the universe and space....?

ican711nm wrote:

I'd like to return to the following definitions and their implications (e.g., my hypotheses).

MY DEFINITIONS

A Possibility is that which has a finite chance of being true.

An Impossibility is that which has a zero or infinitesimal chance of being true.

A Probability is that Possibility which is inferred to be more likely (i.e., have the best or greatest chance) to be true than any other Possibility.

HYPOTHESES

1. It is a Probability that our observable/inferable universe is finite in time, space, and stuff (i.e., matter and energy).

2. It is a Probability that our observable/inferable universe has a propensity to evolve intelligent life within it.

3. It is a Probability that our observable/inferable universe is all there is/was/will be.

I see you still have the audacity to suppose that because you think the UNIVERSE is finite -- you are free to assert that "the UNIVERSE is finite" has a better chance of being true than "the UNIVERSE is infinite."

It never ceases to amaze me that so much illogical blather of that sort shows up in these forums.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

... I see you still have the audacity to suppose that because you think the UNIVERSE is finite -- you are free to assert that "the UNIVERSE is finite" has a better chance of being true than "the UNIVERSE is infinite."

It never ceases to amaze me that so much illogical blather of that sort shows up in these forums.

"It never ceases to amaze me that so much illogical blather" continues to flow from you in support of your frivilous assertion that "WE WILL PROBABLY NEVER KNOW ...".

You appear not to comprehend the meaning of the words DEFINITION and HYPOTHESIS. So here's some help.

Quote:

Main Entry: def·i·ni·tion
Pronunciation: "de-f&-'ni-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English diffinicioun, from Middle French definition, from Latin definition-, definitio, from definire
Date: 14th century
1 : an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions> c : a product of defining
3 : the action or process of defining
4 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond definition> b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist definition>
- def·i·ni·tion·al /-'ni-sh&-n&l/ adjective

Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation: hI-'pä-th&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put -- more at DO
Date: circa 1656
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.

I am no less free than you (or anyone else) to hypothesize what I think is probably true.

So far, you have not proven yourself competent to describe relevant observations/inferences that suggest that what you think is possible has a finite probability of being true.

I think Mech, Bo, Satt, and I among many others (none of us wholly in mutual agreement) have proven ourselves competent to describe relevant observations/inferences that suggest that what we think is possible has a finite probability of being true.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
... I see you still have the audacity to suppose that because you think the UNIVERSE is finite -- you are free to assert that "the UNIVERSE is finite" has a better chance of being true than "the UNIVERSE is infinite."

It never ceases to amaze me that so much illogical blather of that sort shows up in these forums.

"It never ceases to amaze me that so much illogical blather" continues to flow from you in support of your frivilous assertion that "WE WILL PROBABLY NEVER KNOW ...".

I have never ever said we will probably never know -- and I suspect you know that.

As for your definitions -- I suggest you stow them where the sun is least likely to bleach them.

I acknowledge that Bo, Mech, and Satt are still willing to play your silly little game, and are willing to continue to show you respect.

I respect them for that.

But I've decided to deal with reality -- and the reality is that you suck when it comes to playing games.

You cheat.

We golfers have to be our own refs and umps. We don't tolerate cheaters -- and we do not abide them easily.l

Deal with that -- or lump it.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have never ever said we will probably never know -- and I suspect you know that.

I suspect your memory is failing you "-- and I suspect you know that." You said almost exactly this many times in Abuzz posts. Your complete statement was:

"WE DON'T KNOW AND PROBABLY WILL NEVER KNOW the answers to ultimate questions." You several times referred to the "AND PROBABLY WILL NEVER KNOW" part as your "tag line".

Frank Apisa wrote:

But I've decided to deal with reality -- and the reality is that you suck when it comes to playing games.

You cheat.

I infer from this last statement that until now you have not been dealing with reality, but you intend now to turn over a new leaf, so to speak, and start dealing with reality.

Excellent! I commend you for that and I recommend that you start your chosen new behavior by providing a modicum of evidence that I "cheat."

When you're ready and fully prepared for relevant discussion, perhaps you will provide an observation/inference to show why you think the probability of an infinite universe, is finite. Copying the rational arguments of others on this topic might prove to be a helpful beginning for you.

0 Replies

Now Frank;

"I acknowledge that Bo, Mech, and Satt are still willing to play your silly little game, and are willing to continue to show you respect."

Don't you go putting words in my fingers. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Ican,
I disagree with your "I disagree". Agreeably of course.

Mechanically speaking---
A parsec may be defined as say "X"
A parsec observed may or may not equal "X"
In order to locate something at some distance I must be able to triangulate accurately in order to have any confidence in the accuracy of my observations.

second point, Agreed
third point, Agreed, BINGO Very Happy

Your definitions, I agree with them.

Hypotheses Uh-Oh Exclamation

first, No, it's still only a possibility.
second, No, I would, with understandable conceit, regard that as an observation.
third, No it's still only a possibility.

So far, Nope, There is good, nearly incontrovertable, evidence that space-time does cause an "observed red shift". There is also good mechanical evidence that just space (distance) will cause a shift due to loss of energy.(I haven't quantafied {figured out} just how that "factor" works, but it does. It's been theorized and observed.
Also so far, Our Sun IS red shifted to us, more for Jovians and Plutonians,and moreso for the Oort Cloudians. Rolling Eyes

Carl Sagan explained it well in Cosmos, Albert predicted it, and it is observed and corrected for every day by the Hubblers.

My current trouble is that my predictions of "red shift" is nearly double the observed one. Terry pointed out, perhaps inadvertently, that the speed of time at the locations will affect it. I haven't worked it out yet but it seems so far that "time is on my side :wink: ". (will improve the agreement with observations)

Despite major interruptions, Agreed--- Bingo again.

So far--Uh-Oh-- IF there was no "Big Bang" then the source of the CMBR would be located outside our calculated universe. (Fred Hoyles' "tired light" hypothesis) amongst others.

IMO so far anyhow, The Big Bang has been kicked around for some seventy years or so. The Diests jumped on it as a vindication of the Creation Myth of Abramic religions. So what if it moved time back a few billion years or so. Most normal persons could live with an eight billion year discrepancy. A error of scale of about 320,000,000 bothers only the most fundamental Diests. Around the mid thirties the "red shift was observed. When Hubble saw it, this was a vindication of the big bang and the observations would match a big bang scenario. This also, since the Abramists and the Bangers loved it, became "truth". About the mid fifties the noise in the microwave background became obvious. Especially since Bell Labs was experimenting with using microwaves to enhance telephony.
The Big Bangers, the Creationists,and the expanding Universers loved it.
With all these people pouring endowments and grants at "the Big Bang proponents", is it any wonder that DeSiter,Einstein,and Fred Hoyle were left in the dust Question

This, Again IMO, is why most people believe that the Big Bang is a correct interpretation. There's money in it Crying or Very sad

BUT again IMO, An Infinite scenario will PROBABLY Very Happy

work at least as well and will not require any branes, any membranes, any one dimensional objects, any of the 5 thru 21 unobservable dimensions, any voodoo physics, any end of time.(either one)

It Probably will agree more with observations than a "Creation" type scenario. More logical also, IMO natch. But logic has little to do with either government funding or religion. Sad

0 Replies

Frank, IMO this has generally been a fairly labled discussion. as pertaining to the probability of various hypothesis.

I was not, but now I may be, the first to admit that my hypotheses may not be true. Hopefully they will conform to observations as far as they can.

Idea

I have also come to a conclusion that merely because a hypothesis is validated by some interpretations of observations does not necessarily imply that the conclusions are accurate.

The physicist knows that the BB-EU theory is but a theory. The same may not automatically be said of the government bureaucrat that dispenses funds. It certainly cannot be said of our current president.
He apparently regards a "Creation" as a fact. Since the BB--EU theory tends to agree with his "public notions" I suspect that any interpretations of fact that pass muster will be interpretated in the light of the BB-EU being "true". Probably Smile

that is. Maybe.

It amuses me that some self styled physicists get bent out of shape when I questioned the validity of the BB-EU theory.
It also amuses me that some people got bent out of shape when I asked if some "sexually abused" children were actually "harmed".
I amuse easily, Fortunetely Very Happy

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ican,
I disagree with your "I disagree". Agreeably of course.

Mechanically speaking---
A parsec may be defined as say "X"
A parsec observed may or may not equal "X"
In order to locate something at some distance I must be able to triangulate accurately in order to have any confidence in the accuracy of my observations.

Some how I've miscommunicated what a parsec is. It does not change with distance or observation/inference. If a parsec is defined to be equal X, then it is equal to X for all observations/inferences. This is true regardless of whether or not X = 206,265 times the actual median radius of the earth's orbit around the sun. While triangulation is used to check distances to near galaxies, it is worthless (very inaccurate) for computing distance to distant galaxies. The distance to distant galaxies is computed from the brightness of standard candles and/or magnitude of red shift. Once that distance is determined in centimeters, meters, feet, yards, miles, or light years it is converted to parsecs to facilitate convenient sized graphical plots. For example, to compute parsecs from light years merely divide by 3.26.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Hypotheses Uh-Oh

first, No, it's still only a possibility.
second, No, I would, with understandable conceit, regard that as an observation.
third, No it's still only a possibility.

OK, then this is where our discussion should focus. I consider your position rational and the only thing about it, I wish to discuss is our individual reasons for our individual positions.

akaMechsmith wrote:

So far, Nope, There is good, nearly incontrovertable, evidence that space-time does cause an "observed red shift". There is also good mechanical evidence that just space (distance) will cause a shift due to loss of energy.(I haven't quantafied {figured out} just how that "factor" works, but it does. It's been theorized and observed.
Also so far, Our Sun IS red shifted to us, more for Jovians and Plutonians,and moreso for the Oort Cloudians.
Carl Sagan explained it well in Cosmos, Albert predicted it, and it is observed and corrected for every day by the Hubblers.

Yes and No! Yes there is observed red shifts between objects not separating or not approaching. No, the magnitude of this effect is probably not great enough to explain the magnitude of the observed red shift of light from distant galaxies. This is worthy of further debate.

akaMechsmith wrote:

So far--Uh-Oh-- IF there was no "Big Bang" then the source of the CMBR would be located outside our calculated universe. (Fred Hoyles' "tired light" hypothesis) amongst others.

Or possibly its merely the EMR (i.e., electromagnetic radiation) noise of space--expanding, contracting or pulsating..

akaMechsmith wrote:

With all these people pouring endowments and grants at "the Big Bang proponents", is it any wonder that DeSiter,Einstein,and Fred Hoyle were left in the dust

Albert thought his invention of his cosmological constant to explain a non-expanding universe "was the biggest blunder of [his] life" when he learned of and verified Hubble's observations/inferences.

akaMechsmith wrote:

But logic has little to do with either government funding or religion.

That's the best argument of several good arguments that you have thus far presented. Laughing

But we also still need some observations/inferences that these alternate theories you quote are valid. Until such evidence is obtained, I'll remain skeptical.

By the way, many of those who believe in the steady state, infinite universe model are not possessed of any purer intent than their opposition. They are so desperate for an infinite universe that they attack their opposition's arguers (their non-believers) rather than their opposition's arguments. That sort of conduct breeds a great deal of suspicion too.

For me at this time the idea of an infinite universe is no more credible than the idea of an infinite God. Both ideas appear products of fantasy. Of course, what I think is not credible may turn out to be closer to the truth than what is credible to me. I hope I'm around to find out one way or the other. Smile

0 Replies

Ican, I think that you still misunderstand me. I realize that something is
often lost in translating from engineer-speak to mechanic-speak.

I KNOW what a parsec is "defined" to be. If I was an astronomer and an object came into view then I have to set a triangle up somewhere. Since I do not know exactly where I am, nor do I know exactly where I was six months ago I can only judge my position in relation to some fixed stars. Which are not exactly fixed over a few billion years.

So let us say that a certain standard candle is observed to be say, six parcesc out. The brightness of the candle will decrease by the square of the distance. Oops, another guess. (It actually will decrease in some distance and time relationship to relative masses.)(ie, spacetime) Any way lets go on. So all I have to do is set up my trusty exposure meter and determine how many lumens per square inch are indicated. This will give me a standard candle "brightness" from that star at our location which, since I "know" how far it is in parsecs, (by triangulation).
Now lets look at something two or three billion parsecs out. I will see how bright a standard candle at that location is and then deduce its distance. No sweat! If it's one percent as bright then it is ten times further out.

Question

Best case--Worst case what could my error be Question

I suspect that it could be enough to close the Universe Idea

Cousin Adam worked me over a bit today. This is the only thing that has saved you from a long exposition on space time and its influence on light.
Consider your self lucky. If you are interested let me know and I will be glad to expound. Best M.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

For me at this time the idea of an infinite universe is no more credible than the idea of an infinite God. Both ideas appear products of fantasy. Of course, what I think is not credible may turn out to be closer to the truth than what is credible to me. I hope I'm around to find out one way or the other.

Whenever I hear this particular take on this issue, I cannot help but wonder:

How can a person consider the idea of an infinite universe to be implausible...

...yet consider the notion of the universe coming into existence from nothing to be reasonable.

And I have come to the conclusion that this can only be the product of a closed mind.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

... If it's one percent as bright then it is ten times further out.

Best case--Worst case what could my error be

I suspect that it could be enough to close the Universe

OK. I understand your point now.

Worst case is hard for me to calculate. Rolling Eyes

For example, if it were true that standard candles emit the same intensity of light whether they are 4 parsecs or 4,000 Megaparsecs distant, then the error would be zero. Very Happy

However, how do we know whether that's true or not? Crying or Very sad

4,000 million x 3.26 = 13.04 billion light years. Anything we observe at that distance is 13.04 billion years old. How do we know that standard candles that many years ago, met the same light intensity standard as they do much more recently? Damned if I know Exclamation

So, what you suspect is possibly true. I'm unable to determine whether or not it is probably true.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Cousin Adam worked me over a bit today. This is the only thing that has saved you from a long exposition on space time and its influence on light. Consider your self lucky. If you are interested let me know and I will be glad to expound.

I'm a glutton for guesses. Please expound and give your cousin a rest. Laughing

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Whenever I hear this particular take on this issue, I cannot help but wonder:

How can a person consider the idea of an infinite universe to be implausible...

...yet consider the notion of the universe coming into existence from nothing to be reasonable.

And I have come to the conclusion that this can only be the product of a closed mind.

Get real like you promised. You can do it if you try.

Did I write that an infinite universe was "implausible"? I did not!
I wrote that it was no more credible to me than an "infinite God".

Did I write than an infinite God was "implausible" to me? I did not do that either!

I wrote nothing about the plausibility or implausibility of an infinite God.

However, I shall write something about that now using my previously written definitions of possible, impossible and probable.

I think an infinite God is possible but not probable!

Thanks to Mech and others, I think an infinite universe is possible but not probable.

You incorrectly stated what I consider reasonable. I consider the notion of the universe coming into existence from Nothing to be reasonable.

Where Nothing, as I previously hypothesized it, is composed of stuff not of this our observable/inferable universe (i.e., not observable/inferable amongst or exclusive of the stuff in our observable/inferable universe). Not only do I consider that notion "reasonable", I consider it no less possible than an infinite universe.

"There you go again." So you've "come to the conclusion that Question

this

can only be the product of a closed mind. Since you cannot know that for certain, what probability do you estimate for that to be true? More importantly, from what observations/inferences do you draw this conclusion. Providing the rest of us that information would be an excellent start for you to get real. Alternatively, you could perceive how one could reasonably infer that someone who draws that conclusion is a victim of a "closed mind".

0 Replies

Unfortunately, Ican, I have come to realize that you are a phony jerkoff.

I only wish I had discovered that sooner.

Perhaps if I had, I would not have wasted so much time dealing with your nonsense -- and I would not resent the squandered time that I did waste quite as much as I do presently.

You are a dealer of stacked decks -- and obviously, you plan always to be a dealer of stacked decks.

I'm not sure if you ever get any satisfaction out of your bullschidt -- but if you do -- more power to you. I envy anyone who can be that much in denial.

0 Replies

Ican, I will expound.
This will be a bit poetic. I think that all of us here understand that with both thought experiments and descriptions we can dispense for now with things like friction, resistance and other mechanical limitations. We will talk about a perfect universe Smile

which on a grand enough scale it probably is.

The first observation I will mention was observed by both Galileo and Newton. It pertains to how gravity works. We don't care, at this point, what it is, only how it works. You can do this one in your head. The aforementioned persons actually did it in lumber and stone.

Go out in your back yard and build an arch. Shape it like a sideways "parenthesis" but extend both limbs until it forms 1/2 of a circle. On the upper side form a trough sufficient to guide some marbles. This arch is only to slow things down so that you can see whats happening.

Atop the arch put some marbles. You will have to hold them there for a bit with a couple of wedges that can be easily removed.
Push the marbles together so that they are all touching.

Pull out the wedges. You will find that the marbles separate themselves in such a way that you will hear a series of clicks and if your eyes are good enough you will be able to see the separations before the hit bottom.

Basically at the top of the arch the marbles are arrayed similarly to particles in pure space. The size of the marble is translated into wave length. The distance between the tops of any sucessive marbles is a wave length.
Just before the bottom of the arch The marbles will be separated somewhat. This corresponds to an "accelerated wave length".

This analogy breaks down as the marbles don't expand to fill all the space between them. Particles of light do. This is the mechanical basis of the "particle wave duality" nature of electromagnetic energy.

Now build a similar arch between here and Alpha Centauri. I cannot give you the dimensions.

Second part of this hypothesis

Shine a flash light from your backyard along the arch. The wavelength of the light will get longer as gravity lessens. ( the wave crests will get further apart) Go 1/2 way up the arch and measure the wavelength. Now go to Alpha Centauri and measure the wavelength again.

Now is the stinker that Terry so kindly pointed out. Our observation of wave length or frequency is dependent upon the speed of the gravity field ie, time. How many marbles go past our nose in a second is frequency, the distance between marbles is wavelength. Now, if as is widely alleged the two effects cancel out then there would be no effects and we would see light as it was emitted. We don't.

We see Einstein Crosses. We see light displaced by massive objects. We see gravitational lenses. Apparently the effect of gravity upon light is real.

Why does it not cancel out one may reasonably ask. My hypothesis is (working only) that electromagnetic energy when it is acting like light has mass. That is why it is subject to gravity (whatever that is). As a particle is a massive object it may presumed to have inertia. Thus it will accelerate towards another mass but it will never be the same speed as whatever force is accelerating it. It will always lag behind.

Another difficulty being that light propagates at the speed called "c". (Marbles don't). Since the light we see has been propagating ( expanding to fill space perhaps) Smile

for some time you must add "c" to the speed of gravity(time) in order to predict a given "observed" wavelength. Gravity is accumalative. (Drop a marble off the stepladder to show that)
One force for one second will give you a distance. One distance for one second will give you a force. One distance of one force will give you time. And on and on to infinity.

And that in a nutshell is why I suspect strongly that there is PROBABLY enough error in the calculations of "red shift" to close the universe.

Closing the universe would dispense with the need for "Big Bang" or "Creations". We can PROBABLY find better explanations. Hopefully Exclamation

If any one else is listening I would welcome any efforts to disabuse me of these notions. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

I infer from your last post, Frank, that you have abandoned your previously stated goal to get real. It's probably for the best. There's no sense in your attempting to reach a goal which for you in your declining years is unobtainable.

Your fiction is acceptable as such. However, you might consider the following rewrite of your last post an example of how to add a modicum of panche and creativity to your fiction.

edited franky fiction wrote:

Unfortunately, Ican, I can no longer deny myself the conclusion that your postings are the "rambling inconsistencies of the hobgoblin of a weak mind." This saddens me terribly. I had until now longingly hoped for far better from you.

I invested too much time dealing with your frivilous and vacuous ramblings. I grieve over having dissipated so much time in vain hope of your coming to terms with yourself and rectifying your behavior. I finally now realize my time would have been better employed in more worthy activities, and I curse my poor judgment regarding your potential for improvement.

You are a fraudulent perveyor of twisted and corrupted ideas that serve no one's purpose beyond your own -- if they even serve that much purpose.

Nonetheless, I hope for you to enjoy what you can of your remaining pathetic life.

0 Replies

*yawn*

0 Replies

This is a good thought experiment! Let's stay with it.

akaMechsmith wrote:

... How many marbles go past our nose in a second is frequency, the distance between marbles is wavelength. Now, if as is widely alleged the two effects cancel out then there would be no effects and we would see light as it was emitted. We don't.

What do you/they mean by the phrase "the two effects cancel ?

akaMechsmith wrote:

We see Einstein Crosses. We see light displaced by massive objects. We see gravitational lenses. Apparently the effect of gravity upon light is real.

Why does it not cancel out one may reasonably ask. My hypothesis is (working only) that electromagnetic energy when it is acting like light has mass. That is why it is subject to gravity (whatever that is). As a particle is a massive object it may presumed to have inertia. Thus it will accelerate towards another mass but it will never be the same speed as whatever force is accelerating it. It will always lag behind.

Note: The mass of any object is the sum of its rest mass and the mass it exhibits from its velocity/acceleration.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Another difficulty being that light propagates at the speed called "c". (Marbles don't). Since the light we see has been propagating ( expanding to fill space perhaps) for some time you must add "c" to the speed of gravity(time) in order to predict a given "observed" wavelength. Gravity is accumalative. (Drop a marble off the stepladder to show that)
One force for one second will give you a distance. One distance for one second will give you a force. One distance of one force will give you time. And on and on to infinity.

Note: In a gravitational field of constant intensity, a 1st thing possessing mass will accelerate at a constant rate toward the center of the mass of the 2nd thing that is providing the source of the constant gravitational field, such that the 1st thing's velocity steadily increases. But no such 2nd things acting as the source of a constant gravitational field exist. On the surface of the earth acceleration is about 980 cm per second per second toward the earth's center of mass, but that changes with the distance from the earth's center of mass.

Note: In a gravitational field of decreasing intensity (e.g., F = G x M1 x M2/ D^2, where, G is the gravitational constant, M1 is the mass of the 1st thing, M2 is the mass of the 2nd thing, D is the distance between the two things, and there are no other things ), the rate of acceleration decreases inversely with the distance from the center of mass of the source of the gravitational field.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Closing the universe would dispense with the need for "Big Bang" or "Creations". We can PROBABLY find better explanations. Hopefully

What do you mean by the phrase "Closing the universe"?

Would you believe a small snap or any other kind of a beginning?

0 Replies

Ican, Sorry that I didn't clear up that point. The two effects are the red shifting of light due to gravity and the blue shifting of light due to gravity.
Light has been shown to blue shift but only as a "Doppler effect".
First---

Others have claimed that the red shift and blue shift will cancel each other out. Red shift outbound and blue shift inbound. I can't see that happening due to a little thing called time. In this particular case time will indicate the direction of accelerations. An incoming particle will shift less than an outgoing one but unless it exceeds "c" in that space time it cannot blue shift due to gravity. Remember to place your observers in the correct space time and direction. as you work that one out. Twisted Evil

Second---
Unfortunetely light has no rest mass. As light a particle has mass. If it has no mass then it's something else, if it still exists at all.

To an object moving at "c" there is no constant intensity of a gravitational field. ANY intergalactic light that we see is necessarily subject to widely varying forces and directions of gravity fields.
I will explain one of the forces that light, by its very nature is subject to. This impinges upon the difficulty of "observing a parsec" also.

Imagine another solitary star system system basically similar to our solar system. Imagine that it is in another spiral arm of the Milky Way, about the same distance from the center as we are. It will necessarily be about 3000 light years away, say one kiloparsec for openers. Imagine you are there. Imagine further that you are in the arm behind this one relative to the galaxys rotation.

Shine a flash light at me. Now suddenly you have a massive object (the particle) traveling at 300,000 kps faster than the orbital speed at that distance from the Milky Ways center. What do you figure the chances are of me seeing your signal light? Same thing but reversed if I try to signal you back. My light will be travelling at the speed of acceleration at that radius minus "c". Again the orbital distance will be different, (our arch will work both ways). "Somebody failed to note that you can't push a rope".
To an observer (the guy at either end of the rope) neither one is able to push the other guy. They can both run parallel to eachother,circle around eachother, follow any number of convoluted paths, but they can't push. Gravity also and alas, to an observer can only pull. Smile

Fourth, A steady state evolving one. I think that it is possible to explain "mechanically" all of our observations as to "Black Holes", "Quasars", Clouds and other formations without resorting to voodoo physics, Creation Theory, or Cosmic Originations.

a) Nope, I see none necessary, observed, or hypothesized.

At this point the post is poetic. I know how to figure the distance, accelerations, and speeds involved but for purposes of this post it's not worth the bother. Tain't that easy for me Sad

. Wish it were.

0 Replies

Oop's, I said something backward in the last post. I figured you'd catch it. so I will mention it. Best, M.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

An incoming particle will shift less than an outgoing one but unless it exceeds "c" in that space time it cannot blue shift due to gravity.

Let p = some number of parsecs; let e = the surface of the earth. Let v = the initial velocity of the particle. The time for a particle to travel p=>e (i.e., incoming) is different than the time for a particle to travel e=>p (i.e., outgoing). This is true, as I think you pointed out, because the particle accelerates while incoming and decelerates while out going. Net result is that p=>e takes less time than e=>p.

But what if v = the speed of light? Can a particle whose rest mass is zero accelerate while traveling p=>e? Can that particle decelerate while traveling e=>p? I think the answer to both is No! I think all that particle can do is red or blue shift a little depending on whether its source is approaching or departing from us. For the shifts of particles from distant galaxies to be as large as we observe/infer, something else other than gravity must also contribute to the shift. Since only particles from some near galaxies blue shift, and since particles from all other galaxies red shift, I infer that gravity has a very small effect on the size of the shift compared to the something else.

What could something else be? Some say space travel itself induces a red shift in direct proportion to the amount of space traversed. Others say that dark matter distributed throughout space causes the large red shift. Still others like me say Doppler effect causes that large red shift.

I'm betting on the Doppler effect, because I have personally observed its effects on sound as well as light. My senior year student lab work on ultrahigh frequency radar waves was the convincer. Even the relatively small approach and separation speeds of aircraft relative to the radar antenna reveal a small red or blue shift in the reflected waves depending on whether the aircraft is approaching or departing.

akaMechsmith wrote:

To an object moving at "c" there is no constant intensity of a gravitational field. ANY intergalactic light that we see is necessarily subject to widely varying forces and directions of gravity fields.

Yes, and those forces are trivial at galactic distances compared to the intensity of the sun's gravitational field on the earth's surface.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Imagine another solitary star system system basically similar to our solar system. Imagine that it is in another spiral arm of the Milky Way, about the same distance from the center as we are. It will necessarily be about [3,260 ] light years away, say one kiloparsec for openers. Imagine you are there. Imagine further that you are in the arm behind this one relative to the galaxys rotation.

What do you figure the chances are of you/me seeing your/my signal light?

You/I should live so long! Laughing

... My light will be travelling at ["c" plus the relative separation velocities of the orbital velocities of each solar system at their respective radii]. If our respective distances from the center of our galaxy are equal, then the relative separation velocities of the orbiting solar systems will be zero.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Fourth, A steady state evolving one. I think that it is possible to explain "mechanically" all of our observations as to "Black Holes", "Quasars", Clouds and other formations without resorting to voodoo physics, Creation Theory, or Cosmic Originations.

How about doing it without resort to Cosmic expansions and/or contractions? Is that possible?

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know