the universe and space....?

Ican, What if v= the speed of light? (You have several questions in this paragraph)

What if v = the speed of light? If it's mass is zero then it isn't light. The particle only has mass whilst travelling.
SO therefore, No Mass, No light, No observer.

2) Can a particle accelerate or decelerate. No it always "propagates" at "c" but the force and direction of gravity affects space time. And "c" has been shown to vary with different mediums, and its direction has been shown to vary with gravity. SO the answer is yes-- to an observer. Albert was very careful about that point

3) As I mentioned before, other things do contribute to the shift. That is why it's necessary to quantify each "thing" before we can determine if a galaxy is actually receeding.

3a) Nope, The gravitationally induced "red shift" will vary with the space-time between emitter and observer. The bigger and flatter the "arch" the further apart the marbles will get. Both ways

4. What could something else be

1) The Doppler effect. Actual motion that we could measure with a tapemeasure and a stop watch.

2)Loss of energy per particle- Each time a particle hits, (or a wave engulfs) is misdirected by, bounces off a hydrogen atom in intersteller space some energy is lost (transferred to motion). (longer wave = lower energies).

3) Intersteller dust.

4) Diffusion of energies- each particle is spread over a larger area. Also may be an effect of differing "speeds of time".

5) Gravitational Effect. (or the total effect of the spacetimes involved)
5a) Effect of the path of the light being lengthened due to its passage through a spacetime running perpendicular (or at some angle to) the direct path from here to there. (this will affect the spacetime that the light is exposed to. (call them bumps in the arch) Any "bump" would have the effect of increasing the amount of spacetime exposure.

You must KNOW each of these effects BEFORE you can determine IF Our Observable Universe is expanding.

You are betting on the doppler effect. Yes for Andromeda probably that has the greatest effect to us.
For the limits of OOU probably the gravitational effects take over for us as "observers".

6) Yes, they are trivial, but as with a truckload of sand, the effects are accumalative. Thats why dump trucks have such big tires .

7) YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, Now figure the orbit of something travelling the orbital speed of the solar system plus "c". I bet'cha can't see me with your light. After you emit the light you can do no more with it. The particles are subject only to the hazards of spacetime until I see it.

Can I do it without cosmic expansions or contractions
Yep, no sweat--- Allegedly, (this is more your forte than mine)

A guy named DeSiter did it in 1924,
Einstein did it before the "observations" of the red shift. Then he spent a lot of time trying to make his theory fit the alleged observations. (The cosmological constant) IMO he should have been more logical but I can understand the reluctance of a Jew in the thirties and forties to rock the boat very much.)
I allege that the cause of the observations are improperly attributed.
A guy named Fred Hoyle did it about 1949
A guy named Hannes Alfven did it in the 1980s.

Certainly WE (thats us folks) with our sixty digit calculator sitting in front of us ought to probably be able to do it, Maybe Perhaps , possibly

Now how many parsecs away is that star up there Which way is it going, relative to us, Relative to that star up there

I don't understand this paragraph. It is alleged that a photon is both a particle and a wave. When one observes a photon, its collision with one's retina stimulates nerve signals in the brain. So although the impacted photon no longer exists after impact, its effect certainly does. So no mass? OK! No Light? OK! No observer? Naaah, not OK.

2) OK!

3) OK!

4. OK!



OK! That's fundamental. These continue to be researched.



Why probably?



A particle of sand ain't trivial like I mean trivial. I mean trivial in comparison to Doppler effect. Andromeda produces a non-trivial blue shift because it is approaching. Compared to the Doppler effect, the gravitational effect producing a redshift component is trivial. The gravitational field of Andromeda ain't trivial, yet its red shift effect is trivial in comparison to its blue shift, and that results in a net non-trivial blue shift.



Like I said before: You/I should live so long!



First, I do not agree that any of these folks did it: that is, provided evidence that the universe was not expanding. Explain why/how you think they did do it.

Einstein invented his cosmological constant to make his equations imply an infinite steady state universe. He did that because at the time he believed there was such a thing.

The rest of those guys came up with alternate forms of Einstein's equations that implied an infinite steady state universe under special conditions. But those conditions have never been verified to actually exist by scientific observation/inference.

For example, de Sitter's model showed that for a completely empty of stuff universe, Einsteins equations imply a static universe. Duh! Add a tiny bit of stuff and de Sitter's universe would immediately begin to expand and continue to expand at an increasing rate with a cosmological constant different than Einstein's.

A guy you didn't mention was the Russian Alexander Friedman. (See Donald Goldsmith's, "The Runaway Universe", pages 10-Note, and top half of 37.)

Soon after Einstein came out with his original equations, Friedman (also Lemaitre), before Hubble's observations, demonstrated that the cosmological constant cannot really keep the universe in a static state, because the constant produces an unstable balance between the universe's tendency toward expansion or contraction. His analysis of Einstein's equations showed that the slightest (e.g., quantum) deviation from a perfect balance would cause the universe to expand or contract. With a cosmological constant = zero, the universe would be expanding. If the cosmological constant = zero, the curvature of space (positive, negative, or flat) depends directly on the density of stuff in the universe. Any model of an expanding universe must have begun its expansion at a particular moment in time.



The first one I looked at today is at a distance of approximately one parsec divided by 206,265. A second star I looked at tonight. I guess it is approximately 3.26 light years away (give or take a light year) and is at a distance of 1 parsec. The first star is alleged to be approaching the second star or vice versa -- or both. So far the first star is pretty much keeping its distance from us.

Ican, Briefly. It's getting late here in Almost Heaven.
"I don't understand this paragraph." If it has no mass then it's not light and you can't see it hence no observer. Actually it becomes information once it has impinged upon your eyeball.

They are continueing to be researched. OK the conclusions are premature. I been saying that for a couple years.

Why Probably. Cause I haven't done the math yet but my instincts say that because the speed in relation to us of Andromeda is fixed but the
the GE red shift is dependent upon the masses, distance and time between us an them. The bigger those three factors become the more the shift. And the further we look the redder it gets.

Andromedas "Blue shift" is caused by her rotation. One side of Andromeda is coming in our direction, the other side is leaving. To see what Andromeda is really doing we must average the shifts. And gravity will red shift the center more than the arms. And we are also moving kind of catywampus to her. Have fun with the calculator

I am trying to argue that the observation of the "red shift" is too fraught with potential errors to be used as any indication of what OOU is doing.

Consequently The Expanding Universe cannot be used as justifying any beliefs in a beginning.

What it's actually doing I sure don't KNOW. I know what I'd like it to be doing though.

It may very well be expanding. It may very well be contracting. It very well may be doing none of those.

But with at least a dozen different scenarios kicking around, all espoused by Phd's of various flavors I am beginning to think something is a little rotten in cosmology.

So I have explained why "mechanically" that any Created type universe theories cannot be proven. Nor can I prove that it was always here. Nor should I have to. The burden of proof normally rests on those making a claim. The "Big Bangers" are making a claim that cannot be shown.

But if it was always here you are spared the difficulty of figureing out where it was when it wasn't . Since nobody can show that it once was wasnt and if it wasn't ever not then no creation event is ever necessary .

IMO it is more probable that TU was always here than to assume a creation and an expansion that cannot be shown.

Since theologists are unable to agree on a name for God despite ten thousand years of studying the matter perhaps I may be forgiven for assuming that Gods may not exist.

For similar reasons perhaps I may assume that a beginning never happened.

Now purer Fancy IMO Natch

DeSiters Universe works perfectly if massless. It also works if it is infinitely homogeneous. Try it out I have tried it out and got a fierce headache . (Try to lay out an orbital pattern in four dimensions) On the microwave scale it appears homogenous to a very very small amount. Check out the CMBR probe on the net. I suspect that if we could see longer waves at that distance it would be perfectly homogenous. But due to the nature of EMR we are not currently able to see longer waves at that distance. This is more a reflection on the mechanical limitations of electromagnetic radiation than an observation of the Cosmos.

Einstein predicts that light waves given infinite spacetime will result in EMR of infinite length. Thats simple enough math for even me I agree completely.

I also agree generally with Steven Hawkings vis-avis "Black Holes". Mechanically they act as "heat sinks" or mass-energy concentrators, thus rather neatly clearing up the problem of infinite energies in OOU which as I understand it was a big stumbling block for those early theoretical physicists. How ever I don't think that they evaporate as he would like them to. I do think that they, like any other mechanical device can only change radically when the forces tearing them apart exceed the forces holding them together. They "Blow Up". I suspect that this process is an early part of galaxy formation. Or a late part of one dying for that matter.

So IMO again, There are probably better ways of viewing the cosmos than making assumptions which cannot even be theorized in four dimensions. What we see is what we've got. There is no reason to assume that the masses and energies that are responsible for the red shift and the MW background are much different that the ones right in our neighborhood.

So I predict that someday I will be able to tell you exactly how much spacetime is necessary to redshift visible light to the microwave spectrum.
And I further predict that some techie sometime is going to come up with a prism type arrangement that will enable us to determine what "color" (temperature) those microwaves were when they were emitted. After that its simply physics. Infinitely

Here's a partial discussion of a few of your points.



Many posts ago, probably in another thread, I suggested an inversion of what then was the standard graph plot of distance in megaparsecs = D versus fractional increase of redshift = Z. I offered a graph of fractional increase of redshift = Z versus distance in megaparsecs = D.

Very approximate:
When D = 10, then Z = 0.00105,
When D = 100, then Z = 0.0105,
When D = 1,000, then Z = 0.105,
When D = 4,000, then Z = 0.404,
When D = 10,000, then Z = 1.05.

Now we can hypothetically attribute all that Z to space travel.

Note: 4,000 Megaparsecs x 3.26 = 13.04 billion light years.

Here is a very approximate set of formulas:

Z = D Megaparsecs/9,524 Megaparsecs = V km per sec/c km per sec.

V = c x D/9,524.

V/D = MyConstant = 1/M = c/9,524 = 300,000/9,524 = km per sec per Megaparsec = 31.5 km per second per Megaparsec.

[Hubble is probably spinning in his grave over my calculation. Current estimates of Hubble's constant are 72 km per sec per Megaparsec. ]

Age of Universe = M = 3.26 light years per megaparsec x 1 Megaparsec/31.5 km per sec = 3.26 x (300,000 km/sec x 1,000,000 yrs x Y sec/yr / 31.5 km/sec)/Y sec/yr = 3.26 x 9,523,809,524 years = 31.04761905 billion years.

M = ~31.05 billion years.

But to verify that all that Z is caused by space travel, we have to compute the Z for light traveling known distances, say, 1 parsec.

We should observe a Z = D/9,524 = 1/9,524 = 1.05 x 10^(-10).

Do we observe that? Hellsbells, can we even measure Z that accurately?

Let's try 1 Megaparsec! For that, Z = 1.05 x 10^(-4).



We observe/infer a net blue shift of the light from Andromeda. I'm guessing that is because all of Andromeda is net approaching us.

You wrote: "And gravity will red shift the center more than the arms." But light from the center of Andromeda is actually net blue shifted despite that gravity.




I did that above, very approximately.



This has allegedly already been done. The Z you are looking for is approximately the Z that I computed above: Zcmbr = 0.404. That computes to a distance of 4,000 Megaparsecs. As I wrote above that equates to 13.04 billion years of space travel time.

RECOMMENDATION

Let me help you make sure you understand my calculations above so that you are in a better position to critique them. It will help a lot if you stay with your questions for a few posts, before you resume your assertions.

Yes, I remember asking you but that post never got here. Computer went to the shop for a month about that time. I will print and keep this one, along with some of your others.

Net blue shift from Andromeda. Two ships that are passing in the night. No problem. Anytime that velocity exceeds the speeds attributable to spacetime this will happen.

This may have something to do with why I have a red light on the left side of my sailboat and a green one on the right. There is also a white one on the back but we can't see Andromedas.

I won't comment now. I do appreciate the way you are approaching the problem. Actually you started me on it about December 2000, so I guess it's all your fault .

Thanks, M

You're very welcome. Thank you. Your questions and assertions have been very helpful to me. Thanks to you, I have researched much more thoroughly than I would have otherwise. Also, thanks to you, you might note that I say alleged a lot more, and am more skeptical of what cosmologists and astrophysicists allege.

Mech,
I made an error in my calculation of M, the age of the universe. I forgot to multiply by 3.26. I've edited that post to make the correction. The corrections in that paragraph on calculating M are shown in bold.

Thanks Ican, I will not comment specifically yet, other than I think that you are beginning to realize that there is a lot more hypothesizing and less observing going on than most allege.

Next I will print a verbatim excerpt from the news magazine "The Week', dated Oct 31st, 2003. It is self explanatory :wink: ry Item in the Science and Technology section.

OUR FINITE UNIVERSE

The age old idea of an infinitely large universeis now under challenge, reports Nature (mag).
Scientists at the Paris Observatory used NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisatrophy Probe to measure ripples in the "cosmic microwave background," the afterglow radiation from the big bang.
The size and strength of the ripples gives the astronomers clues about the size of the universe: An infinite universe, like the ocean,would be expected to produce large ripples, while a small universe, like a bathtub,would produce smaller ones. The pattern of wavelengths the French scientists observed was said to match that produced by a finite universe--- shaped like a soccer ball and a mere 70 billion light years across.
That would be shocking if true, says Dr. Simon Driver of Australian National University. "It's as if youve been in a single room all your life and you want to know whether there's anything beyond that room," he says. Discovering that the universe is finite is like "saying, actually, that the room is all there is too it".

Need I say more Good evening, M

This post is intended to be wryly humorous. Not necessarily pertainent and certainly not deserving of an answer.

The French Scientists just found a 35 billion year old universe.
You just found one about 31 billion years old.

That proves it, OOU is expanding. OR I am getting old twice as fast as I thought I was Or maybe only 1/2 as fast

Need I say more? Yep, that need and what follows is all your fault! I accept zero responsibility for it.

What is a scientific person's working hypothesis?

A scientific person's working hypothesis is that which that person seeks to find observations/inferences that make that working hypothesis probably true or probably false.

What is the stuff of our universe?

The stuff of our universe consists of our universe's space, energy, matter, and time.

I infer that your working hypothesis -- Mech -- is that the stuff of our universe is infinite.

My working hypothesis -- ican --is that the stuff of our universe is finite.

Here's are alternate ways to state both hypotheses. Please let me know whether or not you agree these statements are valid equivalents to our respective working hypotheses.

Mech: There exists no boundary between our universe and nothing.

ican: There exists a boundary between our universe and nothing.

Can we sensibly define nothing? I propose that we define nothing to be the absence of stuff. That definition permits nothing to be something that is absent stuff. We are then free to hypothesize nothing to be any something other than stuff that our respective intuitions suggests it is. Which of course leaves us in that precarious state of mind of intuiting nothing to be something.



Well, if nothing were in fact something, the obvious question cannot help but raise its mind twisting head: What is that something that is allegedly nothing?

My intuition suggests that something is that which even the tiniest of a quantum perturbation causes that something to turn into expanding stuff within and bounded by that something.

What other characteristic of that something can cause such a quantum perturbation? Is it a chance thing that exists in that something? Or is it a deterministic thing that exists in that something? Or is it a willful thing that exists in that something? Or is it no thing that exists in that something? Or is it some combination of these things that exists in that something? Can we ever observe that something, so as to infer what thing or things that something actually is?

Possibly, I, in particular, will never propose or guess an answer. But, then, never is a long time.

Mech, you are implicitly defining nothing as the absence of something also. But your something, mech's-something, is defined as all there is, was, or ever will be, which you call the cosmos (i.e., more exactly, the boundless cosmos).

So beware our debate, then, could evolve (or devolve) into a debate over the definition of nothing.

Ain't that somethin'?

Yes Ican,

I hope that this debate doesn't evolve into giving a name to nothing and then defining nothing as having various attributes.

But nothing, should one exist, will have no attributes. It may well be that nothing never was . But if nothing once was then you need a creation event to to change nothing into something. A non event perhaps

Seriously; Adam left me alone for a while this afternoon so I spent a little more time building my acceleration charts for nothing Actually if something it was for the Milky Way viv-a-vis Andromeda. If it works out like it should then I will be able to have a correction factor for the "speed of time". However I have tried a lot of things that haven't worked out like they should.

Nothing-- 1a. No Thing at all: Something that does not exist.
b. The absence of all magnitude or quanity.

Nothingness--The quality or state of being nothing: as
a. Absence of being

(Websters Third New International Dictionary) (1971)

Good enough for now

I agree that you have stated our hypotheses adequetly.

Concessions and assumptions that WE have agreed to.

I exist and you exist as discrete entities. ( We have each agreed to accept the others testimony as to existence.)
My perceptions exist in my mind, your perceptions exist in your mind.
Our perceptions are similar, our senses are similar.

So I hypothesize that "nothing never existed". ie. There always has been something.
So you hypothesize that "nothing" existed.

Seems to me that the burden of proof is yours to bear.

Ya wanna go on from there

You have nothing to fear, since I was just foolin' with nothing. I'll not discuss nothing after this post unless you request me to. Nothing does have three attributes, however. It exists or doesn't exist, nothing is not worth discussing, and nothing provides a fun play on words.

Oh, yes, and that's somethin'! :wink:

In the meantime, I seriously await your serious response.

Yes, I agree that the burden of proving the probability of the existence of nothing is mine to bear.

Proof: I assume: nothing to it. My assumption, nothing to it, is probably true. Then it exists. Thus, nothing exists! QED

No, spare us both; I don't want to go on from there. :wink:

Nothing serious,

I was working on the table of accelerations but I couldn't really get into it.

After I check the math a few more times I intend to ask you to check it. Not tonight though. Have a good evening, M

Ican, You may want to see the thread entitled--

Nova: The Elegant Universe and String Theory.

I checked it out. I think I shall remain only an observer of that thread and not a participant.

Some time ago, I bought Brian Green's Book, "The Elegant Universe". It was an interesting read. I continue to study it. Here's something relevant to what we have discussed.

From Chapter 14: Reflections on Cosmology,
The Standard Model of Cosmology:

"The modern theory of cosmic origins dates from the decade and a half after Einstein's completion of general relativity. Although Einstein refused to take his own theory at face value and accept that it implies that the universe is neither eternal or static, Alexander Friedman did. And as we discussed in Chapter 3, Friedman found what is known as the big bang solution to Einstein's equations -- a solution that declares that the universe violently emerged from a state of infinite compression, and is currently in the expanding aftermath of tat primeval explosion."

About 8 months after Friedman's publication of his work, Einstein finally agreed Friedman's work was valid and free of flaws. About five years later, Hubble's discoveries convinced Einstein that Friedman's model was not only interesting, but was a highly relevant model of our actual universe's beginnings and current behavior.

My reaction to String Theory, Super String Theory, etc. is that possibly it is also a valid, highly relevant model of our universe.

My own model, a spinning universe whose rate of acceleration of expansion diminishes as the universe expands and slows its rate of spin in harmony with the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, explains why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate with no need for so-called dark energy, or energy of the vacuum, etc.. My model is also a possiblly valid and relevant model.

Your model, a static infinite universe is also a possibly valid and relevant model.

It is possible that nothing doesn't exist.

It is possible that nothing does exist.

It is possible that something outside our universe exists that is composed of stuff that doesn't exist in our universe, and that is infinite.

It is possible that something outside our universe exists that is composed of stuff that doesn't exist in our universe, and that is finite such that other, more outer stuff not composed of any that first outside stuff's stuff, is infinite (or finite, et cetera et cetera ... et cetera).

It is possible that some day some intelligent organism will evolve and determine what is probably true about what is outside our ability to observe/infer.

It is possible an infinite God does not exist.

It is possible an infinite God does exist.

It is possible a finite God does not exist.

It is possible a finite God does exist.

But Mech, for me, the only truly interesting questions are those concerned with what is probably true? If we can only possibly and not probably observe/infer it, I tend to ignore it or occassionally for intellectual fun fantasize it.

Yes Ican,

Thats where the interesting things are. Assigning probabilities to possible events is what practical physics should be all about. The highly speculative events, ie ones that cannot be seen, understood, or are impossible in the four dimensions are often published as theory.

IMO, at that point they are religion, and some of the proponents tend to act as if you were questioning the existence of their gods. . However the majority will allow you to question which effectively separates physics and religion.

To assert that the Big Bang probably never happened probably will be less harmful to my health that to assert that God probably never existed.
We should be thankful for small blessings !

I think that is probably true. Actually, based on a great great deal of anecdotal evidence, I'm convinced it's true.



Now or in your future probably less harmful? It's possible They don't keep records there Now, based on current prevalent religious fundamentalist psychology, asserting anything non-fundamentalist can possibly be harmful.

Mech,

I want to amend my previous formula for Z as a function of D to reflect the alleged fact that the speed of expansion (i.e., speed of separation of galaxies) of our universe is accelerating.

Let OO/IU = Our Observable/Inferable Universe.
Let OS = Our Stuff = the space, matter, energy, time that exists in OO/IU.
Let NOO/IU = Not Our Observable/Inferable Universe.
Let NOS = Not Our Stuff = not the space, matter, energy, time that exists in OO/IU.

ASSUME
[Note: The numbers I assume here are for my mathematical convenience. Should they turn out to be eventually scientifically validated, immediately begin searching for another "star in the east".]
1. The radius of OO/IU = R = 10,000 Megaparsecs.
2. NOS is composed of entirely different kinds of stuff than is OS.
3. WHATAM = OO/IU + NOO/IU.
4. Z = (D^1.006)/10,000.

CALCULATIONS

R = 10,000 Megaparsecs x 3.26 light years per megaparsec = 32.6 billion light years.

THEN
When D = 1, then Z = 0.0001,
When D = 10, then Z = 0.0010391,
When D = 100, then Z = 0.010233,
When D = 1,000, then Z = 0.10423
When D = 10,000, then Z = 1.056818.

IF
Z = V/c, then Z = V/c = (D^1.006)/10,000.
THEN V = c x (D^1.006)/10,000.

THEN @ D = 10,000 Megaparsecs: V = c x (10,000^1.006)/10,000= 317,045 km/sec.
Thus, V per Megaparsec (@ D = 10,000) = M = 31.7045 = 31.7 km/sec.

THEN @ D = 1 Megaparsecs: V = c x (1^1.006)/10,000= 30.00000 km/sec.
Thus V per Mgaparsec (@ D = 1) = M = 30.00000 = 30.0 km/sec.

Please notice that M increases with increases in D.

CALCULUS
Acceleration @ 10,000 Megaparsecs = A = dV/dt = 1.006 x c x (D^0.006)/10,000 = 31.89475 = 31.9 km per sec per sec.

For purposes of our discussion, since the actual numbers are still not determined, we can use these numbers.