Cosmology Theory

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are no infinities in this model.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>But is there any time dilation? You talk of current cosmology having "unrealistic time dilation", what do you mean by this?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:Because I am getting comment from four posters at once, I'll respond to yours and hope it answers all posters. ,....&nbsp;<br />Posted by <strong>bechcube</strong></DIV><br /><br />I understand how confusing it can get trying to answer all critics at the same time so, despite some fundamental questions I have on what you just said, I'll bow out (after 1 comment) for the time being and stick SF with the "duty".</p><p>Comment: I see you're back to explaining the fundamental nature of your cube theory.&nbsp; OK but the discussion was that whatever your theory was, it lead to some predictions re: galaxies disintegrating and emitting a GRB.&nbsp; It was challenged on those grounds; ie if the effect is demonstrably wrong then so is the underlying theory.&nbsp; By going back to "oranges" it would appear you're opening a new line of discussion before adequately answering the 1'st challenge. I'd like to see you reconcile what I think is a glaring difference between what's observed in nature and what's predicted by your theory before switching gears.&nbsp; THX.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>FWIW I think the is some observational data on areas that emitted a GRB.&nbsp; I seem to recall a very dim&nbsp;galaxy still being seen in the far infra-red. If I've understood you properly then I'd have expected to see nothing at all.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am merely saying that when a GRB occurs, search for the galaxy in that exact location shows that the light of a galaxy lingers for a short time and then disappears and is therefore missing. Does that make sense?&nbsp; <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />I will quite asking questions also, except to say I would like you to site some evidence to support the above assertion.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p>Hey guys, don't abandon me so soon! My knowledge in this field is limited to a few specific areas of cosmology so I can only really argue from those angles.</p><p>I focussed on the first prediction, that galaxies reach c at the edge of the universe and then disintegrate into GRBs, as that is within my "comfort zone", but I have no means to addess some of the other points...</p><p>... the question is, can this theory clear the first hurdle, eh?</p><p>The first prediction implies that we cannot see any galaxy that has an apparent recession speed faster than light, and yet, in the mainstream cosmological model, we <strong>do</strong> see galaxies with apparently superluminal recession speeds. How do we reconcile this difference?</p><p>If the mainstream model is wrong, how does bechcubes model explain the high redshifts we measure?</p><p>We observe that dim and highly redshifted galaxies have a spectrum where the lines have a similar pattern to much closer galaxies, but the lines are shifted across the spectrum. The mainstream view is that having a similar set of absorption lines means the dim and distant galaxies are similar to brighter and closer galaxies, and that the difference in the wavelength represents difference in the cosmic scale factor between emission and detection.</p><p>Now bechcubes model allows expansion, and so therefore presumably also attributes redshift to that expansion. So how come the models predict such different apparent recession velocities? How does bechcubes model account for a galaxies with redshifts above z=2? The mainstream model uses General Relativity and finds superluminal recession velocities above z=~1.4. Should we not be applying General Relativity to universal expansion? How do we account for the time-dilation of distant supernovae then? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hey guys, don't abandon me so soon! My knowledge in this field is limited to a few specific areas of cosmology so I can only really argue from those angles.I focussed on the first prediction, that galaxies reach c at the edge of the universe and then disintegrate into GRBs, as that is within my "comfort zone", but I have no means to addess some of the other points...... the question is, can this theory clear the first hurdle, eh?The first prediction implies that we cannot see any galaxy that has an apparent recession speed faster than light, and yet, in the mainstream cosmological model, we do see galaxies with apparently superluminal recession speeds. How do we reconcile this difference?If the mainstream model is wrong, how does bechcubes model explain the high redshifts we measure?We observe that dim and highly redshifted galaxies have a spectrum where the lines have a similar pattern to much closer galaxies, but the lines are shifted across the spectrum. The mainstream view is that having a similar set of absorption lines means the dim and distant galaxies are similar to brighter and closer galaxies, and that the difference in the wavelength represents difference in the cosmic scale factor between emission and detection.Now bechcubes model allows expansion, and so therefore presumably also attributes redshift to that expansion. So how come the models predict such different apparent recession velocities? How does bechcubes model account for a galaxies with redshifts above z=2? The mainstream model uses General Relativity and finds superluminal recession velocities above z=~1.4. Should we not be applying General Relativity to universal expansion? How do we account for the time-dilation of distant supernovae then? <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>He hasn't answered anything satisfactorily yet, heck he hasn't seemed to even understand the questions, so it is more the desire to abandon the thread than to abandoned you, Speedfreak.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will quite asking questions also, except to say I would like you to site some evidence to support the above assertion.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin:</p><p>I previously proposed that a simple test of the disintegrating galaxy should be done by testing the temp. around the GRB. It should be substantially greater then was the Galaxy which disintegrated.<br /></p>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But is there any time dilation? You talk of current cosmology having "unrealistic time dilation", what do you mean by this?&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>SpeedFreek:</p><p>&nbsp;There is no time dialation in my model.</p><p>Time dialation allows you to travel into the past, marry your other and procreate yourself.Does that make sense?</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hey guys, don't abandon me so soon! My knowledge in this field is limited to a few specific areas of cosmology so I can only really argue from those angles.I focussed on the first prediction, that galaxies reach c at the edge of the universe and then disintegrate into GRBs, as that is within my "comfort zone", but I have no means to addess some of the other points...... the question is, can this theory clear the first hurdle, eh?The first prediction implies that we cannot see any galaxy that has an apparent recession speed faster than light, and yet, in the mainstream cosmological model, we do see galaxies with apparently superluminal recession speeds. How do we reconcile this difference?If the mainstream model is wrong, how does bechcubes model explain the high redshifts we measure?We observe that dim and highly redshifted galaxies have a spectrum where the lines have a similar pattern to much closer galaxies, but the lines are shifted across the spectrum. The mainstream view is that having a similar set of absorption lines means the dim and distant galaxies are similar to brighter and closer galaxies, and that the difference in the wavelength represents difference in the cosmic scale factor between emission and detection.Now bechcubes model allows expansion, and so therefore presumably also attributes redshift to that expansion. So how come the models predict such different apparent recession velocities? How does bechcubes model account for a galaxies with redshifts above z=2? The mainstream model uses General Relativity and finds superluminal recession velocities above z=~1.4. Should we not be applying General Relativity to universal expansion? How do we account for the time-dilation of distant supernovae then? <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>SpeedFreek:</p><p>In your universe, space time is expanding and when added to a photon with velocity of "c", produces velocities greater than "c".</p><p>Again, in my model&nbsp;the JAH Field or universe is not moving at expanding. Only the matter in the JAH Field is moving or causing an expansion of&nbsp; matter from matter.</p><p>Clearly, General Relativity doe not exist or apply in this model and therefore large Z's do not exist since "c" is the greatest velocity existing.</p><p>Please tell me where you are obtaining the information that anything surpasses "c".<br /></p>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>origin:I previously proposed that a simple test of the disintegrating galaxy should be done by testing the temp. around the GRB. It should be substantially greater then was the Galaxy which disintegrated. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />So when you said:</p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="2" color="#0000ff">Nevertheless, regarding the missing galaxies, I am merely saying that when a GRB occurs, search for the galaxy in that exact location shows that the light of a galaxy lingers for a short time and then disappears and is therefore missing.</font></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13pt;font-family:Verdana"></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="1" color="#000000">So did you mean that you believe this to be the case, but you have no evidence that this is true?</font></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:&nbsp;There is no time dialation in my model.Time dialation allows you to travel into the past, marry your other and procreate yourself.Does that make sense?&nbsp; <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />Time dialation has NOTHING to do with traveling in the past - where on earth did you come up with that?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please tell me where you are obtaining the information that anything surpasses "c". <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>There are many places to get that info here is just one of many:<br /><br />http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575</p><p>Quote from this site:</p><p><font color="#0000ff">perhaps more surprisingly, some of the galaxies we can see right now are <em>currently</em> moving away from us faster than the speed of light!</font> </p><p>Read this site it is very clear, simple and straight forward.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Clearly, General Relativity does not exist or apply in this model and therefore large Z's do not exist since "c" is the greatest velocity existing.<br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>General Relativity has so far passed all the tests we have come up with to test it. Not only that, but it is already being used in many practical applications, for instance to calibrate the clocks on GPS satellites so they match those on Earth, as the clocks on GPS satellites are <strong>time dilated</strong> in relation to clocks on Earth - FACT.</p><p>If your model does not agree with General Relativity, then your model is a failure.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>General Relativity has so far passed all the tests we have come up with to test it. Not only that, but it is already being used in many practical applications, for instance to calibrate the clocks on GPS satellites so they match those on Earth, as the clocks on GPS satellites are time dilated in relation to clocks on Earth - FACT.If your model does not agree with General Relativity, then your model is a failure.&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>SpeedFreek:</p><p>I was referring to the end result on general relatively, not to the &nbsp;Lorentz Transformation. In my model, when the atom reaches speeds close to "c", all the constituent parts of the atom disintegrate into the energy JAH.</p>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So when you said:Nevertheless, regarding the missing galaxies, I am merely saying that when a GRB occurs, search for the galaxy in that exact location shows that the light of a galaxy lingers for a short time and then disappears and is therefore missing.So did you mean that you believe this to be the case, but you have no evidence that this is true? <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin:</p><p>The evidence is that when gamma ray and visual scopes zero in on a GRB, we see the gamma ray radiation and&nbsp;a faint galaxy which then quickly disappears. I propose that we see the gamma rays first because of their high energy from the burst of disintegration&nbsp; and the slower&nbsp;galaxy light photons follow until they disappear.&nbsp;<br /></p>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are many places to get that info here is just one of many:http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575Quote from this site:perhaps more surprisingly, some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light! Read this site it is very clear, simple and straight forward. <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin:</p><p>Yes that is true in your model but not in mine. I believe that is because those calculations are made using the gravitational red shift which is different from the Doppler effect. Your measurement combines alleged space expansion with "c" which gives a greater velocity. Your questions about my model are based on your model (mixing apples with oranges).</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:I was referring to the end result on general relatively, not to the &nbsp;Lorentz Transformation. In my model, when the atom reaches speeds close to "c", all the constituent parts of the atom disintegrate into the energy JAH. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>By that I mean is&nbsp;that resonating JAH's which make up the rotating group(particle)&nbsp;in the JAH Field,&nbsp;cease to be a group and release energy gamma waves in doing so.&nbsp;<br /></p>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Time dialation has NOTHING to do with traveling in the past - where on earth did you come up with that?? <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Isn't it true that you believe that&nbsp;if you travel speeds great enough, you will return younger then your stay at home brother? Isn't that time dilation?<br /></p>
 
O

origin

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:I was referring to the end result on general relatively, not to the &nbsp;Lorentz Transformation. In my model, when the atom reaches speeds close to "c", all the constituent parts of the atom disintegrate into the energy JAH. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />Please define close. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>origin:The evidence is that when gamma ray and visual scopes zero in on a GRB, we see the gamma ray radiation and&nbsp;a faint galaxy which then quickly disappears. I propose that we see the gamma rays first because of their high energy from the burst of disintegration&nbsp; and the slower&nbsp;galaxy light photons follow until they disappear.&nbsp; <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />You have said this twice now.&nbsp; You saying it is not evidence, please direct me to a site like JPL or NASA or anywhere that has evidence that this occurs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>origin:Yes that is true in your model but not in mine. I believe that is because those calculations are made using the gravitational red shift which is different from the Doppler effect. Your measurement combines alleged space expansion with "c" which gives a greater velocity. Your questions about my model are based on your model (mixing apples with oranges).&nbsp; <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />Paraphrasing - You asked for&nbsp;a site that&nbsp;discussed superluminal recession velocities.&nbsp; I supplied such a site and then you dismissed it with some vague reference to gravitational redsifts and alleged space expansion combined with c none of which makes any rational sense.&nbsp; If you were just going to dismiss 'my model' (actually the accepted model) iwhy did you ask for evidence? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Isn't it true that you believe that&nbsp;if you travel speeds great enough, you will return younger then your stay at home brother? Isn't that time dilation? <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />You really don't understand this at all do you.&nbsp; If I travel at 25 miles an hour I will age slower than someone at rest.&nbsp; The difference is vanishingly small but it is occurring.&nbsp; At faster speeds the effect becomes greater - it is not linear.&nbsp; If I were to travel very near the speed of light for a distance of say 20&nbsp;light years&nbsp;and then return, I would would find that the people on earth would be about 20 years older than when I left and I would have aged very little.&nbsp; <em>Time dialation is an affect that is measurable, it is not a belief, it is a quantifiable effect.&nbsp; </em>It would be silly to say you don't believe in it.</p><p>But anyway how do you think this has ANYTHING to do with traveling back in time?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are many places to get that info here is just one of many:http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575Quote from this site:perhaps more surprisingly, some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light! Read this site it is very clear, simple and straight forward. <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin: It is the nature of educated men to become obsessed with the need to devise some thought that is superior to all other such men.</p><p>I read your cited web page above&nbsp;&nbsp; and I was struck by the parallel to the evolution of the species theory.</p><p>Evelution just cannot produce the need to reduce the vast distance from those human bones of the past. In other words, there are no links of the species that had to have existed as the species evolved. </p><p>I know to reduce this number of missing links some are believing that the evolution did not start with a single cell entity which was created by lightning striking the ocean and forming the four amino acids required for life.</p><p>Now, your belief that the BB&nbsp;somehow inflated in the expansion of space-time and caused space-time to accelerated to a velocity&nbsp; that when added to the speed of light(a universal constant)causes light to travel faster than "c".</p><p>I can not help to wonder where we are in this mysterious universe. If we are close to the galaxies traveling&nbsp; at Z=1.4, then we would never see any of the universe and that creates a serious missing link because we can see back in time to where the density of galaxies is near to zero. Do you have my fish in the trees and my monkeys in the sea?</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You really don't understand this at all do you.&nbsp; If I travel at 25 miles an hour I will age slower than someone at rest.&nbsp; The difference is vanishingly small but it is occurring.&nbsp; At faster speeds the effect becomes greater - it is not linear.&nbsp; If I were to travel very near the speed of light for a distance of say 20&nbsp;light years&nbsp;and then return, I would would find that the people on earth would be about 20 years older than when I left and I would have aged very little.&nbsp; Time dialation is an affect that is measurable, it is not a belief, it is a quantifiable effect.&nbsp; It would be silly to say you don't believe in it.But anyway how do you think this has ANYTHING to do with traveling back in time? <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin:</p><p>Please review this statement:If one were able to move information or matter from one point to another faster than light, then according to special relativity, there would be some inertial frame of reference in which the signal or object was moving backwards in time. </p><p>This is your model, not mind and I hope this will help you answer the above question you presented.<br /></p>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have said this twice now.&nbsp; You saying it is not evidence, please direct me to a site like JPL or NASA or anywhere that has evidence that this occurs. <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin:</p><p>Start here www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/August/05-<strong>GRB</strong>-supernovae.html - 17k - Let me know what you find.</p>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Evelution just cannot produce the need to reduce the vast distance from those human bones of the past.</DIV></p><p>Sure it can.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;In other words, there are no links of the species that had to have existed as the species evolved. </DIV></p><p>Sure there are.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know to reduce this number of missing links some are believing that the evolution did not start with a single cell entity which was created by lightning striking the ocean and forming the four amino acids required for life.</DIV></p><p>Who the heck beleives that?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, your belief that the BB&nbsp;somehow inflated in the expansion of space-time and caused space-time to accelerated to a velocity&nbsp; that when added to the speed of light(a universal constant)causes light to travel faster than "c".</DIV></p><p>Am I right in assuming that english is not your first language, because this statement makes little sense and it certainly is not what I beleive.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can not help to wonder where we are in this mysterious universe. If we are close to the galaxies traveling&nbsp; at Z=1.4, then we would never see any of the universe and that creates a serious missing link because we can see back in time to where the density of galaxies is near to zero. Do you have my fish in the trees and my monkeys in the sea?&nbsp; <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>1 We are not close to galaxies traveling at Z=1.4</p><p>2 We cannot see back in time to where the density of galaxies is near zero.</p><p>3 Your apparent reference to a tsunami in the last line seems out of place.</p><p>I think you should not bring evolution or other side things into this discussion - it is hard enough to decipher what you mean with out going off into the weeds, so to speak.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts