Expanding Universe

[MeteorWayne]

What makes you think it is the all knowing answer to everything?<br />After all, it's just one book.... <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>

 

[3488]

I agree MeteorWayne.<br /><br />I amazes me that people read one book & then think that they are the font of all knowledge.<br /><br />This takes considerable study over many years & from a huge number of sources.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[ihwip]

Why are you interjecting on a thread that has no parallel to your claims of universal truth? Start your own, leave mine alone!<br /><br />It is *I* who knows EVERYTHING. You couldn't possibly know everything because then I would know you did and I know you don't. So there.<br /><br />Back to the subject...I think it would be nice if we could do experiments with a distant probe calibrated to fine temporal measurements. This probe would need a permanent power source, maybe a radgen.<br /><br />This is my made up term for one of those generators that use radiological decay to generate electricity. I can't remember what probes have used this already. Didn't we plunge one into Jupiter? Why didn't we just slingshot it into the cosmos? We could have learn so much more.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Because the spacecraft (Galileo)did not have enough fuel left to break free from Jupiter's gravity. It was forever trapped within the Jovian system. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Back to the subject...I think it would be nice if we could do experiments with a distant probe calibrated to fine temporal measurements. This probe would need a permanent power source, maybe a radgen.<br /><br />This is my made up term for one of those generators that use radiological decay to generate electricity. I can't remember what probes have used this already. Didn't we plunge one into Jupiter? Why didn't we just slingshot it into the cosmos? We could have learn so much more.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I have one minor contribution: the rather clever device that powers probes in the outer solar system is called a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, or RTG. It's a very simple device, and it uses a thermocouple to convert the heat naturally given off by decaying plutonium into electricity. The lifespan of such a device is usually limited by the lifespan of the thermocouple.<br /><br />In addition to Galileo, other spacecraft with RTGs include Cassini, Ulysses, Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1, Voyager 2, and New Horizons. They were also carried aboard the lunar landers and used to power the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Packages (ALSEPs) left behind on the Moon. Lastly, the two Viking landers were powered by RTGs, which gave them the unique ability to make extensive observations even at night and throughout the Martian winter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't consider that a minor contribution at all.<br /><br />Thanks! <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>

 

[elemental]

Well ok ... tell me more .. although I think John1R proposed a serious problem with the expanding sphere idea when perhaps 2 observers are separated by a large time/distance variable ...to quote him, <br /><br />"so even if 2 observers were 12 billion lightyrs. apart the photon sensed by observer #1 would actually <br />vanish out of observer # 2's reality 'instantaneously' throgh 12 billion years of separation?"<br /><br />Even if the 2 observers were at equidistant opposing points (on either side of the photon's origin), hence viewing it simultaneously, how could you rectify the proposal that one of them will see it and the other not/<br /><br />

 

[primordial]

siarad ! permittivity&permeability Are also relative and we could not detect the change. We would need a standard from the past to compare them to. I have a question about The present theory that Dark Matter in our Galaxy, which is thought to be the reason Galaxies don't fly apart and the reason outer stars of our galaxy move at such hi velocities ( refered to as Sigma) that can not be explained with Newtons or Einsteins theories of gravity. If we are located approximatly two-thirds the radius from the center of our Galaxy shouldn't we feel the effects of this Dark Matter in our Solar System, in the way our planets react to gravity also?

 

[primordial]

John1R ! Surly, they take in to account the density change in their calculations of red shift. However, they are only Human. To change the subject a little, but are you familiar with the concept of Dark Matter and how it's needed to keep the galaxies from flying apart and how it allows the outer stars in a Galaxy to orbit the Galaxy at velocities greater than thought possible using Newtons Gravitational laws or Einsteins Relativity, and how someone modified Newtons law with a theory called MOND theory that has not yet been accepted, well I think maybe the MOND theory may have a point that could be explained with Relativity if someone was clever enough to work out the details, after all, relative size does enter in to the world of physics (espcaily subatomic) or else why would there be Planck time or Planck space or Planck anything.

 

[primordial]

ranur ! Correct, that was one of my thoughts, that's what I mean, I think it could be integrated into General Relativity, but like you say I'm sure they know that, but if you remember they had trouble with the rings of Saturn and their orbits. <br />

 

[primordial]

ranur ! So in principal a photon can be at two places at the same time (lightyears apart) but when its wavefunction decides to lift a single electron it is a pointlike effect. I know what you are saying is correct, so continue with your concept.<br /><br />

 

[origin]

Well, your ideas are at odds with what is observed. I couldn't begin to see how you could set up an experiment to determine if your hypothesis has any merit. There are very robust mathematics that explain what we observe.<br /><br />Your ideas appear to be nothing more than idle speculation. Do you have any evidence or proof to back up anything you are saying?<br /><br />That's my 2 cents...<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

The actual comment (or one derivation of it, made by the eminent John Archibald Wheeler) is: <i>Matter curves space and curved space tells matter how to move.</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">I have this idea...that a photon, or any boson, is not selfpropelled entities. They could be fluctuations in an expanding space. If a fermion has an expanding space surrounding it, and this space is "growing" from where the particle recides, then the photon could only be a ripple in space, not a thing propelling itself from a to b. <br /><br />I know thas sound like a strange variant of the aether theory, but I think it is very different from that original idea. If every fermion in the universe has its own expanding space it would mean that space is passing us at lightspeed in all directions. </font><br />So you are saying that space is expanding at light speed in all directions, but that for some reason matter does not move with that expansion. That would make the universe billions of orders of magnitude larger than we think it is, it is just that the mass is confined to a very small area near the 'center' of the universe. But the materal part of the universe does appear to be expanding, how does that square with your hypothesis. <br />You propose that the particles cause an expansion and a photon rides that expansion. You also said that the expansion does not move or affect matter. So why does the path of a photon change when it passes a massive object is the expansion front warped by the massive object and if it is then it interacts with matter and could be measured.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

You *do* realize, despite some fairly scientific sounding concepts, that you're basically posting about the "Expanding Universe." I regret to say, if the discussion continues down that path, it must needs be sent to Phenomena. Policy, I'm afraid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

No, not what I'd meant.<br /><br />"Expanding Universe" is considered to be a disproven topic here in the hard science forums. However, so far, it's been fairly interesting and reasonably polite. But if it continues for much longer down the EU line, it must be moved.<br /><br />Besides, prior to your starting this, there <i>is</i> alread EU threads in Phenomena. Far too redundant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Excuse me? Did I misunderstand you Yevaud? Did you just say the expanding universe is considered to be disproven?<br /><br />Or when you said EU did you mean the "Electric Universe" has been disproven? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I *did* attribute it as "Expanding Universe," before descending to the abbreviation; this is quite plain in my above post.<br /><br />And yes, there have indeed been Expanding Universe threads before, most notably Bonzelite's in SS&A. He was not able to prove his points or answer some very real objections, despite many, many hours of posting.<br /><br />SO far, you've hared down the same path although via some "new" (or at least "different") concepts, so for the moment it's fine. I am warning people that however, at some point in time, should the thread just keep going and going, with no real "proof" or concensus, the thread will have to be moved. That could be a day, a week, a month, or longer. And that <i>is</i> policy.<br /><br />We'll see. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Err.. I only ever describe the "expanding universe" within the context of the metric expansion of space, as described within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.<br /><br />I have never been of the view that <i>everything</i> expands (I argued vociferously <i>against</i> bonzelite!) it is only the space in between non-gravity bound systems that expands (i.e. the empty voids between galactic clusters).<br /><br />I was confused by your mention of the "Expanding Universe" as disproven, as I was unsure whether you were referring to the metric expansion of space, which is totally mainsteam, but you abbreviated it to EU, which is a common abbreviation in a lot of places for those fringe "Electric Universe" theories and I just wanted to be sure I understood you.<br /><br />But you were referring to the "everything, including atoms, is expanding, but space is not" ideas like Bonzelites, which I agree are disproven.<br /><br />So, I don't see how you think I could have hared down the same path.. I am not proposing that anything but space is expanding. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Unless specifically stated otherwise, I try to always post the mainstream interpretations.<br /><br />I only asked the question as I thought someone coming to this thread might see your post and think the metric expansion of space was considered disproven, which is of course incorrect.<br /><br />Which "new" or "different" concepts of mine were you referring to? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Oh, it's certainly not the same Expanding Universe as Bonze's, and so deserves it's place in the sun. Besides, since it's new and going down a different track, with new ideas and concepts, it's certainly different. Who knows, you may achieve concensus.<br /><br />But by the same token the thread contains some very odd ideas as well, scientifically unproven ones. Thus, this thread could go either way.<br /><br />As I said, we'll see.<br /><br />Btw:<br /><br />As for thr Electric Universe, you'll note that user Michaelmozina is a proponent of Electric Universe, and pursue the topic in SS&A, and it has not been grieved. But he's quite good, uses solid if controversial real science, and is very detailed. He knows his stuff. Thus, Electric Universe as well is an acceptable topic - while it remains scientific and reasonably provable. But there are also many fallacies within the field of study, and many pursue <i>them</i> with vigor. Those get sent to Phenomena.<br /><br />I'm surprised you don't know all of this. I repeat for a third time, this is simple <i>policy</i>, and nothing more. I was merely giving advanced warning to the participants of the thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Sorry Yevaud, it was a problem of mis-communication, that's all. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />To me, when someone says the universe is expanding, I agree. The metric expansion of space is the current mainstream model of how the universe expands and that is all I will ever describe.<br /><br />I posted the mainstream view very early on in this thread, then left it alone as it descended into alternative theories. I kept looking here, but had nothing to contribute. Then I saw your comment on the "Expanding Universe" being disproven and misunderstood you.<br /><br />I do know the policy and as far as I am aware I have never proposed anything but mainstream views in SS&A or ATA.<br /><br />But I was more than a little surprised to see you say that I have posted anything but the mainstream view. I fully understand the policy and don't understand why you think I would do anything like that. Which of my explanations has been non-mainstream? I try to post the real science here, in understandable form, to help educate people and sometimes to argue against alternate theories. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Umm, if you'll note, my original post was not directed at you. It actually was in part aimed at Ranur. It wasn't perjorative, it was just a frank mention that some of the concepts mentioned (a few of his most recently) are very...off.<br /><br />Example: Link<br /><br />But it's still fairly early on. Plenty of time to see where it's all going.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

I agree with you totally Yevaud. I only posted my question on this page because of your comment to ranur about "Expanding Universe", and my worry that it might be misinterpreted as referring to the metric expansion of space. I agree that the recent posts in this thread are "off", I tried to bring this thread back on topic soon after it was diverted (my post on page 2) but to no avail.<br /><br />But in your reply to <b>me,</b> you said<br /><br />"And yes, there have indeed been Expanding Universe threads before, most notably Bonzelite's in SS&A. He was not able to prove his points or answer some very real objections, despite many, many hours of posting.<br /><br />SO far, <b>you've</b> hared down the same path although via some "new" (or at least "different") concepts, so for the moment it's fine." (my bold)<br /><br />So I just want to know if you think I post non-mainstream views? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Sorry - the "Imperial" you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Phew! Had me worried for a while there.. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Sorry for the misunderstanding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>