|
Author
|
Topic: COSMOLOGY
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
Message 6 of 159 (489190)
11-24-2008 10:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
11-24-2008 5:34 PM
|
|
I think NosyNed pegged this phenomena pretty well. Just a couple of more notes on the red/blue shift phenomena. Out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe only about 100 are truely blue shifted (some of the other galaxies that show blue shifts is actually that of their spiral arms that are rotating towards us). Most of these truly blue shifted galaxies are in our Local Group though there are some further out. The reason there are galaxies further away (such as in the Virgo cluster) that are blue shifted is that they are actually rotating around an axis and a few of there members are being swung around in our direction at very high speeds (1600 km/sec) surpassing the speed at which the cluster of galaxies is receding away from us (1100 km/sec). This is not a simple phenomena to understand and there are many different factors we have to consider. All in all the universe is expanding (Hubble's Constant), kind of like NosyNeds analogy of a rubber sheet or an expanding balloon with ants on it. Most of the ants are walking around slower than the balloon is expanding. However those close to our ant (the Milky Way) can walk fast enough in a small distance to overcome (blue shift) the expansion of the balloon (red shift). Hope this adds some light to this perplexing phenomena.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by jchardy, posted 11-24-2008 5:34 PM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 8 of 159 (489192)
11-24-2008 10:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
11-24-2008 5:34 PM
|
|
From: jchardy area929@msn.com, Seabeck, WA Evidence of the red shift indicates that all large (galactic) components are "uniformly" accelerating away from "us" (our galaxy) in a manner directly proportional to their "distance" from us. If this is so and: IF: --the inflationary model of expansion of the Universe is true
Do you have an alternate hypothsis that explains the the increase in redshift of galaxies in proportion to their distance away from us? If so please indulge us, I am open to alternate explanations as long as they are scientific.
AND IF:
--the universe is flat as currently proposed
Again alternate hypothesis?
THEN HOW DO WE ACCOUNT FOR:
--the evidence that numerous galactic collisions have, are or imminently will occur (including that of the collision of the Andromeda with our own Milky Way)?? Basically if two or more galaxies are really close than their gravitation pull towards each other can temporarily overcome the outwards pull of expansion. See my and NosyNeds previous posts about the blue shift phenomena.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by jchardy, posted 11-24-2008 5:34 PM | | jchardy has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 9 of 159 (489193)
11-24-2008 10:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by johnfolton
11-24-2008 10:34 PM
|
|
Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
Setterfield explains how in the lab using water plasmas they can duplicate what you see happening in the universe on a small scale and explains how today water plasmas in the lab using water when cooled form all the elements suddenly. More pseudoscience and poppycock. How can "water plama" create all the elements suddenly. Please elaborate? Water plasma is just H2O with the electron stripped off and in a highly energetic state. It is still just H2O. How can that form all the elements in the periodic table? And what does this have to do with the inflationary model of the universe?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by johnfolton, posted 11-24-2008 10:34 PM | | johnfolton has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 11-24-2008 11:26 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied | | | Message 92 by jchardy, posted 11-27-2008 12:23 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 39 of 159 (489283)
11-25-2008 9:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by jchardy
11-25-2008 7:16 PM
|
|
Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
Not trying to nitpick but just want to correct a couple of things about physicists current understanding of the universe and the Big Bang. I am not saying this is necessarily all correct, this is just what the current consensus of the scientific community is:
1) Before there was anything there was nothing. Neither time nor space. There was only absolute vacuum. What is an absolute vacuum? A vacuum implies space, so this would actually be incorrect. There would be nothing, no space, not time, and therefore no natural cause. However as an agnostic I am not necessarily opposed to a supernatural cause.
2) Somewhere within that “nothing” a quanta of energy appeared, (FROM WHERE. From what is unknown). Point 1 explains pt 2. If there was no time prior to the beginning of the universe i.e. the Big Bang than there was no need for a cause for the emergence of the "quanta of energy".
3) The quanta was infinitesimally small but in a void that was itself an absolute vacuum. Thus presenting “something” within “nothing” which is technically an enormous gradient difference and thus the potential energy to give rise to the matter stream necessary for formation of the mass of the universe. See the: Onsager reciprocal relations (sometimes called the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics). According to current understanding of the universe and the Big Bang theory the volume of this "quanta of energy" is actually synonymous to the boundary of space-time. Their is no outside void since there is no "outside". An outside would indicate a space outside of space which doesn't make any since. This is counter-intuitive and hard for our brains to imagine since we can only think in three dimensions vice the 10 or more dimensions proposed in more abstract theories such as the superstring/M theory (or whatever they are calling it now). Can you explain how Onsager's reciprocal relations fit into this?
4) Thus something even as minute as infinitely small (might thus give rise to) everything that would come to exist But infinitely (or nearly so) dense. Smallness means nothing if this "quanta" is dense enough to contain the energy and mass of the universe.
5) Thus this relatively tiny amount of energy -- was subjected to the greatest force in the universe, i.e., that of an infinitely huge and infinitely vacant vacuum, a vacuum unknown to us now within the cosmos. I am not sure if this is correct, wouldn't this be a nearly infinite amount of energy packed into a nearly infinite small amount of space. What is this vacuum you are talking about?
6) Since nature truly abhors a vacuum, this infinitesimal quanta was then “forced” (?by the laws of thermodynamics above?) to expand (?inflate?) in all directions creating more action/dynamics within the bounds of the same Onsager reciprocal relations. This may well have been the root of all energy and, subsequently, all matter in the universe. The Big Bang would necessarily have to be the source of all energy and matter in the universe. Basically all the forces of energy (strong, weak, gravity and electromagnetism) were one force. These forces split apart from each other and basically a reverse form of gravity was generated by the energy in this small but ultra massive quanta of energy. This "ball of energy" expanded at a super rapid and accelerating rate. As this energy did so it started to cool and at the same time matter formed (remember matter and energy are two sides of the same coin so to speak) and this matter started to coalesce into subatomic particles and eventually individual atoms.
7) Thus, the void tore at the edges (?inflated) by this first quanta of energy which was driven (by pressure differentials) to expand (?by virtue of the absence of impeding forces which would come to exist in the universe thereafter). I am trying to understand this pressure differential you are talking about? A pressure differential requires points in space with more and less energy.
8) As the energy quantum inflated, it produced more energy, which in turn expanded as it was subject to the initial infinite negative force (vacuum) of the primary void. This doesn't really jive with the current cosmological models of the Big Bang from my understanding. There are no voids outside of the universe. That again would indicate space outside of space. My understanding of physics is that "dimension" does not equal "space". Time-space is four dimensions out of many (possibly 10 or more). But many of these extra-dimensions are wrapped up very small (on the scale of strings if they exist). Again a lot of this is speculative but the math and physics support it. If I am wrong in my thinking please correct me (I am just an undergrad not an astrophysicist). Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Correct spelling
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by jchardy, posted 11-25-2008 7:16 PM | | jchardy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by V-Bird, posted 11-25-2008 11:30 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 45 of 159 (489309)
11-26-2008 7:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by V-Bird
11-25-2008 11:30 PM
|
|
Re: Disclaimer... re: Epansion/Inflation
Thanks V-Bird for your analysis, I appreciate a good intellectually stimulating dialog. I still think this is on topic as we are just talking about cosmology and the inflation of the universe caused by the Big Bang in specific. To expound on my understanding of the universe and what I said previously. Really, the universe is not expanding per se as that would imply it is expanding into something. A more accurate phrase is that the universe is stretching. That is space-time itself is stretching and therefore the space between galaxies (and in fact between all matter large or small) is stretching. This stretching space appears to us as motion and is what we detect as red shift. However, what we see as red shifted galaxies are not actually the galaxies themselves moving at rapid speeds away from each other but that space itself is stretching between these galaxies (though there is some small movement between close by galaxies and clusters of galaxies caused by gravitational pull between those galaxies). To carry this further the universe is actually infinite in size. There is no boundary or edge and thus no center. What we see as size is actually just that of our observable universe (what we can see from the light from the first stars and galaxies formed after the big bang). Since the universe is stretching faster than the speed of light (the only phenomena in existence that is not bound to the light "speed limit", we only see one small infinitely small slice of an infinitely large universe. Since the universe is infinite in size, it is actually itself not expanding but only the space inside it is. Therefore, there is no need to talk about an infinite void outside it as infinite space cannot have infinite space outside it. + = . So during the Big Bang the space-time fabric in the universe rapidly "stretched" as opposed to "expanded into nothingness". I hope that this clarifies things. As to what initially caused this initial stretch I agree with you V-Bird on your causation by a "vibration" in the nearly infinitely small and dense quantum fabric (the popping and out of existence of virtual particles/energy) of the universe per se, again does not this vibration need a cause? Again, let me know if I am wrong in my assumptions. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by V-Bird, posted 11-25-2008 11:30 PM | | V-Bird has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 9:33 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 46 of 159 (489310)
11-26-2008 7:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
11-26-2008 6:48 AM
|
|
Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
if the earth is in the center of the universe. If the Earth is the centre of the Universe, why is it orbiting the Sun? And why is the Sun stuck in the murky backwaters of the Milky Way Galaxy, and not at the centre? And why is the Milky Way not at the centre of the Local Group? So what you mean by, "the centre of the Universe", is "not in anyway shape or form, the centre of the Universe". Glad we have this straightened out. To expound on this, the universe is infinite in size i.e. no beginning nor end, and thus there is no center. If you back to the limited analogy of the balloon and take the 3 dimensions of the universe (we will disregard the dimension of time to simplify our problem) and translate that to the 2-d surface of that ballon this will make since. An ant walking on that boundless surface of the balloon could walk for inifinity and never find the edge or boundary of that balloon (since there isn't one). If there is no edge than there can be no center. The same principle applies to the universe. The universe has no boundary and no edge. It is infinite in size from a four dimensional perspective- 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. I will not get into the concepts of a multiverse and the multitide of higher dimensions here unless someone asks.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 6:48 AM | | cavediver has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 8:02 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
Yet we can see the past with sight. No perpetual motion atoms are visible. Yet every scientist believes that atoms are perpetual motion machines because they are the basis of their operationally defined units, their mathematics and their methods. The scientific universe is the most mythical universe ever invented. It is 99% invisible. According to scientists, the vacuum is adjusting the frequency of all ancient light. The vacuum is moving galaxies to clos to the speed of light. The vacuum is crammed full of invisible matter, invisible holes, invisible energies that repelenish themselves out of the vacuum. Why is the scientific universe so mythical? Because they never go back and examine their historical a priori - which the pagan Greeks called arche - first principles. With one single assumption we can eliminate all the cosmological myths. How? Just accept what is visible as fact. No perpetual motion atoms are visible in billions of distant galaxies. Every atom in the whole universe, every atomic clock, is changing as it ages. We even see a biblical cosmic history with sight as billions of galaxies grew into huge growth spirals. First principles really are important. The modern first principle is the foundation for how scientists think, measure and mathematicate. Think about it. What is a "perpetual motion atom"? Please explain, as I am not familiar with that term. My understanding is that the concept of perpetual motion contradicts the laws of thermodynamics in that it is saying that in a closed system the law of the conservation of energy is not preserved. You will need to explain how this applies to individual atoms? Please expound. Please stay scientific and not get all metaphysical with your explanation. Thanks.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 12:49 AM | | godsriddle has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
The scientific universe is the most mythical universe ever invented. You really want to go there? How about the ancient myths of the universe from cultures all over the world i.e. Atlas holding up the world, world on the back of the turtle, etc. You really think the scientific view of the universe is the most mythical?? Can you provide some evidence please.
It is 99% invisible So our atoms and many other things to the human eye. That doesn't mean they don't exist. You can feel the force of the wind, the affects of electricity, etc but you can't see it. We can detect and deduce the presense of dark energy and matter.
According to scientists, the vacuum is adjusting the frequency of all ancient light. Please provide evidence for your assertion. BTW, science does not claim to know all the answers. The mission of science is to find the questions and the answers. Just because science cannot explain why the universe came into existence does not negate all the evidence of how it functions.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 12:49 AM | | godsriddle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 1:39 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 57 of 159 (489335)
11-26-2008 11:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by cavediver
11-26-2008 8:02 AM
|
|
Re: Is the inflationary model of the universe true?
This is still not known. It is clearly large compared to the scale of the Observable Universe, but there is no definitive parameter value (or even model type!) to be able to claim an infinite Universe. Yes, however, either way whether it is infinite in size or not there is no boundary and thus no center to the universe.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 8:02 AM | | cavediver has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 11:14 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
GR writes: Myself writes: What is a "perpetual motion atom"? Please explain, as I am not familiar with that term. My understanding is that the concept of perpetual motion contradicts the laws of thermodynamics in that it is saying that in a closed system the law of the conservation of energy is not preserved. You will need to explain how this applies to individual atoms? Please expound. Please stay scientific and not get all metaphysical with your explanation That is my term. Scientists do not verbally state that atoms are perpetual motion machines. Yet they assume it. They do? Where?
By international agreement, the primary unit in science it the second. A second is operationally defined. By definition 9,192,631,770 microwave pulses from cesium 133 is a "fixed-length" second. Yet no clock can compare previous seconds with current ones. Sure they can. They can measure the length of time by using other references other than cesium-133 i.e. hydrogen maser atomic clocks, rubidium-87 atomic clocks, solar time, sidereal time, etc. They can also keep a history and comparison between these time references.
Scientists use seconds to operationally define other symbolical units for length, force, acceleration, mass, energy and gravity. Yet every single atomic clock in the distant universe clocked a different frequency than modern atoms and the differences generally increase with distance. What atomic clocks in what distant universe? What the heck are you talking about?
To preserve their system that was built on the assumption - that the properties of matter do not change relationally with age - scientists fill the universe up with invisible things. Einstein's theory of relativity both general and special indicate that time and space are intricately linked and that a change in one affects the other.
By their own admission, their universe is 99% invisible. Their greatest myth is the big bang. The big bang is a myth designed to protect their creed that all matter is not changing relationally. What does this have to do with perpetual motion??? I am confused. To me this is pseudoscience gobbly gook with a little bit of religion thrown end. Can you make a coherent cosmological hypothesis out of this?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 1:12 PM | | godsriddle has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 77 of 159 (489387)
11-26-2008 5:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 4:27 PM
|
|
Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
CD I joined this site for good reason, it is about evolution and you will know that evolution has many dead-ends, the mathematical route you describe in your post is a dead-end, liken it to a creature that has evolved an eye, an eye that requires no cross-over for of nerves to compensate for a reflected image that is a finer grade of internal interface [rods etc] that is wired with no blind spot and has a superb lens far superior to anything else around, but this poor creature just puffs out jets of water to move, has no arms and legs and has almost its entire brain devoted to this fabulous eye, but it is an eye that is in a creature that is at a dead-end evolutionarily speaking. Your eye is much the same, in your case though it is not an eye it is your maths that is at a dead-end, you see great intricacies and the more you look the more intricacies you see. You look at the electron cloud and you see detail in the hope that if you keep looking you'll understand, you won't. My maths is not even vaguely interested in electron g-factors, such knowledge has been about for a while now and yet with this intricate knowledge you cannot explain the instantaneous blinking out in one place with the same moment appearance elsewhere, my maths does, I know exactly why it does this, my maths confirms the energy that is left over after the interaction that causes the instantaneous blinking out and on and how this forms mass and why it appears to have 'weight' when then interaction is less intense and we witness gravity. Evolution has many dead-ends and maths and science suffers them too, I believe, no, I KNOW that you are stranded on one of those peaks in the evolutionary hinterland that Dawkins describes in one of his books. You are not alone, but then the Nautilus isn't alone either! Oooh, oooh let me guess! The Matrix is real, right! Where the heck is this getting us. Can we get back down to earth. What does all this have to do with cosmology? I am tired of all this metaphysical crap that you, johnfolton and godsriddle are spewing out. Can you please elaborate and expound on your cosmological hypothesis in scientific terms. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 4:27 PM | | V-Bird has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 78 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2008 5:45 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 80 of 159 (489391)
11-26-2008 5:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 1:51 PM
|
|
Re: Maths.
Thanks Huntar for the assist.
The mathematics that prove my hupothesis is in its infancy, I started this more than 10 years ago and I have a new maths, I struggled for a while with the existing maths but it isn't suitable, it was like doing algebra using only the numbers 0-9. I think I have you figured out v-bird. Are you a null physics proponent? Please be honest.
I could write down the symbols I have [for all the FTL elements] to explain events, but every one and more importantly their compounds and resultants would be entirely alien to you. It is literally another language in maths. Please indulge us. I am dying to hear this.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 1:51 PM | | V-Bird has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 81 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 6:36 PM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 87 of 159 (489406)
11-26-2008 7:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 6:36 PM
|
|
Re: Maths.
Had to go and find the Null Physics insanity, worthless. I say things tongue and cheek, so don't take it too personally.
OK the first thing that you have to take in is that there is not a single energy in the FTL cosmos that is like any energy in the sub-light cosmos, there is no mass and dimensions are irrelevent as is velocity. First, what is a FTL cosmos? Do you mean faster than light? Is that a reference to the cosmos inflating, expanding, stretching or whatever you want to call it, FTL? Is this our universe? What is a sublight cosmos????
Energy is not transferred in the FTL cosmos, there is no thermal, conductive or any other form of transfer, the only transfer of energy is to the sub-light cosmos where it is [for want of a better term] 'made use of' and then through mass itself returns to the FTL cosmos through the monopole. I need the FTL and sub-light cosmos' defined as I am not sure what you are talking about.
Can you grasp that? Please explain your terms first.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 6:36 PM | | V-Bird has not replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
|
|
Message 89 of 159 (489410)
11-26-2008 7:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 7:25 PM
|
|
Re: cont.
The FTL cosmos is [for all intents and purposes for the time being] the same size as the cosmos we exist in and occupies the same volume and the same space in the void as our sub-light cosmos. What evidence do you have for this hypothesis? And you still have not defined your terms: FTL and sub-light cosmos. What is the difference between the two, besides your referring to one as FTL and one sub-light, what ever that means?
It's been easy so far but now we look at the FTL cosmos alone, you have, to in your minds eye, remove all that we have in the sub-light cosmos, the easiest way to do this is to take the image of our own star and our planet and moon as if they were alone. so first encapsulate that little set of orbits in its own little bit of 'space' you have three object rotating about each other, we have now to give some familiar image for the FTL 'mini-cosmos' and I use light, it just is easier that way, we are familiar with light at all sorts of levels of brightness, so that enclosure is not totally black it is a low luminescence background, perhaps like the sky on a moonless night but with no stars, for each of the three objects now rotating in that enclosure substitute a point of light a tiny one, and as the gravity of each is different give the three points of light greater brightness to reflect the greater gravity, then at what would be the surface of each object imagine a ball halo that is only slightly brighter than the background level. WTF???? I have no clue what you are talking about. And yes I have taken a college astronomy course and consider myself an amateur astronomer so I do understand most of the proposed cosmological models. However, I have never heard anything like this. It might help if you broke up your "long paragraph" sentence down into easier to digest chunks. Part of the job of a scientists is peer review by fellow scientists. If you cannot make your hypothesis clear and logical you lose credibility and become irrelevant. To me and I am sure to others your explanation made absolutely no sense. And what exactly is a "ball halo"?
Now from the pinpoint of light that is the centre of the 'sun' project a thin stream of light to the centre of the Earth and do the same for the 'earth' to the 'moon' That is simple to imagine, but we now have to fill in detail somewhat. You will have to clarify the preceding paragraph for this to make sense.
The reason is simple, on earth we are familiar with 'things' [apples fall to the ground, single triangles add up to 180 deg internally etc etc] we have no such experience of the FTL cosmos and I have short-cut us to a model that will give something akin to familiarity. Actually we do understand non-Euclidian geometry. In fact non-Euclidian geometry, specifically Riemannian geometry, is the basis for our current model of the universe. You are johny come lately on this concept.
Details... first the background light was even, well it isn't, between the three objects it is slightly brighter as we approach the ball halo of each object and somewhere in between it reaches equal brightness, so about 6/7ths the distance between the 'earth' and the 'moon' the light is at a median and at about 99/100ths the distance from the 'sun' to the 'earth' it is of equal brightness, so the background is now quite a variable element of light., the ball halos now need to be filled in but they are evenly lit right up to the pinpoint of light within the objects. When you have conjured this image, you have a model of gravitation which is the all pervasive force in the FTL cosmos and those streams of light that join all three together are the monopole. I have given up understanding your proposal. To me it makes no sense. My understanding is that the term monopole is a physics term used to describe a hypothetical particle with one magnetic pole (as opposed to 2) as predicted by the physicist Paul Dirac. Is this what you are describing? I did find this science journal article "Euclidean scalar Green function in a higher dimensional global monopole space-time" [Journal of Mathematical Physics, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp. 1018-1028 (2002)]. So will have to do some reading to understand this concept.
The monopole is present within every object that has mass no matter its size/shape density. How are you defining a monopole?
Remember... no velocity, no mass nothing you've ever encountered before, unless you have a decent image of the transfer of gravitation [tomorrows post] the maths will be impossible to understand, not even then if you'll get it, but it's worth a go. The transfer of gravitation? What does that mean? Before you get into the math you need to define terms. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 7:25 PM | | V-Bird has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by V-Bird, posted 11-27-2008 11:32 AM | | DevilsAdvocate has replied |
|
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3120 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: 06-05-2008
|
Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
What scientists consider evidence and what they rejected as non evidence is itself based on the scientific first principle. Only things that fit the scientific creed that matter is not changing itself are considered evidence. Biblical physics is not mystical at all. Mystical has to do with things that have a spiritual significance that transcends human understanding - such as in Platonism. Biblical physics is perfectly natural. It relates to the real, visible world of real objects and real, visible cosmic history. We can see the past with light. We are allowed in biblical physics to believe what is visible - instead of perpetuating myths about invisible things. We see how the galaxies formed as the stars accelerated outward from dense primordial galaxies. In scientific physics the visible history of the universe is not permitted. Instead one must believe myths about vacuous forces and phantom matter. Why do scientists invent so many omyths about magical things? They have to. They must defend their historical creed - their assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent. They must do this, even though most of them unaware of its historical importance. They only know the physics of perpetual motion atoms. For example, their atomic clocks are assumed to never change frequency even though every atomic clock in the distant universe clocks a different frequency than local clocks and the differences increase with distance This is spam. Repeating the identical assertions you listed previously in Message 43 does not increase your credibility or that of your assertions. Please answer the questions posed to you in Message 47, Message 48 and Message 49. Otherwise we will just write you off as a drive by Creationist spammer. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.Dr. Carl Sagan
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 88 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 7:42 PM | | godsriddle has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2