Is the Universe Infinite?

Thalion wrote:

Incorrect. The light from object B would not be slowed down, and it would still be heading towards Object A at 186,000 mps. Object A is only moving at 3/4 that, so the light would catch up. This would imply seeing something that is moving something at the speed of light though, b\c object B is in fact moving at 1.5C away from A, as you said... anyone have an explanation?

I stand corrected, yes the light would eventually catch up to A. One of the terms that is being thrown around a lot in the last page or two of posts is the requirement being placed upon the equation to force acceleration into the mix. The speed of object A and object B were attained through great force exerted at an earlier point but inertia carries them along their path without the need for acceleration. You can travel fast without accelerating.

0 Replies

Two ppl are on trains moving towards each other at the same (very fast) speed and they punch each other. From my outside point of view, they have the same mass and punch at the same speed and their fists (which conveniently collide with each other) cancel each others' force out. From one of their points of view, the other is moving, time slows down, and he punches slower. The order of events can change, but there cannot be different outcomes; there is an outcome that actually DID happen. Since the other person is moving slower, his mass must have increased in order for the outcome to be that their fists' forces cancel out as I (outside viewer) observed as well.

The arrow problem is Zeno's paradox. Although there are infinite "halves" to travel, the duration of time that it takes to go through them also becomes infinitely small, so the arrow still gets there in a finite time.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

Thalion wrote:
Incorrect. The light from object B would not be slowed down, and it would still be heading towards Object A at 186,000 mps. Object A is only moving at 3/4 that, so the light would catch up. This would imply seeing something that is moving something at the speed of light though, b\c object B is in fact moving at 1.5C away from A, as you said... anyone have an explanation?

I stand corrected, yes the light would eventually catch up to A. One of the terms that is being thrown around a lot in the last page or two of posts is the requirement being placed upon the equation to force acceleration into the mix. The speed of object A and object B were attained through great force exerted at an earlier point but inertia carries them along their path without the need for acceleration. You can travel fast without accelerating.

Does inertia bring light (its photons) to expend itself? That is, is there a distance which is so great that light will be unable to traverse it? Does light die?

0 Replies

Re: time dilation principles

nipok wrote:

If objectA is moving to the left at 3/4 C and objectB is moving to the right at 3/4 C then to an observer on objectA, objectB would appear to be moving at 1.5 C.

You are using classical addition of velocities. In actuality, if the two speeds are denoted by Va and Vb, and the speed which A measures B receding at or B measures A receding at is denoted by Vab, then the correct formula is:

Vab = (Va + Vb)/[1+ (Va)(Vb)/c^2]

where c is the speed of light.

Since Va = Vb for this case (3/4 c), let us denote them both simply by V. We can then rearrange terms as follows:

Vab = 2V/[1 + (V/c)^2]

Thus, we have:

(.75c + .75c)/[1 + (.75)^2] = 1.5c/1.5625

= .96c

Thus A and B each sees the other receding at 96% the speed of light, not 1.5 times the speed of light. I really must point out that virtually any book at all on relativity, even popular treatments, explains how relativistic velocity addition works.

nipok wrote:

Since the light can not exceed its own speed limit they would not be able to see each other...

They see each other fine, but the light is Doppler shifted to longer wavelengths.

An interesting side note is that a 3rd observer who measured the speeds of A and B at 3/4 the speed of light, would see them moving apart from each other at 1.5 times the speed of light. This does not violate any relativistic principles, though, because Relativity only states that no obsever will measure any single material object as travelling at the speed of light.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Brandon, you say that
"Einstein derived the fact that as an object accelerates, its mass increases in such a way that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to the speed of light."
Does this mean that Einstein considered it impossible to accelerate an object to the speed of light? Or did Einstein actually have a notion of "infinite" as a real property, not just a limiting theoretical construct, of the universe?

Einstein considered it impossible to accelerate an object to the speed of light, since it would take more energy than exists.

0 Replies

And here is where I think Einstein limited himself by his own intellect. As he could conceive of no solution to that dilemma, he concluded no solution could exist. I simply don't buy it. I think we are most likely still in our technological infancy and there are infinite (speaking of infinity) wonders yet to be discovered.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And here is where I think Einstein limited himself by his own intellect. As he could conceive of no solution to that dilemma, he concluded no solution could exist. I simply don't buy it. I think we are most likely still in our technological infancy and there are infinite (speaking of infinity) wonders yet to be discovered.

Einstein did not conclude that no solution could exist. He concluded, correctly apparently, that acceleration behaves like this. Therefore, any solution will have to find a way to get around the very real impediment.

0 Replies

Oh, okay. I can accept that. I just hope I live long enough to see the solution. Smile

0 Replies

john/nyc wrote:

..........Does inertia bring light (its photons) to expend itself? That is, is there a distance which is so great that light will be unable to traverse it? Does light die?

john; inertia is the tendency to remain in the state of motion that exists; accelleration, positive, or negative, requires the expenditure of energy, thus it must be external forces that slow things down.

since light travels @ C (requiring light to be an energy form, not a mass, even though photons can have 'mass' - a little unexplained conundrum, that keeps the theoreticians happy) it has the maximum amount of inertia that is theoretically possible. Unimpeded, it would travel forever; but, of course it does, over huge amounts of time/distance meet resistance from various objects, not large enough to block the light, but able to impact it, thus slowing it down. In theory, if light is slowed down, it ceases to be light, but, perhaps, morphs into mass which renders it no longer visible(?).
_______________________________________________________________
[caution; total conjecture below - 'real' physicists should wear protective gear!]
_______________________________________________________________

On the subject of accelerating to the speed of light, i see the universe as two opposing forces; the one centripetal, or 'binding' force being gravity, and the other centrifugal, or 'destructive' force being an unknown entity - possibly the source of the 'big bang' - which uncontended would create total chaos (should we call it 'god'?)
'inertia' being the standard (politely conservative) state of motion, for all matter in the universe; this is the result of the opposition of these two forces; movement being the imbalance of such.
So acceleration requires a modification in the balance between these two, to affect a change in the inertial state of the object.
Thus we have a new definition of "energy"; the variance in balance between the warring kinetic forces in the universe.

[i now don my 'abuse' armour, and wait.]

0 Replies

john/nyc wrote:

nipok wrote:
Thalion wrote:
Incorrect. The light from object B would not be slowed down, and it would still be heading towards Object A at 186,000 mps. Object A is only moving at 3/4 that, so the light would catch up. This would imply seeing something that is moving something at the speed of light though, b\c object B is in fact moving at 1.5C away from A, as you said... anyone have an explanation?

I stand corrected; yes the light would eventually catch up to A. One of the terms that is being thrown around a lot in the last page or two of posts is the requirement being placed upon the equation to force acceleration into the mix. The speed of object A and object B were attained through great force exerted at an earlier point but inertia carries them along their path without the need for acceleration. You can travel fast without accelerating.

Does inertia bring light (its photons) to expend itself? That is, is there a distance that is so great that light will be unable to traverse it? Does light die?

The intensity of a light wave does diminish over distance. If two people with flashlights kept backing away from each other (not counting the curvature of our planet) they would eventually hit a distance where the light source could not be seen without the aid of binoculars or telescopes. Now we have atmosphere to blame partially for how quick the intensity dissipates where in space there are less particles per square kilometer. We needed to keep coming up with more advanced and more advanced telescopes to see the light coming from farther and farther away and most of today's super-telescopics don't use the visible light wavelength because of its limitations.

0 Replies

I believe that the brightness is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (the same as gravity.) This correct?

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

I believe that the brightness is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (the same as gravity.) This correct?

Yes the inverse square law applies to both gravity and the intensity of light. My house of cards discussed earlier also includes the belief in the AETHER or ETHER. This concept was for the most part thrown out along time ago because it did not fit with observations that were squeezed to mold into other paradigms but along with the rest of my house of cards the concepts all work very well together in my paradigm. In particular an Aether made up of subatomic particles allows the medium for waves to travel. Light, Energy, Magnetism, Gravity, almost everything we know including electrons seem to demonstrate wave like properties either in their natural state or excited state.

The unified field theory will someday prove that electromagnetism is the basis behind gravity, strong/weak nuclear forces, and binds our Universe and our universe together. The trick to understanding the unified field theory is something I call the Aetheric Density. The density of the localized Aether compared to the density of the two masses in question are all part of a formula (that I am still working on) that dictates how the matter will interact. There are other parts of the formula including center of mass, center of energy, overall mass, overall energy, and relative speed.

As an example lets take the diameter of the orbit of Mars and create a sphere around the sun of this diameter. Now lets fill the sphere with anything. Helium, Hyrogen, Nitrogen, or even better Oxygen. As the density of the medium increases there will be a point where Mercury, Venus, and the Earth will all fall into the sun. To this end I submit that acceleration due to gravity is not a constant, and the missing part of the equation is the density of the medium or atmosphere. The more dense the medium that the waves are allowed to flow in the stronger the attraction and the greater the acceleration due to a stronger pull.

How I get from the inverse square law to trying to push my view of the unified field theory Question

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

My house of cards discussed earlier also includes the belief in the AETHER or ETHER.

Can you cite any sources for any of this? Do you have any math to go with it? Do you have any backround at all in this field? Why do you feel qualified to revise what thousands of clever people with actual education in the field have built up over centuries? When you talked about the addition of velocities a page or two ago, you made it clear that you lacked the familiarity with Special Relativity that anyone could acquire by reading even one book on the subject.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

nipok wrote:
My house of cards discussed earlier also includes the belief in the AETHER or ETHER.

Can you cite any sources for any of this? Do you have any math to go with it? Do you have any background at all in this field? Why do you feel qualified to revise what thousands of clever people with actual education in the field have built up over centuries? When you talked about the addition of velocities a page or two ago, you made it clear that you lacked the familiarity with Special Relativity that anyone could acquire by reading even one book on the subject.

I am in fact quite familiar with the Lorentz transformation regarding adding velocities outside of standard Newtonian physics but I was trying to make a point that many people can't see that speeds greater than the speed of light do exist. They can't see it because they are too stuck in one paradigm that for all its glory still has holes that are made on assumptions that have yet to be proven.

My paradigm pushes the limits that any sane person would care to even try to comprehend but as some others in this forum have already stated my paradigm does not fall far from what many of them also believe. I sought to fill in the holes in the current paradigm and in doing so found discrepancies that needed a paradigm shift to take place. Much of what I claim to make sense will not make sense if you try to pick a piece of it and let it stand on its own merits when you fail to take into account the larger picture. But when you take into account the larger picture many of these things that sound absurd actually make much more sense and as a whole the entire paradigm is as solid or more solid then the current one.

I say that our planet is moving faster than the speed of light because our entire universe relative to a much larger universe is moving faster than then speed of light. The problem people have with the speed of light and relativity is that they cannot comprehend what it means to be a point. A point is timeless, massless, and energyless. Our universe, our known universe, is a point in time and space. Relative to us it has mass and energy and time but in the entire Universe it is a point.

As far as Aether. Aetheric Density will most likely be the missing link that will bring together the 4 known forces into 1 equation. Like others you are most likely stuck on the concept of leptons and quarks being the building blocks of matter. I submit that there is no smallest particle of matter and subparticles of matter come in an infinite array of sizes.
I also submit very contrary to popular belief that matter has the ability to absorb and release energy but pure energy alone can not create matter without the subparticles to bind it together. We see smallest particles of matter right now because we are limited by the scientific precision of the instruments we use to view high-speed collisions.

I have studied A-Z, Astronomy to Zoology and everything in between. Particle Physics, micro-chemical and micro-biological interactions, electrodynamics and a wealth of other sciences. I don't claim to be an expert in anything other than pure theory and have built a house of cards based on theories that for the most part defy the current paradigm but when weighed all together appear to me to provide a stronger foundation then what is currently accepted doctrine.

0 Replies

I suggest, then, that you publish in a real, refereed Physics journal. Incidentally, your previous assertion about objects measuring each other as going 1.5 times the speed of light was flat out wrong, as my comments showed.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I suggest, then, that you publish in a real, refereed Physics journal. Incidentally, your previous assertion about objects measuring each other as going 1.5 times the speed of light was flat out wrong, as my comments showed.

I do not disagree with the fact that I phrased it incorrectly. I was trying to make a point. You can argue 10 ways to Sunday but the Lorentz transformation deals with how speed APPEARS to an observer. To appear to go faster than the speed of light results in an equation where the answer is the square root of a negative number so we really don't know what could or would happen at a speed this great. There is talk now about the universe expanding faster than the speed of light. I guess when they finally find out that it is possible they will add another band aid to the current paradigm with half an explanation and people will buy it because it helps keep the falling paradigm together a little longer.

Do you know how fast light waves travel under water or in a huge tank filled with Argon or Helium? The speed of light is only constant when applied to the apparent vacuum of space. I doubt that a true vacuum exists and particles that we have been as of yet unable to detect exist where we once thought there was none.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

...........the amount of redshift shouldn't change if we start receding...........

it might take quite a lot of energy, for 'us' to "start receding"! Shocked

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I suggest, then, that you publish in a real, refereed Physics journal. Incidentally, your previous assertion about objects measuring each other as going 1.5 times the speed of light was flat out wrong, as my comments showed.

I do not disagree with the fact that I phrased it incorrectly. I was trying to make a point....

You didn't just phrase it incorrectly, you were incorrect in a matter of substance. Since you are revising modern Physics in a way, which, if correct, would be of great interest to the world scientific community, why do you not publish in a reputable, refereed scientific journal? Can your theory be tested by experiment or observation in a way that distinguishes it from other theories? Can you make a prediction that can be tested, which is currently not predicted by existing theory?

0 Replies

Nipok'

Given enough distance and mass eventually any light will be "red shifted" (the waves become so long and the energy level so low that they will be unable to carry any meaningful information.

If you have a good dictionary or encyclopedia look up the "Fraunhofer Lines", and accompanying information. They are used in spectral analysis.

The difficulties involved in deciphering light waves with a frequency of one cycle per hour or longer is problematical (mechanically Very Happy

) Yet these frequencies probably exist. They are predicted by DeSiter and Einstein, and probably by Hoyle (Cambridge Univ, 1949)

As to the discussion "Is the Universe Infinite" I think that the Cosmic Microwave Background Emissions are equally well predicted by the "Big Bang-Expanding Universe" theories or the "Steady State (infinite) Universe" which has been around some fifty five years or so. Matter of fact I strongly suspect that some time in the next "few"(a relative term Smile

) years the discovery of an Cosmic Extra Long Wave Radiation Emission horizon will be announced. I will be theorized to be remnants of the shock wave as "space" (defined as ordered) expanded into "not space" (defined as chaotic,or a Void :wink: )

As a mechanic I cannot compress a Universe into a dimensionless point containing enormous (perhaps infinite) amounts of energy but I darn sure can expand light so that a whole Observable Universe is less that one wave length in diameter. (to an observer that is :wink: )

Wanna Bet Question

Brandon, Darned good thing that we are in "Philosophy and Debate" and not in "Science and Mathematics" Eh. Laughing

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Brandon, Darned good thing that we are in "Philosophy and Debate" and not in "Science and Mathematics" Eh.

I take it, then, that it is your opinion, that if one discusses chemistry or automotive mechanics on the Philosophy board, and discusses matters that have been well understood for a long time without possessing any knowledge of them, one should be immune to correction? Most of what has been discussed here has been well understood and tested many times for about a century.

0 Replies

Is the Universe Infinite?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know