Cosmology Theory

Page 6 - 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.
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>origin: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. This is your model, not mind and I hope this will help you answer the above question you presented. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>Special relativity never addresses going faster than the speed of light.&nbsp; Special relativity SPECIFICALLY states that it in <em>NOT POSSIBLE TO GO FASTER THAN LIGHT</em>.&nbsp; So you cannot go back in time and time dialation has nothing to do with time travel.</p><p>We are discussing science not scince fiction.</p><p>Let me put it this way, you are saying, "if we violate this theory then according to this theory.......".&nbsp; You simply can't do that, it's nothing more than&nbsp;gibberish.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>origin:Start here www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2005/August/05-GRB-supernovae.html - 17k - Let me know what you find. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />Oh good grief!&nbsp; Did you even read the article?</p><p>The article discusses the possibility that GRBs are the result of type Ic supernovas.&nbsp; This article in no way supports your assertions.&nbsp; Heck, it actually contradicts what you&nbsp;beleive is the source of GRBs!</p><p>Remember I asked for support of this statement:</p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana"><font color="#0000ff">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:10pt;font-family:Verdana"></span></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="1" color="#000000">If you can supply support that statement that would be great, but please don't&nbsp; just pick random articles that discuss GRBs to have me research them for you, I am somewhat busy. </font></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p>So I would ask again (no <em>new</em> questions from me), since I haven't seen it answered, how does bechcube's TOE account for the observed redshifts with Z > 1.4 ?&nbsp; Are the observations wrong ?&nbsp; Are "we" interpreting redshift incorrectly and if so, then what is the proper intepretation ?&nbsp; If I"ve understood bechcube's theory properly then there is no expansion of space-time and special relativity still holds so we shouldn't see the obsaerved redshifts ... and yet we do.&nbsp;How is this reconciled ?</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>
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
<p>I should point out that the time dilation observed for GPS satellites is due to the <em>combination</em> of the effects of Special Relativity (the relative speed between a clock in orbit and a clock on Earth) <strong>and</strong> General Relativity (the difference in the gravitational potential around a clock in orbit, when compared to a clock on Earth).</p><p>So Bechcube's model has to account for the <em>observed</em> time-dilation between objects in motion and the<em> observed</em> time-dilation for objects residing in different gravities.</p><p>Bechcube seems to be questioning the twins paradox, where one twin makes a journey at relativistic speed and returns younger than the twin who stayed at home. Well, all I can say is that, so far, we have confirmed that time-dilation works as described in both the Special and General Relativistic models given to us by Albert Einstein. As far as we can test it, time-dilation happens as predicted. So we expect that the travelling twin would <em>indeed</em> return younger than the stay at home twin.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I should point out that the time dilation observed for GPS satellites is due to the combination of the effects of Special Relativity (the relative speed between a clock in orbit and a clock on Earth) and General Relativity (the difference in the gravitational potential around a clock in orbit, when compared to a clock on Earth).So your model has to account for the observed time-dilation between objects in motion and observed the time-dilation for objects residing in different gravities.You seem to be questioning the twins paradox, where one twin makes a journey at relativistic speed and returns younger than the twin who stayed at home. Well, all I can say is that, so far, we have confirmed that time-dilation works as described in both the Special and General Relativistic models given to us by Albert Einstein. As far as we can test it, time-dilation happens as predicted. So we expect that the travelling would indeed return younger than the stay at home twin.&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />In fact that is one of the most detailed proofs for both theories, since the effects are in opposite directions and must add up perfectly for the GPS system to work. Any other useful theory must explain this evidence quite accurately. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
What is really kinda funny is that this entire thread is a hijack except for the first couple of posts.&nbsp; I didn't even realize that until recently.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I should point out that the time dilation observed for GPS satellites is due to the combination of the effects of Special Relativity (the relative speed between a clock in orbit and a clock on Earth) and General Relativity (the difference in the gravitational potential around a clock in orbit, when compared to a clock on Earth).So Bechcube's model has to account for the observed time-dilation between objects in motion and observed the time-dilation for objects residing in different gravities.Bechcube seems to be questioning the twins paradox, where one twin makes a journey at relativistic speed and returns younger than the twin who stayed at home. Well, all I can say is that, so far, we have confirmed that time-dilation works as described in both the Special and General Relativistic models given to us by Albert Einstein. As far as we can test it, time-dilation happens as predicted. So we expect that the travelling would indeed return younger than the stay at home twin.&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>You can go farther.&nbsp; The "Twin Paradox" has been tested experimentally.&nbsp; Two atomic clocks were synchronized and then one was flown around in an airplane and returned to the first clock.&nbsp; As predicted, the clock that was flown about showed less elapsed time than did the other clock.&nbsp; It is also demonstrated by the difference between atomic clocks on earth and the atomic clocks in the GPS satellites.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment</p><p>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/4044/166</p><p>http://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0502/0502007v2.pdf</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I should point out that the time dilation observed for GPS satellites is due to the combination of the effects of Special Relativity (the relative speed between a clock in orbit and a clock on Earth) and General Relativity (the difference in the gravitational potential around a clock in orbit, when compared to a clock on Earth).So Bechcube's model has to account for the observed time-dilation between objects in motion and observed the time-dilation for objects residing in different gravities.Bechcube seems to be questioning the twins paradox, where one twin makes a journey at relativistic speed and returns younger than the twin who stayed at home. Well, all I can say is that, so far, we have confirmed that time-dilation works as described in both the Special and General Relativistic models given to us by Albert Einstein. As far as we can test it, time-dilation happens as predicted. So we expect that the travelling would indeed return younger than the stay at home twin.&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />Here is a nice web site on this:</p><p>http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html</p><p>From the site:</p><p><em>"Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the </em><em>Special Relativity lecture</em><em>). <strong>Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day</strong> because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion. </em></p><p><em>Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of </em><em>General Relativity</em><em> is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the </em><em>Black Holes lecture</em><em>). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground.<strong> A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day</strong>. </em></p><p><em>The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)!"</em></p><p>I wonder how JAHs figure into this?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is really kinda funny is that this entire thread is a hijack except for the first couple of posts.&nbsp; I didn't even realize that until recently. <br />Posted by <strong>origin</strong></DIV><br /><br />True but the hijack seems warranted since the OP was a drive-by spamming for his book and has not been heard of since. <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'>True but the hijack seems warranted since the OP was a drive-by spamming for his book and has not been heard of since. <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>Agreed...<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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? <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I would not dismiss any theory. I was merely pointing out that it seemed that you were questioning my theory using your theory as a base. If I misunderstood your posts, sorry.<br /></p>
 
O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would not dismiss any theory. I was merely pointing out that it seemed that you were questioning my theory using your theory as a base. If I misunderstood your posts, sorry. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />You still are misunderstanding.&nbsp; I did not use a theory as such, I used observational evidence to question your conjectures.&nbsp; Strictly speaking you do not have a theory, you have a hypothesis or conjecture.</p><p>While you should not dismiss a theory out of hand - there is nothing wrong, in fact it is vital, to abandon theories that do not fit with the evidence.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

bechcube

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You still are misunderstanding.&nbsp; I did not use a theory as such, I used observational evidence to question your conjectures.&nbsp; Strictly speaking you do not have a theory, you have a hypothesis or conjecture.While you should not dismiss a theory out of hand - there is nothing wrong, in fact it is vital, to abandon theories that do not fit with the evidence.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin:</p><p>But you did use a theory to support your argument.&nbsp;There are two main theories regarding light. In yours, the speed of light is added to the speed of the medium carrying that light.</p><p>In mine, the speed of light has a finite maximum speed traveling in a stationary medium.</p><p>You use the CBR as proof of the BB and therefore say your theory is proven.</p><p>However, I can equally argue that the CBR is the gamma rays produced by galaxy disintegration at the edge of the medium and is seen everywhere the same because of our location at the center of the that medium.<br /></p>
 
O

origin

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>origin:But you did use a theory to support your argument.&nbsp;There are two main theories regarding light. In yours, the speed of light is added to the speed of the medium carrying that light.In mine, the speed of light has a finite maximum speed traveling in a stationary medium.You use the CBR as proof of the BB and therefore say your theory is proven.However, I can equally argue that the CBR is the gamma rays produced by galaxy disintegration at the edge of the medium and is seen everywhere the same because of our location at the center of the that medium. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br /><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">What do you mean there are 2 main theories of light.<span>&nbsp; </span>Is one of these &lsquo;main theories&rsquo; your theory &ndash; that is a bit arrogant don&rsquo;t you think?</span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">You should not argue against a theory unless you have some understanding of that theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>I would say a corner stone of Special Relativity is that the speed of light is CONSTANT.<span>&nbsp; </span>Saying that the speed of light is added to the speed of the medium is way off the mark.<span>&nbsp; </span>All light from whatever source regardless of any expansion or movement of the source or the observer will always&nbsp;result in the speed of light having the&nbsp;same speed &ndash; c.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Why are we talking about the CBR now?<span>&nbsp; </span>The CBR is ONE piece of evidence for the BB, this does not prove the BB.<span>&nbsp; </span>The CBR was predicted by the BB theory and later it was found.&nbsp; This shows the strenght of the theory but this&nbsp;is still just 1&nbsp;piece of evidence.&nbsp; You have presented zero evidence for your theory.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"></span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Please expound on how it is possible that GRBs turn into the CBR.<span>&nbsp; </span>Just because the initials of these phenomena both have 3 letters that does not mean they are similar.<span>&nbsp; </span>GRB are some of the most energetic discharges seen.<span>&nbsp; </span>A GRB is a point source.<span>&nbsp; </span>The CBR is very low energy microwave radiation that is extremely uniform across the sky.<span>&nbsp; </span>Please explain how these can be the same or related in any way &ndash; some evidence instead of an opinion would be nice.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Are you ever going to supply some evidence for your statement about GRBs and the missing galaxies or will you admit that this is just an opinion of yours with nothing to back it up? <span>&nbsp;</span></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts