Message 1 of 100 (357727)
10-20-2006 12:16 PM
The red shift that we associate with the Big Bang is not caused by the motion of receding galaxies. That notion was extrapolated from regarding that red shift as a doppler effect. If that were truly the case, those distant peripheral galaxies would eventually fall off the edge of your universe to be followed by more galaxies until eventually, ours would be the only one left.
Doesnâ€™t that remind you of the flat earth theory. That was ridiculous and, so is this one. There are other reasons for a red shift in the light of those far flung galaxies. Tired light??? No! How about--
How about the cause being just the result of that galaxy's relative mass which is related to the fact of itâ€™s very great distance from us. How about having a good look at this possibility.
As I sit here, my bodyâ€™s mass of ugly fat has a 209 pound interaction with this immense ball of matter we call the earth. I can tell that because my chair is sitting on a scale in a very long elevator. Iâ€™m on this elevator because wiser men than I tell me that if I rise above the earth, my weight will change. Sure enough, when I press the up button, my weight changes because itâ€™s center of mass is now located further from the center of mass of the earth and that this increase in distance is important in the gravity equation (thanks to those wiser men again).. Now comes, the surprise (to me, if not to those wiser men). When I push the down button so that I start dropping below the surface of the earth, my weight also starts dropping. Iâ€™m amazed at this because now, Iâ€™m now closer to the center of mass of the earth and this shortened distance should have increased my weight. What has changed. The gravity formula couldnâ€™t have changed. Whatâ€™s changed is that the center of mass of the earth relative to my new position has changed. Since Iâ€™m now immersed within the earth, some of itâ€™s mass is now above me and, some of it is on the side of me. Because of this, itâ€™s mass relative to me seems to have changed. Since mass does not ever change, what has happened is that and itâ€™s distance from me has changed and my weight has changed accordingly.
Letâ€™s get my chair and me back to the surface where I can breath better.
Here, when I look around, I realize that I am an integral part of the earthâ€™s mass. As part of the earthâ€™s mass, our gravitational relationship can be associated to that of our solar system. Strangely, the earth interacts with all the parts of the solar system but, not as individual bodies. It
cannot. There is no such thing as a gravity shield so, no body can gravitationally interact only with one or more bodies, it can only gravitationally interact with all other bodies in itâ€™s interactive universe. Since the earthâ€™s solar system neighbors are so close and their gravitational attraction so strong, they apparently disregard the weaker interactions with the rest of their universe. Woops, there goes the multiple body problem. There is never anything but a two-body problem.
A little while ago, I mentioned that the value of a bodyâ€™s mass never changes. Weight really does not either. It seems to because it moves around and, itâ€™s gravitational relationship to the center-of-mass of the earth can vary. Mass cannot vary because it represents the value of that bodyâ€™s gravitational relationship to itâ€™s entire interactive universe. All bodies in the universe are attracting that body. This attraction holds that body in one place and provides it with what we call inertia. The value of this inertia is identical to the value of the mass of the body.
Getting back to the earthâ€™s relationship to the solar system, we find that the earth revolves around the center-of-mass of the solar system. This center-of-mass is not fixed at the exact center of the sun. Since the bodies revolving around the sun are not fixed and are of difference masses which are in different orbits, the center of mass of the solar system is always on the move. This is a complex motion which rotates around the center of the sun and does not tend to be perfectly circular. Itâ€™s somewhat spiky because of difference orbits and varying locations of the planets. The sun itself also revolves around this center of mass and, because of itâ€™s great mass, it cannot follow these spiky motions. For this reason it tends to regulate the motions of the planets This has a significant affect on the orbits of all members of the solar system. These affect are left to better minds to interpret.
The solar system itself is buried within a galaxy of solar systems. It must also revolve around the center-of-mass of the galaxy.
Getting back to the subject, we live in a universe where our location in it allows us to interact with other objects depending on their relative mass from our point of view. Our local part of our universe can only interact (receive radiation) from remote objects until their relative mass approaches a point where that mass approaches the point where no radiation is allowed to leave it for other locations (us).
As we have learned, gravitational interactions occur between the centers of mass of systems. For instance, the earth's center of mass interacts with not solely with the sun but, with the entire center of mass of the entire solar system. Our solar system's center of mass interacts with our entire galaxy's center of mass. Electromagnetic interactions which have some relation to mass are also sensitive to these relative masses differences. For example, the center of mass of our galaxy and the center of mass of a close galaxy both interact with the center of mass of their interactive universes which nearly occupy the same space. As we compare our galaxy to further and further galaxies, their respective interactive universes start diverging more and more. The greater the divergence, the more the further galaxies center of mass are encompassing parts of the universe with which our galaxy cannot interact.
The parts of the universe with which our galaxy cannot interact with, add apparent mass to the further galaxies. The greater their apparent mass, the greater the red shift caused by this apparent increase in mass. When the relative mass gets too great, no more radiation can be transmitted in our direction.
This red shift is the same in every direction we look in--so I've been told. This fact tells us that there is no apparent end to our universe. It just seems to go on and on.
If there is no doppler affect red shift but instead, we have a relativistic cause to the red shift, then, it's apparent to me that we did not have a Big Bang. Those far-off galaxies are not falling off the edge of our universe. They are just lying there as lazy as ours is.
So, where did everything come from or has it always been there?
We do know that matter particles are able to pop out of nowhere in pairs (particle and itâ€™s anti-particle). This can be happening everywhere in the universe all the time. It could have been happening sinceâ€“forever. This type of creation could be likened to a gentle whisper relative to that Big Bang. Besides, it does not need any fancy explanation, we already know it happens. We also know that particle pairs ( a particle, such as an electron, and itâ€™s antiparticle, the positron) can also annihilate each other and, they do. Could this mean that we have a universe which is recycling itself?
Before we start recycling, weâ€™d better get the creation part done.
Popping out of nowhere is not the way it happens. There is no such thing as â€˜nowhereâ€™. What we think of as â€˜nowhereâ€™ is a realm, a somewhere where energy exists. In this realm there are no dimensions or time. When some of this energy is converted to a pair of particles, the forces associated with these particles are also created, the spacial dimensions associated with these particles and the time also associated with the particles.
In this gentle whisper of creation or the SOFT BANG, a pin point source is not assumed because the energy released by came from an infinite source. In that case, matter would start to be transformed from energy at all point in the physical universe. Also, this transformation would still be going on because the source is also timeless or eternal. This would mean that the beginning is not over but will continue forever. Then, time would continue to flow (if flow is what time does) and space would continue to expand to make room for the newly transformed energy to matter. This would entirely make sense in an equationâ€“if you change anything on one side of an equation, the other side has to change to compensate. Isnâ€™t time still flowing? Are we still detecting red shifts in far away galaxies which seem to indicate that space is expanding?
A little bit of Occamâ€™s Razor can help reduce the utterly complex to a more understandable simpler solution.
We should all try to remember that all these posits are theories. Whose right or whose wrong will be contested for a long time to come. Does it really make any great difference to you and I?
Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : Edited to continue posted message.
Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : To add more data.
Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : No reason given.
Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : Asked for by Administrator & to improve readability
Edited by baloneydetector#zero, : Had to find some sort of closure to this initial thread that has wound up into an entire spool. Reading all of these responses has and is providing me with much worthwhile rocking time down here at the foot of the Rockies.
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 2 by Admin, posted 10-25-2006 10:36 AM|| ||baloneydetector#zero has responded|
| ||Message 7 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2006 1:07 PM|| ||baloneydetector#zero has responded|
| ||Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2006 3:24 PM|| ||baloneydetector#zero has responded|