|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the Fabric of space made out of? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey buz,
Let me throw in my two sense worth and see if we can shed some light ... There are two phenomenon's involved here that are partly related. Consider the problem of determining what the original wavelengths coming from a star are -- is the star naturally redder or bluer than the sun? If the star is very far away it could be a blue giant that looks more yellow than blue now that the light is redder than originally -- or it could just be a closer red giant -- how would we know? Now lets consider your cloud reddened sun and moon: if the light were shifted to the red end of the spectrum, then not only would the infra-red be shifted out of visible range, but the ultra-violet would be shifted in to fill in for the blue light that has been shifted to the yellows -- you know those pesky "uv" rays that cause sunburn right (and we know that the sun produces a lot too eh)? So it would not appear redder if all the light was shifted. What is happening is that light is being absorbed by the material in between the sun and the earth -- the atmosphere (which is thicker along the tangents for dawn and dusk than for perpendiculars at noon) or clouds (particularly chemical smogs). In this case blue light is being absorbed. Why blue? Because the elements in our atmosphere have a "preference" for those wavelengths (other elements have different "preferences"). What this has to do with is the energy required to make electrons change orbits in an atom: each orbit has a specific energy level, so there are quantified levels needed to move electrons from one orbit to another, and the quantified amount depends on the orbits available which depends on the elements in question. Likewise (if memory serves) different wavelengths of light have different electron orbit energies associated with them (although energy is carried in the amplitude of waves) due to the harmonics of the wavelengths with the electron orbits. Thus each particular electron orbit in each element has a specific wavelength associated with absorbing and releasing energy. There are only certain orbits allowed in atoms, so there is a quantified energy "signature" for each orbit relative to each other possible orbit that each element can use. Now these atoms also release energy at the same wavelengths as they absorb them, but they do this in random directions, so they are not directed in the same direction as the original light. Result: orange or red {sun\moon (or even venus in some conditions)} ... oh, and blue skies too (it's the same process) Now here is where it gets a little tricky: that same absorption process is going on with the interstellar light: this is those black {lines\bars\areas} on Jons picture of light from the sun. So again, how do we tell distant star light is shifted? Well it has to do with the locations of the black {lines\bars\areas} within the viewed spectrum. Each element has a "signature" that has to do with the specific quantum energy levels needed to move those electrons up and down the orbit ladders. We know what these frequency levels are for all the elements, and thus we can look at the pattern of light from a distant star and find where in the spectrum the whole pattern of dark {lines\bars\areas} match up to the elements in question (they all shift together if the whole spectrum is being shifted right?) and the amount that this elemental pattern has shifted is what is know as the red shift. It has nothing to do with the actual light being observed (because again, it could be a red or a blue giant eh?) Does that help? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I graduated from HS in 1965. yeah the cars with the ticker tapes marked by doorbell ringers to measure acceleration, the wave tanks, waving slinkies in the halls ... lots of good stuff. (watch out for percy ...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Thanks for your response, Sylas. The problem I see in your explanation is that you are, before doing things in/with space adding things like circle boundaries, light, gravity, magnatism, et al relative to your work of measurement and your observation and conclusions. If the universe had none of the above in it and absolutely nothing else, including nothing to make it bounded/bind it, i.e. boundless void, what is there to do anything like curving and stretching. For example, how could there be anything to effect gravitation in an absolute boundless void? As per your explanation it appears that your measurements and observations of space is relative to the items you mentioned in that explanation.
Maybe I need to clarify my statement here......"My argument implicates that alleged curvature and expansion of space is a missinterpretation of that which occupies space as being observed." .......to this: My argument implicates that alleged curvature and expansion of space is being assumed relative to specified bounded areas of it being studied or relative to the area of space, in which things like light, gravity, et al exist. Thanks for the "Foundations" link. I've got it into my favorites for some reading. In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Thanks much, my friend, for going to the work of explanation here. Coupled with Jon's post, it should be a help in my study of this interesting topic relative to space. I've not grasped enough for a sensible response to it yet as for sure, I've got some homework to do on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Thanks again, Jon, for kindly spending the time to explain this. It's a lot to ponder, study and think on. Don't expect a response soon on this.
In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5286 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
Thanks for the "Foundations" link. I've got it into my favorites for some reading. And thank you... though I did recommend this page, I found it difficult. It’s more advanced than many more simplified descriptions; and trying to follow it was a motivation for me to do more study using a full relativity textbook; a project on which I am still engaged. Without doing a full course in physics, we are going to have to settle for simplified non-technical descriptions; and that is true of Egan’s page as well, for all that he makes a good attempt at technical accuracy. The problem is that people skip over the maths; and look to the pictures, and think of space as being a rubber sheet or whatever; confusing the analogy with the reality. To some extent, you're going to have to take my word on it (and the words of others) that the non-technical descriptions we are giving can be filled in with more detail. Egan’s page is only an introduction. I have some more vague ideas for posts with more detail, and with a less maths, but it is hard work to make a short web article convey something useful to an interested amateur. I am also aware of how much more I still need to learn. You may reword your position how you like. But inevitably, because you don’t actually know much physics, and because you are in effect trying to set up alternatives to real science, your descriptions end up being wrong, and people who do know more physics will keep trying to point out the mistakes in various ways. Hard as it may be to accept, the conventional understanding of modern physics is that space itself can be distorted and curved. The attempts to explain observations as distortions or properties for the things occupying space turns out not to work well. It is a failed model. I'm sure we'll continue to answer questions and explain issues as best we can; and that we'll continue to point out that even better and more details answers can be found with the hard work of further study and lots of maths. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
Sylas writes: You may reword your position how you like. But inevitably, because you don’t actually know much physics, and because you are in effect trying to set up alternatives to real science, your descriptions end up being wrong, and people who do know more physics will keep trying to point out the mistakes in various ways. True or not, this has the potential to draw the thread off-topic. Buzsaw has asked for the evidence that space is curved. This seems a significant challenge at a layperson's level, not as directly answerable as the "red-shift versus red-filter" issue. You're doing most of the work on the "bending of space" issue, perhaps others can try to catch up and help out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4333 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzz, this isn’t meant for you to answer, simply to consider. The reason I am putting it forward is that it might give you a different take on space. Just consider this more like a Zen concept.
What is TIME made of?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Trae. I assume your question has to do with time, relative to space, space being the thread topic. I'm sure you've heard the term, "time and eternity." Imo, time is the finite measurement of any given segment of eternity, and like space, consists of nothing and is made of nothing, but different from space in that space is existing area in which things exist.
Time is temporal and finite, whereas space is infinite and boundless, as per the buzsaw hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4870 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
The absorption spectrum is based on the fact that white light is being produced in the stars interior and some of it gets absorbed in the stars atmosphere and are own. If this is correct, does anyone know why white light is being produced?
I couldn't find a satisfactory way to state that in Google, so maybe one of you folks can help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4333 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Why can't Time also be an area in which things exist?
You say time is a measurement, but is it just a measurement? Consider that space can be measured, but you don't seem to consider that space is just a measurement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
If this is correct, does anyone know why white light is being produced? "White" is a label for something that has no objective existence. It's sort of misleading to say "white light is being produced". It's more accurate to say that "something near to a black-body spectrum is being produced, and our eyes are sensitive to the wavelengths near the peak of the emission and we call the presence of all those wavelengths 'white' ". (BTW, it's not particularly surprising that our eyes evolved to be sensitive to the part of the spectum in which the Sun puts out the most energy). If we had evolved on a planet around a very different star, we would see a totally different range of wavelengths and call them "white". The Sun is radiating energy at a rate that is almost exactly like a black body (a theoretical construct that radiates energy in a way that is characteristic of its temeprature) at around 5700K (9,800°F). See Black Body Radiation, especially the pictures at the end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think the question is, that if the absorption and emission of light is quantified by the energy levels of the electron orbits, then why is light more broad-band than the absorption bars?
I notice your link goes on to spectroscopy
(harvaard.edu link) with a good view of absorbed
and emitted light
from the same element (the different bars being related to the different orbit energy levels) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Why can't Time also be an area in which things exist? You say time is a measurement, but is it just a measurement? Consider that space can be measured, but you don't seem to consider that space is just a measurement. My warehouse takes up a finite measurable three dimensional spatial area. Inside my warehouse is a three dimensional apatial area in which I store my things. I call this spatial area space. Time is the universe's 4th dimension, the time dimension, which measures the proportion/segment of eternity which the three spatial dimensions of my warehouse, i.e. warehouse space, are occupied with existing things of mine. Does that help? The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Consider that space can be measured, but you don't seem to consider that space is just a measurement. Like time relative to eternity, designated areas of space can be measured, but imo, the space of the universe is boundless and immeasurable as to it's totality. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024