not inside the balloon itself, but think of it as inside the rubber that makes up the wall. It's all expanding with everything else all the time.
THE EXPANDING HYPERSPHERE IS FORMED BY THE UNIVERSAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. 
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
If the light did keep going, and if we took the light from other universes, we would eventually see the light from the other universes, being as big as they are, and what would our universe be expanding into? another universe?
QUOTE (dupster-student+May 8 2007, 12:01 AM)
If the light did keep going, and if we took the light from other universes, we would eventually see the light from the other universes, being as big as they are, and what would our universe be expanding into? another universe?
OUR UNIVERSE WAS AND IS EXPANDING INTO *NOTHING.
IN MY OPINION THERE IS ONLY ONE WITHOUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF ANY OTHER SUCH AS IN A MULTIVERSE.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
OUR UNIVERSE WAS AND IS EXPANDING INTO *NOTHING.
IN MY OPINION THERE IS ONLY ONE WITHOUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF ANY OTHER SUCH AS IN A MULTIVERSE.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
elfmotat. Actually it is only assumed the universe is expanding based on a clearly wrong big bang theory and a possibly wrong interpretation of the red shift. Check up on untrivial redshifts like :
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/DOPPLER/Doppler.html
If the universe is expanding, it is expanding into literally nothing (not to be confused with the vacuum of space) so if a wave of light went beyond the rim of the universe, it would vanish like a sea wave suddenly without the sea. The same as if you pushed part of a stick beyond the rim it would vanish as whatever held it's structure together was no longer there.
If we ran into another universe, then there would be crumpling as the two spaces met. Space is not just a vacuum but can be bent like an actual material by gravity.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/DOPPLER/Doppler.html
If the universe is expanding, it is expanding into literally nothing (not to be confused with the vacuum of space) so if a wave of light went beyond the rim of the universe, it would vanish like a sea wave suddenly without the sea. The same as if you pushed part of a stick beyond the rim it would vanish as whatever held it's structure together was no longer there.
If we ran into another universe, then there would be crumpling as the two spaces met. Space is not just a vacuum but can be bent like an actual material by gravity.
QUOTE (Nick+May 8 2007, 12:50 AM)
THE EXPANDING HYPERSPHERE IS FORMED BY THE UNIVERSAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
NO IT ISN'T. THERE'S A LITTLE MAN INSIDE THE HYPERSPEHERE PUMPING LIKE MAD WITH HIS BICYCLE PUMP.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
NO IT ISN'T. THERE'S A LITTLE MAN INSIDE THE HYPERSPEHERE PUMPING LIKE MAD WITH HIS BICYCLE PUMP.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 8 2007, 02:05 PM)
NO IT ISN'T. THERE'S A LITTLE MAN INSIDE THE HYPERSPEHERE PUMPING LIKE MAD WITH HIS BICYCLE PUMP.
AND HE'S PUMPING DARK ENERGY!
AND HE'S PUMPING DARK ENERGY!
nick, if light is a wave........
and the first spark in a dark universe would be like the first pebble thrown into a big flat calm lake right?
so wouldnt the edge be............uh.....flat.......maybe there is no edge....
just because there are ripples going out doesnt mean the ripples/waves created the lake
in fact, if there were no lake, what would wave....if light is a wave....
and the first spark in a dark universe would be like the first pebble thrown into a big flat calm lake right?
so wouldnt the edge be............uh.....flat.......maybe there is no edge....
just because there are ripples going out doesnt mean the ripples/waves created the lake
in fact, if there were no lake, what would wave....if light is a wave....
QUOTE (Nick+May 8 2007, 04:09 PM)
AND HE'S PUMPING DARK ENERGY!
MUST HAVE BEEN ALL THOSE DARK CABBAGES HE HAD TO EAT LAST NIGHT.
(VIZ definition of Pump : To expel bodily gases through the rear).
MUST HAVE BEEN ALL THOSE DARK CABBAGES HE HAD TO EAT LAST NIGHT.
(VIZ definition of Pump : To expel bodily gases through the rear).
HE USES HIS REAR AS A BYCYCLE PUMP AFTER HE CONSUMES HIS CABBAGES?
I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE THAT EXPANDS AS UNIVERSAL EXPANSION. IT HAS NO BOUNDARIES AND IS CLOSED AND FINITE BUT WILL GO ONE FOREVER.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE THAT EXPANDS AS UNIVERSAL EXPANSION. IT HAS NO BOUNDARIES AND IS CLOSED AND FINITE BUT WILL GO ONE FOREVER.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
QUOTE (Nick+May 8 2007, 12:08 AM)
OUR UNIVERSE WAS AND IS EXPANDING INTO *NOTHING.
Nick, when you say that the universe is expanding into nothing, you insinuate that this nothingness is some kind of 'place/volume' beyond the edge. If this was not your intention, then I suggest you word it better.
Secondly, I've recently come to be more open to space being infinite in size. There is simply no evidence for either, and so I think it's probably best to be open to both possibilities. Much like you should be, Nick.
Nick, when you say that the universe is expanding into nothing, you insinuate that this nothingness is some kind of 'place/volume' beyond the edge. If this was not your intention, then I suggest you word it better.
Secondly, I've recently come to be more open to space being infinite in size. There is simply no evidence for either, and so I think it's probably best to be open to both possibilities. Much like you should be, Nick.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 9 2007, 08:58 PM)
Nick, when you say that the universe is expanding into nothing, you insinuate that this nothingness is some kind of 'place/volume' beyond the edge. If this was not your intention, then I suggest you word it better.
Secondly, I've recently come to be more open to space being infinite in size. There is simply no evidence for either, and so I think it's probably best to be open to both possibilities. Much like you should be, Nick.
NOTHING IS NOTHING. THERE IS NOTHING BEYOND THE HYPERSPHERE.
YOUR TYPE OF OPEN MINDEDNESS IS NOT A VIRTUE I AM INTERESTED IN. I HAVE MY OWN PERSONAL VIRTUE.
THAT THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE COMES FROM THE FACT THAT NOTHING CAN BE INFINITE. AS A MATTER OF FACT INFINITY IS NOT A SIZE BUT ALONE A CONCEPT.
ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT YOU SEE THAT THE UNIVERSE WOULD EITHER HAVE BOUNDARIES OR LIKE EINSTEIN DISCOVERED IT TO BE CLOSED. FINITE YET UNBOUNDED.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Secondly, I've recently come to be more open to space being infinite in size. There is simply no evidence for either, and so I think it's probably best to be open to both possibilities. Much like you should be, Nick.
NOTHING IS NOTHING. THERE IS NOTHING BEYOND THE HYPERSPHERE.
YOUR TYPE OF OPEN MINDEDNESS IS NOT A VIRTUE I AM INTERESTED IN. I HAVE MY OWN PERSONAL VIRTUE.
THAT THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE COMES FROM THE FACT THAT NOTHING CAN BE INFINITE. AS A MATTER OF FACT INFINITY IS NOT A SIZE BUT ALONE A CONCEPT.
ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT YOU SEE THAT THE UNIVERSE WOULD EITHER HAVE BOUNDARIES OR LIKE EINSTEIN DISCOVERED IT TO BE CLOSED. FINITE YET UNBOUNDED.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
whats the difference between infinite and perpetual?
guys?
guys?
QUOTE (Nick+May 9 2007, 10:35 PM)
THAT THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE COMES FROM THE FACT THAT NOTHING CAN BE INFINITE. AS A MATTER OF FACT INFINITY IS NOT A SIZE BUT ALONE A CONCEPT.
ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT YOU SEE THAT THE UNIVERSE WOULD EITHER HAVE BOUNDARIES OR LIKE EINSTEIN DISCOVERED IT TO BE CLOSED. FINITE YET UNBOUNDED.
Well no, the alternative IS infinite space, in all directions. It doesn't need to be finite, just because Einstein said. I certainly don't look at him as the final word on Physics.
Look, Nick, I'll give you an example of infinite space. For anyone who has used 3d graphics development packages (In this case Maya), the example will be quite easy to understand.
Infinite Space
That grey space, goes on for infinity, in all directions. I picture real space, to be exactly the same type of space as this. Space doesn't require energy to exist, it can stretch for infinity, unbounded.
So, as for your FACTs, they are completely non-factual and are only 'facts' as far as is your belief in them, but don't get any delusions about them being the truth, because you simply cannot know that.
ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT YOU SEE THAT THE UNIVERSE WOULD EITHER HAVE BOUNDARIES OR LIKE EINSTEIN DISCOVERED IT TO BE CLOSED. FINITE YET UNBOUNDED.
Well no, the alternative IS infinite space, in all directions. It doesn't need to be finite, just because Einstein said. I certainly don't look at him as the final word on Physics.
Look, Nick, I'll give you an example of infinite space. For anyone who has used 3d graphics development packages (In this case Maya), the example will be quite easy to understand.
Infinite Space
That grey space, goes on for infinity, in all directions. I picture real space, to be exactly the same type of space as this. Space doesn't require energy to exist, it can stretch for infinity, unbounded.
So, as for your FACTs, they are completely non-factual and are only 'facts' as far as is your belief in them, but don't get any delusions about them being the truth, because you simply cannot know that.
so the grey stuff never ends?
Nick. If your IDEA about a hypersphere is true, then if someone discovered the fourth dimension it would be deadly.
One way would be seemingly infinite dark energy which would blast it's way into our universe like if you stuck a pin in a balloon while the hypersphere itself would begin to shrink and so the universe begin to collapse.
The other way would lead to literally nothing so anything that entered that realm would instantly cease to exist. Could our space leak out into it and the universe slowly but surely would cease to exist?
Fortunately the hypersphere is totally without evidence.
One way would be seemingly infinite dark energy which would blast it's way into our universe like if you stuck a pin in a balloon while the hypersphere itself would begin to shrink and so the universe begin to collapse.
The other way would lead to literally nothing so anything that entered that realm would instantly cease to exist. Could our space leak out into it and the universe slowly but surely would cease to exist?
Fortunately the hypersphere is totally without evidence.
Bryn Richards. If there is nothing beyond the universe, then everything could end at the rim of the universe but have infinite potential beyond that (ie; the universe could expand forever into it.
The words "Nick" and "evidence" do not go together. Nick prefers infallibly true statements. Then again as you point out, on this subject there is only beliefs.
The words "Nick" and "evidence" do not go together. Nick prefers infallibly true statements. Then again as you point out, on this subject there is only beliefs.
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+May 10 2007, 12:59 AM)
whats the difference between infinite and perpetual?
guys?
Infinite is said to go on endlessly and not have a beginning. Perpetual can have a beginning and is only believed to go on endlessly.
Actually there is no way of checking up that something is infinite so it is a nonsense term.
guys?
Infinite is said to go on endlessly and not have a beginning. Perpetual can have a beginning and is only believed to go on endlessly.
Actually there is no way of checking up that something is infinite so it is a nonsense term.
QUOTE (Nick+May 9 2007, 11:35 PM)
ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT YOU SEE THAT THE UNIVERSE WOULD EITHER HAVE BOUNDARIES OR LIKE EINSTEIN DISCOVERED IT TO BE CLOSED. FINITE YET UNBOUNDED.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Nick. Einstein died over fifty years ago. There have been a few discoveries since then that Einstein did not have a clue about so you might as well quote Galileo.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Nick. Einstein died over fifty years ago. There have been a few discoveries since then that Einstein did not have a clue about so you might as well quote Galileo.
The theory of relativity is well established in time.Whether Einstein die50 years back ,.is irrelevant.
QUOTE (VertCoach+May 10 2007, 11:58 AM)
so the grey stuff never ends?
Nope, it goes on forever, never ending in all directions. Space is much like it, imo. If you got a 3d graphics package and messed about with it, you'd understand what I mean with the analogy.
Nope, it goes on forever, never ending in all directions. Space is much like it, imo. If you got a 3d graphics package and messed about with it, you'd understand what I mean with the analogy.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 10 2007, 01:44 PM)
Bryn Richards. If there is nothing beyond the universe, then everything could end at the rim of the universe but have infinite potential beyond that (ie; the universe could expand forever into it.
Well, technically it wouldn't have infinite potential, because whatever had already been created within the universe, would have used-up some of the infiniteness, and thus it would be infinite minus what had been created. I prefer to stay away from infinity, unless it's totally insulated infiniteness.
Well, technically it wouldn't have infinite potential, because whatever had already been created within the universe, would have used-up some of the infiniteness, and thus it would be infinite minus what had been created. I prefer to stay away from infinity, unless it's totally insulated infiniteness.
QUOTE
I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE THAT EXPANDS AS UNIVERSAL EXPANSION. IT HAS NO BOUNDARIES AND IS CLOSED AND FINITE BUT WILL GO ONE FOREVER.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE THAT EXPANDS AS UNIVERSAL EXPANSION. IT HAS NO BOUNDARIES AND IS CLOSED AND FINITE BUT WILL GO ONE FOREVER. MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE -- |
THAT THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE COMES FROM THE FACT THAT NOTHING CAN BE INFINITE. AS A MATTER OF FACT INFINITY IS NOT A SIZE BUT ALONE A CONCEPT.
ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT YOU SEE THAT THE UNIVERSE WOULD EITHER HAVE BOUNDARIES OR LIKE EINSTEIN DISCOVERED IT TO BE CLOSED. FINITE YET UNBOUNDED.
Infinite is the lack of finiteness. Try to measure the universe for finiteness. You will fail.
The universe is infinite because it is infinitely intelligent.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 10 2007, 01:36 PM)
Nick. If your IDEA about a hypersphere is true, then if someone discovered the fourth dimension it would be deadly.
One way would be seemingly infinite dark energy which would blast it's way into our universe like if you stuck a pin in a balloon while the hypersphere itself would begin to shrink and so the universe begin to collapse.
The other way would lead to literally nothing so anything that entered that realm would instantly cease to exist. Could our space leak out into it and the universe slowly but surely would cease to exist?
Fortunately the hypersphere is totally without evidence.
STOP MAKING INVENTING THINGS!!
YOU ARE WRONG.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
One way would be seemingly infinite dark energy which would blast it's way into our universe like if you stuck a pin in a balloon while the hypersphere itself would begin to shrink and so the universe begin to collapse.
The other way would lead to literally nothing so anything that entered that realm would instantly cease to exist. Could our space leak out into it and the universe slowly but surely would cease to exist?
Fortunately the hypersphere is totally without evidence.
STOP MAKING INVENTING THINGS!!
YOU ARE WRONG.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 10 2007, 09:22 PM)
Nope, it goes on forever, never ending in all directions. Space is much like it, imo. If you got a 3d graphics package and messed about with it, you'd understand what I mean with the analogy.
Say Bryn,
This grey matter you are on about?, can you check to see if it has permeability and permittivity constants and if it has, what are the values?
Look forward to your reply.
Keep well
Darren
Say Bryn,
This grey matter you are on about?, can you check to see if it has permeability and permittivity constants and if it has, what are the values?
Look forward to your reply.
Keep well
Darren
QUOTE (Darren+May 10 2007, 11:54 PM)
This grey matter you are on about?, can you check to see if it has permeability and permittivity constants and if it has, what are the values?
Look forward to your reply.
The grey space I mentioned within 3d graphics packages, was suggested as an analogy to explain how it is possible for space to be just like the grey space in such graphics packages, in terms of being infinite in size, whilst allowing for things to exist within it. I was showing that such a space is possible. So really, I don't know about any permeability or permittivity constants of space, and I do not think that such concepts apply for the 'grey' space within 3d graphics packages.
Look forward to your reply.
The grey space I mentioned within 3d graphics packages, was suggested as an analogy to explain how it is possible for space to be just like the grey space in such graphics packages, in terms of being infinite in size, whilst allowing for things to exist within it. I was showing that such a space is possible. So really, I don't know about any permeability or permittivity constants of space, and I do not think that such concepts apply for the 'grey' space within 3d graphics packages.
QUOTE (i have my sources+May 10 2007, 10:47 PM)
Infinite is the lack of finiteness. Try to measure the universe for finiteness. You will fail.
The universe is infinite because it is infinitely intelligent.
Hey Nick. You've got a disciple!
A universe where all matter will end up locked in black holes (some black holes already have billions of suns locked in them) or end up expanding endlessly so there is nothing left but a uniform temperature or it could all collapse and there is no reason why it should begin again. Sounds like stupidity to me.
QUOTE (Nick+May 11 2007, 12:27 AM)
STOP MAKING INVENTING THINGS!!
YOU ARE WRONG.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Nick. I have just followed your reasoning to the next step. If you have a 3D skin (the universe) in a 4D environment, I have just looked both ways out of the universe in both the 4D directions.
If I am wrong, tell me how.
YOU ARE WRONG.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
Nick. I have just followed your reasoning to the next step. If you have a 3D skin (the universe) in a 4D environment, I have just looked both ways out of the universe in both the 4D directions.
If I am wrong, tell me how.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 11 2007, 03:39 PM)
(some black holes already have billions of suns locked in them)
Really, where did you hear such information?
Really, where did you hear such information?
QUOTE (kaneda+May 11 2007, 03:47 PM)
Nick. I have just followed your reasoning to the next step. If you have a 3D skin (the universe) in a 4D environment, I have just looked both ways out of the universe in both the 4D directions.
If I am wrong, tell me how.
IT IS LUDICROUS TO NITPICK AN IDEA.
It is my opinion that this universe is an hypersphere.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
If I am wrong, tell me how.
IT IS LUDICROUS TO NITPICK AN IDEA.
It is my opinion that this universe is an hypersphere.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
If you assume the BB, the edge of the universe, is as far as energy has traveled since t=0. Since matter is slower, and has to travel less than C, matter can not at the edge. Even if you think in terms of space expanding, energy will still travel faster than matter. As such, the material universe is surrounded by a type of a primal energy atmosphere.
If one looks at a supernova, we may never see any of that expanding matter, but that energy blast will reach us. It will also reach the end of the universe even if none of the matter ever gets there. With the BB, the energy on the surface of this tiny region of energy/mass was propagating ahead, as the primoridal atom was expanding. As the primordial atom expanded further and further and cooled, the outer surface area of the matter-energy was emitting less energetic energy and recycling more and more.
The net result should be an extreme primal energy layer, at the outer most perimeter of the universe, with lower and lower energy quanta layers until we reach the outer matter. This extreme primal energy front is blazing the trail, like an energy tidal wave followed by smaller waves until matter is pulled in its wake.
If one looks at a supernova, we may never see any of that expanding matter, but that energy blast will reach us. It will also reach the end of the universe even if none of the matter ever gets there. With the BB, the energy on the surface of this tiny region of energy/mass was propagating ahead, as the primoridal atom was expanding. As the primordial atom expanded further and further and cooled, the outer surface area of the matter-energy was emitting less energetic energy and recycling more and more.
The net result should be an extreme primal energy layer, at the outer most perimeter of the universe, with lower and lower energy quanta layers until we reach the outer matter. This extreme primal energy front is blazing the trail, like an energy tidal wave followed by smaller waves until matter is pulled in its wake.
Hi All,
You have hit on an interesting topic. Here is some personal perspective for
thought and discussion.
We often hear that the universe is expanding and the expansion appears to be
accelerating. Immediately, a question arises, what is the universe expanding into?
This outline overview is meant as a proposal that explores the meaning of space and the
extent and characteristics of the known physical domains that exist within it. The
purpose is to set a foundation and comparison to describe the attributes of infinite space
(without energy) vs. finite space that “contains” energy. It is important to differentiate
between the two separate conditions as they represent different relative energy “states”.
For purposes of comparison, finite space is proposed to be the “energetic universe” or
space-time continuum to which we belong, while infinite space is considered to be the
dimensionless “void” that the “energetic universe” is attempting to fill by
expanding into it.
In order to try to understand the concepts of infinite space and finite space some
characteristic properties must be assigned to define the qualities that differentiate them.
By defining the characteristics of each, it can be easily determined that their attributes are
diametrically opposed. Their is a Yin-Yang relationship that exists between them, a
“marriage” of opposites that follows the laws of thermodynamics and energy transfer.
Much of what follows is personal “conjecture” and opinion based on observation and
interpretation of other theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
“Attributes” of Infinite Space:
1. Infinite space has no orientation without a physical point of relative reference.
a. No up, down, left, or right
b. No dimensional reference, no x ,y, z planes of reference
c. No time reference
d. No temperature reference (absolute zero degrees K)
e. No energy signature reference (EM energy)
f. It is the void, total emptiness, a constant “state” of nothing
2. It is dimensionless and omnidirectional. It has no frame of temporal or spatial
reference.
3. It is infinite, it has no exterior bounds.
4. It has no mass and no physical quality that can be quantified or measured.
5. It has no time/infinite time. There can be no passage or reference to time without
incurring a “change of state”, which is relative to and caused by an exchange of
energy.
6. It is a “medium” for conveying free form energy. Space has permittivity and
permeability and changes state with the introduction of energy, such as:
a. magnetic fields
b. electric fields
c. gravitational fields
d. radiation (EM fields)
Attributes of Finite Space (the space-time continuum):
1. Finite Space has “volume”. Volume can be described as the “confinement” of energy
that is contained within a “finite” boundary region. The “boundary” is expanding
along a wave front bubble of propagating energy that is perpetually encroaching on, and
merging with, infinite space.
2. Finite space and infinite space are merging along an expanding energy wave front
where the dimension of time is being “created”. The dimension of time is produced
by the change of state from a dimensionless non-energetic condition, to an
energetically dynamic temporal state with time relevance.
3. The “universe”, as we know it, has time relevance because the dynamic energy
states that it contains within its expanding boundaries change form and relative
position as the universe expands and “ages”. Change, by its very nature is a
function of time as it relates to energy movement over distance.
4. Finite space has a temperature greater than absolute zero and contains all the
primordial energy released from the big bang. The echo's of this energy
signature is the cosmic microwave background radiation. This energy and the
energy released from stellar events is expanding into infinite space and is
contained within the confined 4D bubble of the known universe.
The Geometry of 4D space:
Requires at least 2 points of physical reference to determine a line
Requires at least 3 points of physical reference to determine the orientation of a plane
Requires at least 4 points of random offset reference to determine 2 intersecting planes
Requires a delta change over distance between any 2 points to determine time
Orientation of position requires 3 points of reference (triangulation).
LL
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=179490
You have hit on an interesting topic. Here is some personal perspective for
thought and discussion.
We often hear that the universe is expanding and the expansion appears to be
accelerating. Immediately, a question arises, what is the universe expanding into?
This outline overview is meant as a proposal that explores the meaning of space and the
extent and characteristics of the known physical domains that exist within it. The
purpose is to set a foundation and comparison to describe the attributes of infinite space
(without energy) vs. finite space that “contains” energy. It is important to differentiate
between the two separate conditions as they represent different relative energy “states”.
For purposes of comparison, finite space is proposed to be the “energetic universe” or
space-time continuum to which we belong, while infinite space is considered to be the
dimensionless “void” that the “energetic universe” is attempting to fill by
expanding into it.
In order to try to understand the concepts of infinite space and finite space some
characteristic properties must be assigned to define the qualities that differentiate them.
By defining the characteristics of each, it can be easily determined that their attributes are
diametrically opposed. Their is a Yin-Yang relationship that exists between them, a
“marriage” of opposites that follows the laws of thermodynamics and energy transfer.
Much of what follows is personal “conjecture” and opinion based on observation and
interpretation of other theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
“Attributes” of Infinite Space:
1. Infinite space has no orientation without a physical point of relative reference.
a. No up, down, left, or right
b. No dimensional reference, no x ,y, z planes of reference
c. No time reference
d. No temperature reference (absolute zero degrees K)
e. No energy signature reference (EM energy)
f. It is the void, total emptiness, a constant “state” of nothing
2. It is dimensionless and omnidirectional. It has no frame of temporal or spatial
reference.
3. It is infinite, it has no exterior bounds.
4. It has no mass and no physical quality that can be quantified or measured.
5. It has no time/infinite time. There can be no passage or reference to time without
incurring a “change of state”, which is relative to and caused by an exchange of
energy.
6. It is a “medium” for conveying free form energy. Space has permittivity and
permeability and changes state with the introduction of energy, such as:
a. magnetic fields
b. electric fields
c. gravitational fields
d. radiation (EM fields)
Attributes of Finite Space (the space-time continuum):
1. Finite Space has “volume”. Volume can be described as the “confinement” of energy
that is contained within a “finite” boundary region. The “boundary” is expanding
along a wave front bubble of propagating energy that is perpetually encroaching on, and
merging with, infinite space.
2. Finite space and infinite space are merging along an expanding energy wave front
where the dimension of time is being “created”. The dimension of time is produced
by the change of state from a dimensionless non-energetic condition, to an
energetically dynamic temporal state with time relevance.
3. The “universe”, as we know it, has time relevance because the dynamic energy
states that it contains within its expanding boundaries change form and relative
position as the universe expands and “ages”. Change, by its very nature is a
function of time as it relates to energy movement over distance.
4. Finite space has a temperature greater than absolute zero and contains all the
primordial energy released from the big bang. The echo's of this energy
signature is the cosmic microwave background radiation. This energy and the
energy released from stellar events is expanding into infinite space and is
contained within the confined 4D bubble of the known universe.
The Geometry of 4D space:
Requires at least 2 points of physical reference to determine a line
Requires at least 3 points of physical reference to determine the orientation of a plane
Requires at least 4 points of random offset reference to determine 2 intersecting planes
Requires a delta change over distance between any 2 points to determine time
Orientation of position requires 3 points of reference (triangulation).
LL
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=179490
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+May 10 2007, 09:22 PM)
Nope, it goes on forever, never ending in all directions. Space is much like it, imo. If you got a 3d graphics package and messed about with it, you'd understand what I mean with the analogy.
Hi Bryn,
Well, Bryn, I hear what you say, so how am I supposed to interpret your statement above?
Keep well
Darren
Hi Bryn,
Well, Bryn, I hear what you say, so how am I supposed to interpret your statement above?
Keep well
Darren
Another concept/possibility to think about.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=157640
LL
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=157640
LL
QUOTE (Darren+May 11 2007, 11:25 PM)
Well, Bryn, I hear what you say, so how am I supposed to interpret your statement above?
It should be clear by now how to interpret it based upon my previous posts within this thread. Unless there is something you do not understand?
It should be clear by now how to interpret it based upon my previous posts within this thread. Unless there is something you do not understand?
Hello all
If there is an edge to the universe then all light will be reflected from it by total internal reflection. This premise is postulated on just the change in indices of refraction going from one in normal space to zero outside the universe. The index of refraction "n" is just c/v. "v" in this case is the velocity of light without any gravity (from mass) to slow it down.
Just something to think about.
If there is an edge to the universe then all light will be reflected from it by total internal reflection. This premise is postulated on just the change in indices of refraction going from one in normal space to zero outside the universe. The index of refraction "n" is just c/v. "v" in this case is the velocity of light without any gravity (from mass) to slow it down.
Just something to think about.
QUOTE (Montec+May 12 2007, 06:09 PM)
If there is an edge to the universe then all light will be reflected from it by total internal reflection. This premise is postulated on just the change in indices of refraction going from one in normal space to zero outside the universe.
There is no line of logic in what you say, to suggest refraction, simply from 0 or 1. All you have managed to suggest, is that the universe has an inside and outside, and that they exist as such in a boolean fashion; pretty well known stuff in terms of those who speak of a finite universe with an edge.
There is no line of logic in what you say, to suggest refraction, simply from 0 or 1. All you have managed to suggest, is that the universe has an inside and outside, and that they exist as such in a boolean fashion; pretty well known stuff in terms of those who speak of a finite universe with an edge.
QUOTE (Montec+May 12 2007, 06:09 PM)
If there is an edge to the universe then all light will be reflected from it by total internal reflection. This premise is postulated on just the change in indices of refraction going from one in normal space to zero outside the universe. The index of refraction "n" is just c/v. "v" in this case is the velocity of light without any gravity (from mass) to slow it down.
Hi Montec,
If the expanding edge of the universe is caused by the expansion
of the force of the original energy released from the "Big Bang" that would suggest
that the non-dimensional "expanse" is like an energy "sink" and has the basic
characteristics of permitivity and permeability which allows energy to flow from
one continuum to another.
In one case you have a high concentration of energy, and in the other case there
is no energy. The two extremes will try to equalize the energy between them to
reach unity. If there is a finite amount of energy in our universe then the edge
will be expanding at the speed of light but at a decreasing linear rate of expansion
compared to the energy contained in it. Kind of like a battery discharging current.
It will initially have an extremely high current flow that decreases over time as the
energy it contains is expended. Eventually it will stop releasing energy and unity
between the "poles" will be achieved.
If our universe has a moving "leading edge" then it will be enlarging at a
decreasing rate of expansion because the increase in volume becomes exponential
compared to the linear rate of expansion. The larger the volume gets the lower
the energy density gets and the slower rate of edge expansion becomes.
-----
Edit added:
The speed of light is constant according to the index of refraction of the medium
thru which it is propagating. Vacuum has a fixed index of refraction n of 1,
so there should be no "physical" interface, only an energy leading edge to
the expansion, so photons/energy will propagate unimpeded and be distributed
thru time and space "forever".
Comments? Different opinions?
LL
Hi Montec,
If the expanding edge of the universe is caused by the expansion
of the force of the original energy released from the "Big Bang" that would suggest
that the non-dimensional "expanse" is like an energy "sink" and has the basic
characteristics of permitivity and permeability which allows energy to flow from
one continuum to another.
In one case you have a high concentration of energy, and in the other case there
is no energy. The two extremes will try to equalize the energy between them to
reach unity. If there is a finite amount of energy in our universe then the edge
will be expanding at the speed of light but at a decreasing linear rate of expansion
compared to the energy contained in it. Kind of like a battery discharging current.
It will initially have an extremely high current flow that decreases over time as the
energy it contains is expended. Eventually it will stop releasing energy and unity
between the "poles" will be achieved.
If our universe has a moving "leading edge" then it will be enlarging at a
decreasing rate of expansion because the increase in volume becomes exponential
compared to the linear rate of expansion. The larger the volume gets the lower
the energy density gets and the slower rate of edge expansion becomes.
-----
Edit added:
The speed of light is constant according to the index of refraction of the medium
thru which it is propagating. Vacuum has a fixed index of refraction n of 1,
so there should be no "physical" interface, only an energy leading edge to
the expansion, so photons/energy will propagate unimpeded and be distributed
thru time and space "forever".
Comments? Different opinions?
LL
QUOTE (Nick+May 11 2007, 11:06 PM)
IT IS LUDICROUS TO NITPICK AN IDEA.
It is my opinion that this universe is an hypersphere.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Anyone who presents a theory or idea here leaves themselves open to comment. That is what a debating forum is about. I am just pointing out things that are obvious to me but which you have never considered.
Your idea sounds like dad1's PO universe where you instinctively know that you are right and everyone else must therefore be wrong.
It is my opinion that this universe is an hypersphere.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Anyone who presents a theory or idea here leaves themselves open to comment. That is what a debating forum is about. I am just pointing out things that are obvious to me but which you have never considered.
Your idea sounds like dad1's PO universe where you instinctively know that you are right and everyone else must therefore be wrong.
Laserlight. A few ideas while my dinner cooks :
If you had a potentially infinitely long line, could it follow the curve of the universe back to itself so needing only one point?
Could infinite space come from an alleged multiverse?
Actually infinite space can just mean more of what you find in finite space but without end.
Regarding the CMB, what energy released by the big bang? It's just an inflation, not an explosion. When you inflate a tyre, it does not knock you over from it's force. If you have a room full of water then can expand that room so the water condenses out into ever thinner vapour, surely that means a loss of energy rather than a gain so what energy caused the CMB?
If you had a potentially infinitely long line, could it follow the curve of the universe back to itself so needing only one point?
Could infinite space come from an alleged multiverse?
Actually infinite space can just mean more of what you find in finite space but without end.
Regarding the CMB, what energy released by the big bang? It's just an inflation, not an explosion. When you inflate a tyre, it does not knock you over from it's force. If you have a room full of water then can expand that room so the water condenses out into ever thinner vapour, surely that means a loss of energy rather than a gain so what energy caused the CMB?
Montec. If the universe is expanding into literally nothing (not even space) so there is no rumpling effect as it collides with something else, then a light shone at the edge of the universe will vanish once it passes the edge of the universe. Without the structure of the universe to support it, light would be like a wave taken out of the sea.
Note. Another universe could have a different structure so a different speed of light.
Note. Another universe could have a different structure so a different speed of light.
QUOTE (Laserlight+May 12 2007, 10:41 PM)
If our universe has a moving "leading edge" then it will be enlarging at a
decreasing rate of expansion because the increase in volume becomes exponential
compared to the linear rate of expansion. The larger the volume gets the lower
the energy density gets and the slower rate of edge expansion becomes.
Don't forget the new and improved DARK ENERGY!
Guaranteed to fill the gaps in any junk ideas.
decreasing rate of expansion because the increase in volume becomes exponential
compared to the linear rate of expansion. The larger the volume gets the lower
the energy density gets and the slower rate of edge expansion becomes.
Don't forget the new and improved DARK ENERGY!
Guaranteed to fill the gaps in any junk ideas.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 13 2007, 12:29 PM)
Don't forget the new and improved DARK ENERGY!
Guaranteed to fill the gaps in any junk ideas.
Hi Kaneda,
Dark energy is only a theory, there may be a better explanation for some
of the observations attributed to it. Regardless, since energy cannot be created
or destroyed, all of the energy that ever existed or will exist represents a
finite quantity in the universe. I am not yet convinced of the existence of
dark energy, it seems to be the latest cosmological fad of which there have
been many.
The concentration and distribution of energy varies and tends to cluster
in relatively dense gravitationally bound filaments throughout the observable
universe. On the other hand radiating EM waves tend to distribute energy
uniformly and fill space in all directions as they propagate/radiate from
their source origins. So I think it is fair to say that the universe is expanding
as a consequence of EM radiation.
Comments?
LL
Guaranteed to fill the gaps in any junk ideas.
Hi Kaneda,
Dark energy is only a theory, there may be a better explanation for some
of the observations attributed to it. Regardless, since energy cannot be created
or destroyed, all of the energy that ever existed or will exist represents a
finite quantity in the universe. I am not yet convinced of the existence of
dark energy, it seems to be the latest cosmological fad of which there have
been many.
The concentration and distribution of energy varies and tends to cluster
in relatively dense gravitationally bound filaments throughout the observable
universe. On the other hand radiating EM waves tend to distribute energy
uniformly and fill space in all directions as they propagate/radiate from
their source origins. So I think it is fair to say that the universe is expanding
as a consequence of EM radiation.
Comments?
LL
Kaneda,
Regarding the CMB, what energy released by the big bang? It's just an inflation, not an explosion. When you inflate a tyre, it does not knock you over from it's force. If you have a room full of water then can expand that room so the water condenses out into ever thinner vapour, surely that means a loss of energy rather than a gain so what energy caused the CMB?
Inflation/explosion....in either case it is a rapid release of energy into the
surrounding environment that established our spacetime domain. The source and
reason for how and where that energy originated is the supreme cosmological
mystery.
The CMB has been measured and its temperature and energy characteristics
plotted. It is energy and it is "real". It defines the universal "sea" in which we
exist. From a personal perspective, I think it represents the elusive theoretical
concept of the Aether. If you compare the CMB to the ocean, a lake, the
atmosphere, or any environment, they all are comprised of different dynamic and interactive energy levels.
Comments,
LL
QUOTE
Regarding the CMB, what energy released by the big bang? It's just an inflation, not an explosion. When you inflate a tyre, it does not knock you over from it's force. If you have a room full of water then can expand that room so the water condenses out into ever thinner vapour, surely that means a loss of energy rather than a gain so what energy caused the CMB?
Inflation/explosion....in either case it is a rapid release of energy into the
surrounding environment that established our spacetime domain. The source and
reason for how and where that energy originated is the supreme cosmological
mystery.
The CMB has been measured and its temperature and energy characteristics
plotted. It is energy and it is "real". It defines the universal "sea" in which we
exist. From a personal perspective, I think it represents the elusive theoretical
concept of the Aether. If you compare the CMB to the ocean, a lake, the
atmosphere, or any environment, they all are comprised of different dynamic and interactive energy levels.
Comments,
LL
Hello all
If the universe has an edge then the following applies.
Mass has an effect on time flow. The mass of the universe has an effect on time flow. The mass of the universe is nowhere near the edge of the light coming from said universe. Light from said universe will be red shifted. The question is; How fast is the time flow outside the universe?
We must also ask if the permittivity and permeability of space is a function of the universe or a function of the space the universe is expanding into.
If the universe has an edge then the following applies.
Mass has an effect on time flow. The mass of the universe has an effect on time flow. The mass of the universe is nowhere near the edge of the light coming from said universe. Light from said universe will be red shifted. The question is; How fast is the time flow outside the universe?
We must also ask if the permittivity and permeability of space is a function of the universe or a function of the space the universe is expanding into.
IF THERE IS NO SPACE THERE IS NO SPACE-TIME. ITS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
Hi again Montec,
You ask some inciting questions.
1. The "edge" could just be a change of energy state and dimensionality, not a
physical change.
2. I don't understand the logic of the red shift of light ....from what? Red shift is
observed from physical stellar objects accelerating/moving away from us.
No receding light emitters, no red shift.
3. Is there "time flow" if there is no sequential change of energy state or moving
point of reference?
4. If energy can propagate from one location to another doesn't that require
energy to conform to the environment it is propagating into or conversely,
for "space" to adapt or change to accept a flow of energy? I would think "yes" to
the question of permittivity and permeability. Perhaps a natural side effect
of the presence of energy is p & p.
LL
You ask some inciting questions.
QUOTE
If the universe has an edge then the following applies.
Mass has an effect on time flow. The mass of the universe has an effect on time flow. The mass of the universe is nowhere near the edge of the light coming from said universe. Light from said universe will be red shifted. The question is; How fast is the time flow outside the universe?
We must also ask if the permittivity and permeability of space is a function of the universe or a function of the space the universe is expanding into.
Mass has an effect on time flow. The mass of the universe has an effect on time flow. The mass of the universe is nowhere near the edge of the light coming from said universe. Light from said universe will be red shifted. The question is; How fast is the time flow outside the universe?
We must also ask if the permittivity and permeability of space is a function of the universe or a function of the space the universe is expanding into.
1. The "edge" could just be a change of energy state and dimensionality, not a
physical change.
2. I don't understand the logic of the red shift of light ....from what? Red shift is
observed from physical stellar objects accelerating/moving away from us.
No receding light emitters, no red shift.
3. Is there "time flow" if there is no sequential change of energy state or moving
point of reference?
4. If energy can propagate from one location to another doesn't that require
energy to conform to the environment it is propagating into or conversely,
for "space" to adapt or change to accept a flow of energy? I would think "yes" to
the question of permittivity and permeability. Perhaps a natural side effect
of the presence of energy is p & p.
LL
Laserlight. Billions of trillions of stars radiating infra red energy for billions of years and it doesn't just vanish. The microwave spectrum overlaps the infra red spectrum and it is just a matter of a little red shifting with photons travelling over cosmic time to turn infra red into microwaves, so the CMB.
The BB creation of the CMB is laughable.
The BB creation of the CMB is laughable.
Hello Laserlight, et al.
There is another mechanism for red shifting light. Light coming out of a gravity well will be red shifted. Light going into a gravity well will be blue shifted. These shifts relate to the variation in time flow from the inside of a gravity well to the outside of a gravity well. So from gravity to no gravity will produce a red shift.
Also if the amount of mass/gravity is not constant then the flow of time will not be constant. If the universe losses mass then the rate of time flow will speed up. This would appear as a red shift when looking at light emitted in the past.
There is another mechanism for red shifting light. Light coming out of a gravity well will be red shifted. Light going into a gravity well will be blue shifted. These shifts relate to the variation in time flow from the inside of a gravity well to the outside of a gravity well. So from gravity to no gravity will produce a red shift.
Also if the amount of mass/gravity is not constant then the flow of time will not be constant. If the universe losses mass then the rate of time flow will speed up. This would appear as a red shift when looking at light emitted in the past.
Hi Montec,
Red/Blue shift has to do with a change of velocity from an external
relative point of observation, so I agree with your comment about how
gravity effects the shift from the perspective of the observer. If the
wavefront of the universe is expanding at the speed of light and it is moving
away from us and can't be seen, then those photons are not in our visual plane
or else we would see the edge of the universe. We could mathematically compute
the diameter of the universe by doubling the speed of light over 13.7B years,
from a common centerpoint.
The amount of mass is constant and equivalent to the amount of energy
in the universe. E=mc^2. The universe isn't losing mass or energy, it is just
redistributing it over a larger volume, it is spreading out over time and distance.
Time is a linear measurement relative to the speed of light and the speed of light
is constant in a vacuum, so time is constant.
LL
QUOTE
There is another mechanism for red shifting light. Light coming out of a gravity well will be red shifted. Light going into a gravity well will be blue shifted. These shifts relate to the variation in time flow from the inside of a gravity well to the outside of a gravity well. So from gravity to no gravity will produce a red shift.
Also if the amount of mass/gravity is not constant then the flow of time will not be constant. If the universe losses mass then the rate of time flow will speed up. This would appear as a red shift when looking at light emitted in the past.
Also if the amount of mass/gravity is not constant then the flow of time will not be constant. If the universe losses mass then the rate of time flow will speed up. This would appear as a red shift when looking at light emitted in the past.
Red/Blue shift has to do with a change of velocity from an external
relative point of observation, so I agree with your comment about how
gravity effects the shift from the perspective of the observer. If the
wavefront of the universe is expanding at the speed of light and it is moving
away from us and can't be seen, then those photons are not in our visual plane
or else we would see the edge of the universe. We could mathematically compute
the diameter of the universe by doubling the speed of light over 13.7B years,
from a common centerpoint.
The amount of mass is constant and equivalent to the amount of energy
in the universe. E=mc^2. The universe isn't losing mass or energy, it is just
redistributing it over a larger volume, it is spreading out over time and distance.
Time is a linear measurement relative to the speed of light and the speed of light
is constant in a vacuum, so time is constant.
LL
Hi Kaneda,
The original theory of the CMB is that it is the echo reflection of the BB from the
edge of the universe...energy reflecting (feedback) from the edge of the cavity of
the universe. So your statement is sort of in line with that theory, and actually
supports the concept of the BB.
BB
QUOTE
Laserlight. Billions of trillions of stars radiating infra red energy for billions of years and it doesn't just vanish. The microwave spectrum overlaps the infra red spectrum and it is just a matter of a little red shifting with photons travelling over cosmic time to turn infra red into microwaves, so the CMB.
The BB creation of the CMB is laughable.
The BB creation of the CMB is laughable.
The original theory of the CMB is that it is the echo reflection of the BB from the
edge of the universe...energy reflecting (feedback) from the edge of the cavity of
the universe. So your statement is sort of in line with that theory, and actually
supports the concept of the BB.
BB
Hello Laserlight, et al.
I have yet to find an equation or experiment that allows EM radiation to influence/change the potential energy tensor established by gravitational fields. I am still looking, but until I find evidence of said interaction I cannot believe with 100% certainty that EM waves generate gravity.
It is true that energy cannot be destroyed and this includes the energy contained in mass but this does not mean that all energy can generate gravitational fields.
If I believe that all energy, no matter what form, generates a gravity field then the gravity field will still decrease as the EM radiation expands into space. This is a result of moving from a more dense energy field to a less dense energy field and by supposition a higher gravity field to a lower gravity field. Higher to lower generates a red shift.
Discussion or rebuttals welcome.
I have yet to find an equation or experiment that allows EM radiation to influence/change the potential energy tensor established by gravitational fields. I am still looking, but until I find evidence of said interaction I cannot believe with 100% certainty that EM waves generate gravity.
It is true that energy cannot be destroyed and this includes the energy contained in mass but this does not mean that all energy can generate gravitational fields.
If I believe that all energy, no matter what form, generates a gravity field then the gravity field will still decrease as the EM radiation expands into space. This is a result of moving from a more dense energy field to a less dense energy field and by supposition a higher gravity field to a lower gravity field. Higher to lower generates a red shift.
Discussion or rebuttals welcome.
Based on most of the things I've come across on this topic, I'd have to say that I'm currently with Nick.
QUOTE (Nick+)
I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS AN HYPERSPHERE THAT EXPANDS AS UNIVERSAL EXPANSION. IT HAS NO BOUNDARIES AND IS CLOSED AND FINITE BUT WILL GO ONE FOREVER.
.
.
Although, Kaneda's idea may be plausible and it does make sense that red shift may have been interpreted before, such as in GRB interpretations, as I've brought up here.
.
.
Although, Kaneda's idea may be plausible and it does make sense that red shift may have been interpreted before, such as in GRB interpretations, as I've brought up here.
QUOTE (Kaneda+)
Actually it is only assumed the universe is expanding based on a clearly wrong big bang theory and a possibly wrong interpretation of the red shift.
---
By the way... classic Nick response
---
By the way... classic Nick response
QUOTE (Nicl+)
QUOTE (kaneda+)
Nick. I have just followed your reasoning to the next step. If you have a 3D skin (the universe) in a 4D environment, I have just looked both ways out of the universe in both the 4D directions.
If I am wrong, tell me how.
IT IS LUDICROUS TO NITPICK AN IDEA.
It is my opinion that this universe is an hypersphere.
If I am wrong, tell me how.
IT IS LUDICROUS TO NITPICK AN IDEA.
It is my opinion that this universe is an hypersphere.
QUOTE (Laserlight+May 14 2007, 05:02 AM)
2. I don't understand the logic of the red shift of light ....from what? Red shift is
observed from physical stellar objects accelerating/moving away from us.
No receding light emitters, no red shift.
This is all theory, of course, but:
There are more types of redshift than Doppler redshift. There's also cosmological redshift caused by the expansion of space, and gravitational redshift, caused by high gravity fields. And of course, there's relativistic redshift caused by the source object moving at a high percentage of c.
observed from physical stellar objects accelerating/moving away from us.
No receding light emitters, no red shift.
This is all theory, of course, but:
There are more types of redshift than Doppler redshift. There's also cosmological redshift caused by the expansion of space, and gravitational redshift, caused by high gravity fields. And of course, there's relativistic redshift caused by the source object moving at a high percentage of c.
Montec,
You know me from another board and my position that gravity is the displacement
of space by the content of the energy (mass) that fills that space. The gravity that
a system contains is directly proportional to the total energy (mass) contained in
the system and it follows the ISL (inverse squared law). Energy and mass
can be considered direct equivalents according to E=mc^2.
The strength of gravity at any point in space is directly proportional to the energy
content in that volume of space.
The density of the energy content that a volume contains is directly proportional
to the space it displaces and the intensity of the gravitational field that it generates.
For example: a marble has a fixed energy density associated with its
mass (energy), and the marble also displaces its own gravitational field.
The gravitational field that it generates around it is directly proportional to its
mass (i.e., energy content).
The concept of gravity works because any two objects are displacing the
space between them according to the total energy that exists between their
masses, so they move toward each other. The more energy density that exists
between two masses the more space that energy will displace, and the faster the
masses will move toward each other. As the masses accelerate as they move
closer together the relationship to the ISL inverts and squares, since the energy
density content between them will increase with decreasing distance.
In a system that is unbalanced by competing forces, such as centrifugal force, as
the space between objects is displaced, the objects move closer together.
They are "attracted" due to the imbalance of forces due to displacement of the
space between them.
How do you measure the displacement of volume? It is a net change of total
volume to the relative fixed volume that fills the space that is available.
IMO, there are no "gravity waves" it is purely energy density per unit volume
of space, where energy displaces the spacetime it occupying.
My point being, that the gravitational field at any point in space is equal to the
energy content that occupies that displaced space.
Comments, discussion?
QUOTE
I have yet to find an equation or experiment that allows EM radiation to influence/change the potential energy tensor established by gravitational fields. I am still looking, but until I find evidence of said interaction I cannot believe with 100% certainty that EM waves generate gravity.
It is true that energy cannot be destroyed and this includes the energy contained in mass but this does not mean that all energy can generate gravitational fields.
If I believe that all energy, no matter what form, generates a gravity field then the gravity field will still decrease as the EM radiation expands into space. This is a result of moving from a more dense energy field to a less dense energy field and by supposition a higher gravity field to a lower gravity field. Higher to lower generates a red shift.
It is true that energy cannot be destroyed and this includes the energy contained in mass but this does not mean that all energy can generate gravitational fields.
If I believe that all energy, no matter what form, generates a gravity field then the gravity field will still decrease as the EM radiation expands into space. This is a result of moving from a more dense energy field to a less dense energy field and by supposition a higher gravity field to a lower gravity field. Higher to lower generates a red shift.
You know me from another board and my position that gravity is the displacement
of space by the content of the energy (mass) that fills that space. The gravity that
a system contains is directly proportional to the total energy (mass) contained in
the system and it follows the ISL (inverse squared law). Energy and mass
can be considered direct equivalents according to E=mc^2.
The strength of gravity at any point in space is directly proportional to the energy
content in that volume of space.
The density of the energy content that a volume contains is directly proportional
to the space it displaces and the intensity of the gravitational field that it generates.
For example: a marble has a fixed energy density associated with its
mass (energy), and the marble also displaces its own gravitational field.
The gravitational field that it generates around it is directly proportional to its
mass (i.e., energy content).
The concept of gravity works because any two objects are displacing the
space between them according to the total energy that exists between their
masses, so they move toward each other. The more energy density that exists
between two masses the more space that energy will displace, and the faster the
masses will move toward each other. As the masses accelerate as they move
closer together the relationship to the ISL inverts and squares, since the energy
density content between them will increase with decreasing distance.
In a system that is unbalanced by competing forces, such as centrifugal force, as
the space between objects is displaced, the objects move closer together.
They are "attracted" due to the imbalance of forces due to displacement of the
space between them.
How do you measure the displacement of volume? It is a net change of total
volume to the relative fixed volume that fills the space that is available.
IMO, there are no "gravity waves" it is purely energy density per unit volume
of space, where energy displaces the spacetime it occupying.
My point being, that the gravitational field at any point in space is equal to the
energy content that occupies that displaced space.
Comments, discussion?
QUOTE (Laserlight+May 14 2007, 05:59 PM)
Hi Kaneda,
The original theory of the CMB is that it is the echo reflection of the BB from the
edge of the universe...energy reflecting (feedback) from the edge of the cavity of
the universe. So your statement is sort of in line with that theory, and actually
supports the concept of the BB.
BB
I have a natural reluctance to use creationist sites but the truth is still the truth, even when uttered by liars. Like last time I reported it here, this site gave the best account of what happened so I again use it as it is still the best :
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4643
The BB fails yet again, and with it, one of the main dogmas of the BB, the CMB. I didn't support the BB but said the CMB is down to old starlight.
The original theory of the CMB is that it is the echo reflection of the BB from the
edge of the universe...energy reflecting (feedback) from the edge of the cavity of
the universe. So your statement is sort of in line with that theory, and actually
supports the concept of the BB.
BB
I have a natural reluctance to use creationist sites but the truth is still the truth, even when uttered by liars. Like last time I reported it here, this site gave the best account of what happened so I again use it as it is still the best :
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4643
The BB fails yet again, and with it, one of the main dogmas of the BB, the CMB. I didn't support the BB but said the CMB is down to old starlight.
Kaneda,
I think we are in agreement on the topic of the BB, it is one of several theories
regarding "creation" of the universe. There is still the issue of the red shift
of far away galaxies that emit light which indicates that they are moving away
from us at fantastic speeds.
LL
QUOTE
The BB fails yet again, and with it, one of the main dogmas of the BB, the CMB. I didn't support the BB but said the CMB is down to old starlight.
I think we are in agreement on the topic of the BB, it is one of several theories
regarding "creation" of the universe. There is still the issue of the red shift
of far away galaxies that emit light which indicates that they are moving away
from us at fantastic speeds.
LL
We will never know how the universe originated because all of the knowledge used to create it is external of the universe, held by the "creator" of the problem.
Imagine the number 17. 17 can be calculated an infinite number of ways and it can be used within an infinite number of problems to define an infinite number of systems. The number is a real solution but its origin is entirely unknown unless defined by a user. one apple, two apples, three apples, etc. 3+14 = 17. x-3=14. 17+3 = 20. All real ways to use the number 17.
The universe is nothing more than another 17.
The universe could be the ultimate solution or it could simply be just another input into a larger system.
We will never know because we are not privey to the ultimate use of the universe. We do not know its purpose therefore we can not define it in absolute terms. Everything is speculative, even when the math works out.
Imagine the number 17. 17 can be calculated an infinite number of ways and it can be used within an infinite number of problems to define an infinite number of systems. The number is a real solution but its origin is entirely unknown unless defined by a user. one apple, two apples, three apples, etc. 3+14 = 17. x-3=14. 17+3 = 20. All real ways to use the number 17.
The universe is nothing more than another 17.
The universe could be the ultimate solution or it could simply be just another input into a larger system.
We will never know because we are not privey to the ultimate use of the universe. We do not know its purpose therefore we can not define it in absolute terms. Everything is speculative, even when the math works out.
Hi AB,
You make a valid argument. I prefer to think of your analogy as x=17, where
x could be all possible correct solutions. The idea is to solve for all possible
correct solutions to equal unity (1=1). This implies, as you have stated,
that there could be unlimited variables that provide the solution set.
FWIW, it is hard to be serious when dialoging with someone with your moniker...
It's funny, but sort of lacks "credibility" from a serious perspective.
Regards,
LL
You make a valid argument. I prefer to think of your analogy as x=17, where
x could be all possible correct solutions. The idea is to solve for all possible
correct solutions to equal unity (1=1). This implies, as you have stated,
that there could be unlimited variables that provide the solution set.
FWIW, it is hard to be serious when dialoging with someone with your moniker...
It's funny, but sort of lacks "credibility" from a serious perspective.
Regards,
LL
Hi LL and others(!),
A while back rpenner pointed me in the direction of this page http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html .. I've never got beyond it.
I've not been following the thread but maybe the handful of dust will help at the edge of space -
Best wishes,-C2.
A while back rpenner pointed me in the direction of this page http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html .. I've never got beyond it.
I've not been following the thread but maybe the handful of dust will help at the edge of space -
Best wishes,-C2.
Laserlight. There are problems and inconsistencies with the redshift which are conveniently ignored. Check the internet.
If the redshift is wrong, then no need for dark matter, dark energy and other rubbish.
If the redshift is wrong, then no need for dark matter, dark energy and other rubbish.
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.