It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

anyone with a base in physics.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
With the idea of cosmic acceleration, or that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, couldnt this be a function of the universe slowing? as in two objects travelling together through free space at specified distance would appear to become closer or farther as a funtion of thier speed, the slower one observes the pair to travel, the farther apart, thus they would appear to accelerate apart even though the distance remains the same and the system is slowing.

open for debate




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Hmm... I may be getting the jist of what you are saying... perhaps you could elaborate more?

It is my understanding that the 'edges' of the known universe 'appear' to be moving away faster than our sector of the universe... kind of like the shockwave of a nuclear blast.

Maybe this is not where you are going, but I am interested none the less.

Maybe this is an instance where a kid will enlighten us with a ''There is no spoon, it is only yourself"




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
well i have been thinking on this since i first put my two cents in on "time dilation" which uses the lorentz factor to describe a function of speed and time.. something like that, but more importantly it can be used to describe objects spatial relationship in free space as a function of thier speed.

well einstein first theorizes that the universe is expanding at a constant rate, then later adjusted his theory to an acceleration, if memory serves me, and in like 98 or so scientists actually got some observed data that supported the cosmic acceleration.

scientists have used everything to try to explain this, because we know in science there must be some sort of outside force that causes this acceleration, so here comes dark matter, dark energy, mokeys, whatever, and the whole dark energy/matter thoery has really not settled with me, why invent something to explain the theory that we only have acounted for a portion of matter? so its dark matter???


i digress,

so now when we look at this we can see that it makes more sense, to me for the time being, that if objects at relativistic speed will appear to acclerate apart due to deceleration of the system, why not consider that the universe is slowing, the same way that any explosion would, thus withthe initial outward trajectory, and slowing of the objects in the system, the illusion of bodies expanding at an accelerating rate would naturally be the end result!

[edit on 20-8-2009 by wx4caster]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
this is all in my opinion.

IF: the universe is expanding, AND: Matter cannot be created or destroyed, then as the universe would expand, it would merely be scaling in size. it would seem to make sense that from the 'and' of that, that if it's expanding, the items nearest us would seem as though they are traveling slower, in comparison to some time ago.

If the overall circumference of the area that the material universe lies in is expanding, even if it was at a solid rate per unit of time, things close to us would seem to be moving slower now than they were before, even if the universe as a whole is covering more distance. But in infinite time from now, there would be infinite distance. (Unless it was stopped or reversed)



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
yes that is not the issue here. what you said is true, the enigma is that it appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate, and the reason is the puzzle!



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I have a big problem with the Big Bang Theory. I simply do not buy into it. Therefore the subtler interpretations hold no credability for me.

What you might ask is my objection? We are given a few basic pieces in the puzzle so that our unschooled minds can grasp the simple generalizations. However the parts contradict one another.

First fact: The Universe starts with all matter in a very small area which explodes. The explosion sends a burst of matter and energy out in every direction, this is the universe.

Second Fact: Using powerful telescopes we can see light reaching us now from almost the time of the Big Bang.

Third Fact: No matter can move faster than the speed of light.

Problem: How did the matter ( Our galaxy, solar system, Earth, Us get here before the light did?

Problem: How can the light from around the time of the the Big Bang be constantly arriving here, since we can see it whenever we happen to look for it?

When we see the light from distant stars that light was given off by them long ago. However we cannot simply dial the telescope in to view the star at any point in it's history. We can see only the light which took exactly the time required to travel the distance between us and the star.

If we could view light from any point in history a telescope in space could be used watch the battles of the civil war, the premise is absurd.

For us to see light from the big bang, the big bang would need to be more like the big river spitting us out long ago and perhaps still be spitting matter and light into the universe. Not a single explosion, but a sustained manifestation of matter and energy from a single location over a monumental period of time.

Why would we be accelerating, because the process is ongoing and increasing in magnitude, creating acceleration via inner pressures.

[edit on 20-8-2009 by Cyberbian]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
I have a big problem with the Big Bang Theory. I simply do not buy into it. Therefore the subtler interpretations hold no credability for me.


this is definately your right to oppinion, yet we have observed data at question, and this is the debate.


What you might ask is my objection? We are given a few basic pieces in the puzzle so that our unschooled minds can grasp the simple generalizations. However the parts contradict one another.

First fact: The Universe starts with all matter in a very small area which explodes. The explosion sends a burst of matter and energy out in every direction, this is the universe.

Second Fact: Using powerful telescopes we can see light reaching us now from almost the time of the Big Bang.

Third Fact: No matter can move faster than the speed of light.

Problem: How did the matter ( Our galaxy, solar system, Earth, Us get here before the light did?


our light is here, we were here before our light, thier light is here before us, its just that the celestial body ever more gives off light, so we continue to see the light that takes billions of years to get here.


Problem: How can the light from around the time of the the Big Bang be constantly arriving here, since we can see it whenever we happen to look for it?

When we see the light from distant stars that light was given off by them long ago. However we cannot simply dial the telescope in to view the star at any point in it's history. We can see only the light which took exactly the time required to travel the distance between us and the star.

If we could view light from any point in history a telescope in space could be used watch the battles of the civil war, the premise is absurd.


if we had a receiver that was 150 light years away we would be able to capture those moments, we cannot dial our revievers, they are only a table that collects photons like a kitchen table collects dust.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by wx4caster
 

We are told that the theory of an expanding universe was proposed to account for observations such as differing "redshift" in light from stars different distances from earth. However, it remains only a theory.

If you are a physicist, the only (or major) question always is: what theory will explain observations with the best accuracy? There are other explanations within the "serious" scientific community, such as the one below.

www.sciencedaily.com...

And there are even more outside of that community.

What I have to ask is: How important are these theories to solving problems of human survival?

We have situations staring us in the face that are, at best, only years away from turning into total disasters. If a line of investigation is not resulting in insights into our present dilemma, I cannot give it that much importance.

Here's an example: We have a problem on this planet with people doing things in secret that the larger society really has a right to know about. One of our weapons against that kind of deceit is the ability that some people seem to have to leave their body and extend their perceptions to distant targets. This is often referred to as "remote viewing." I think this would be a useful ability to have. Now, let's say you run across a group that says: "We know how to train people to do that. We've been doing it for over 50 years now!" If this group is being straight, then they have a technology worth investigating. When you look into the theory that explains why this technology works you discover this: One can also learn to "remote view" his own experiential track. And when people have done this they quite often recall a time when stars were being created by intelligent beings. With the dating techniques available in this technology, these events seem to go back trillions of earth years.

Now, scientists would dismiss this data. But who is actually having some success in developing a technology that could help us to survive? I think these "spiritual" researchers are onto something. And if they are, that gives you an idea of how far from the truth science could be. I don't dismiss science. But recognize that they could be missing something important. They haven't wrapped this up yet. As far as I'm concerned, it is just as possible that the universe is contracting as it is that it is expanding. But for all practical purposes, I don't see how that datum has any significant impact on our ability to know what we need to know to survive on earth.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
sigh....

i was really hoping for a scientific debate on this.

not knocking spiritualists or anyone, just saying, this is edge science here, and wouldnt it be cool to say ATS helped get a new theory going!

too bad.. ill still keep an eye out tho/



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Objects in the universe are accelerating away from each other because the space they inhabit is inflating. Space itself is inflating.

You're suggesting that objects at constant speed seem to be accelerating because space is contracting, so they're covering more units of space per unit time? That would imply that the universe is not only imploding, but doing so at an accelerating rate.

You are forgetting that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference. This being the case, the light, too, would cover constantly increasing numbers of units of (diminishing) space per unit time. Since light cannot accelerate, the result would be that objects receding from us would be blueshifted, not redshifted. This is the exact opposite of what we observe.

I hope you find this answer satisfactory.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
So you are trying to say that relative deceleration would be indistinguishable, from our point of view, from cosmic acceleration?

If the whole system(including us, or our sector) were moving away from the edge, then would it seem that the edge is accelerating, when in fact it would be us as well? back to 'there is no spoon'...

...maybe?

Sorry if thats not it at all...



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Objects in the universe are accelerating away from each other because the space they inhabit is inflating. Space itself is inflating.


according to starbinski and guth, however they could not agree on what happens AFTER expansion. the theory was a response to trying to explain why the observed universe is so homogenous, and funny thing is that the math is really the invers so to speak of black hole compression. so why so hard to imagine collapsing space?


You're suggesting that objects at constant speed seem to be accelerating because space is contracting, so they're covering more units of space per unit time? That would imply that the universe is not only imploding, but doing so at an accelerating rate.


no i am suggesting that as the universe contracts at an increasing rate that as objects in motion do according to the lorentz transformation, they would contract, or rather the spatial length would decrease.


You are forgetting that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference. This being the case, the light, too, would cover constantly increasing numbers of units of (diminishing) space per unit time. Since light cannot accelerate, the result would be that objects receding from us would be blueshifted, not redshifted. This is the exact opposite of what we observe.


not true. objects in massively curved space can travel faster than c as observed by an outside frame of reference. objects in such curved space, and beyond the cosmic horizon traveling away from us would not be able to be observed at all. the speed of light is constant no matter what the reciever or emitters velocity or acceleration, this is because at that speed mas has zero spatial value.


I hope you find this answer satisfactory.


infact some intelligent banter is greatly appreciated!! lets see if we can further the discussion!



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by wx4caster
why so hard to imagine collapsing space?

It isn't. But imagining it is not the same thing as determining that it's real.


i am suggesting that as the universe contracts at an increasing rate that as objects in motion do according to the lorentz transformation, they would contract, or rather the spatial length would decrease.

But the universe is not going anywhere, it's just (according to your idea) shrinking. Objects within it may be moving towards one another because of this shrinkage and would therefore (if your idea were true) undergo the Lorentz contraction when seen from another frame of reference. What would that frame of reference be? A point outside the universe? Even if such a thing existed, no frames of reference are privileged in SR, as I'm sure you know.

At any rate, the universe as a whole won't undergo a Lorentz contraction.


objects in massively curved space can travel faster than c as observed by an outside frame of reference.

Ah, the old 'tunnel under spacetime' argument. I'm not going to argue with you whether or not it works for objects, as you say it does, but it certainly doesn't work for light. In such cases light simply follows the curvature of spacetime at its usual speed for the medium.

No space is more massively curved than that adjacent to a black hole event horizon. No superluminal velocities are observed or theorized even in such a case.

Light does not travel faster than light.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Get a load of this site:

xxx.lanl.gov

Zero-Point energy papers (Zero-point is the same thing as orgone energy, or chi, or whatever you wanna call it)

Also astrophysics papers, all kinds of stuff I'm still trying to comprehend how much stuff there is there.


Open access to 554,760 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics



arXiv is an e-print service in the fields of physics, mathematics, non-linear science, computer science, quantitative biology and statistics. The contents of arXiv conform to Cornell University academic standards. arXiv is owned, operated and funded by Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is also partially funded by the National Science Foundation.





posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wx4caster
 


I don't think you put together the components of my argument.

Our matter is here at this precise distance from the big bang over this precise time period, yet we can supposedly view light just arriving here from relatively shortly after the big bang.

If you believe that then either we moved faster than the speed of light to get here, or we are viewing light not from just before the big bang, but more recent light than the origin of the universe, which would be a sustained bang over an immense scale of time, which could be ongoing.

Yes if you travel faster than the speed of light you might view light from a selected point back in history. So either we moved faster than the speed of light, ( Don't make me laugh) or the viewing of light from near the time of the big bang is absurd.

Seriously consider the facts, if you need to graph out the relative travel of the matter and the light and see that it is impossible that light from near the big bang is just now arriving here after matter from the same time. (How very convenient of it!)



[edit on 23-8-2009 by Cyberbian]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


Originally posted by Cyberbian
Our matter is here at this precise distance from the big bang over this precise time period, yet we can supposedly view light just arriving here from relatively shortly after the big bang.

You present what is, at first sight, rather a nice paradox. If you thought it up yourself, well done. You're thinking like a physicist. A little further thought, however, makes clear why this idea is wrong.

Our matter is not 'at this precise distance from the Big Bang'. Our matter is at the precise location of the Big Bang. And so, interestingly enough, is all the other matter and energy in the universe.

The Big Bang was not an explosion. Matter and energy did not radiate outward from a point. Space itself expanded (and continues to do so). It expands equally in all directions. This is the first thing you have to remember. All points in the universe are the location of the Big Bang.

Now let's see what happened to that pesky Big Bang light.

According to currently accepted theory, the outer boundary of the expanding universe (you could call this the wavefront of the Big Bang) is actually moving faster than light. This motion has two components: the first is the velocity of photons radiating outwards at - obviously - the speed of light, c; the second is the inflation of space itself. Inflation is not occurring outwards from a central point (the Big Bang was not an explosion). It takes place equally in all directions. Some of this expansion is also outwards from the Big Bang, so we can add that velocity component to the velocity of the radiant photons to get a value higher than c and constantly increasing because the rate of inflation is increasing. Relativity is not violated because space is not matter or energy; the photons are still moving at the speed of light relative to any point in the space they occupy, but that space is expanding, so the total velocity of the BB wavefront is travelling faster than light. (I am, by the way, assuming a flat spacetime geometry.)

This gorgeous diagram (any excuse to post it will do for me) may help you visualize things. The outer curve of the figure is the rate of expansion of space (if you click on the picture, you'll be able to see all of it).


Light from the BB wavefront doesn't reach us; its source is moving away from us so fast, radiation emitted in our direction is redshifted down to invisibility. We cannot see to the end of the universe. For all we know, it could be infinite in extent, although there are reasons for doubting this.

So how far, exactly, can we see? Light always travels at the speed of light. The universe is some 13.7 billion years old. So our visible universe is a sphere of radius 13.7 billion light-years (in practical terms rather less due to the limitations of our instruments, but we're getting very close).

And what we see at the limit of this 13.7-billion-light-year boundary is light from the Big Bang. We do not see it as superhot and superbright because the inflation of space has stretched and stretched its wavelength; what were once gamma rays are now radio waves of the lowest detectable frequency. This is known as cosmological redshift, and it is calculated differently from the better known Doppler redshift.

Now remember, the location of the Big Bang is everywhere. Every point in the universe was involved in it. But light emitted during the BB from points inside the 13.7LY sphere has already reached us, because it had less than 13.7LY to travel.

13.7LY from us, however, the BB (to our eyes) is still happening. We're still seeing the light from it. Only it isn't the Big Bang any more, more a kind of wispy, barely-glowing radio haze.

There now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[edit on 23/8/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
So you are saying that the mass of the "Expansion" moved faster than the light of the expansion?

Your restatement of the event does not change the problem with the original concept of an explosion.

Thank you for the elaboration I truly appreciate the educated perspective.

However little "c" is dealing with frames relative to a rotating sphere.
Which is to say relativity simply does not apply to this model whatsoever.

The problem with c is that no matter your speed, light is moving relative to you at the same speed, so if you have a line of five space ships traveling in the same direction, first ship 1/10 the speed of light, second ship 2/10ths the speed of light and so on and just to spice it up the last ship is at standing still. A laser is fired from behind them.

Each ship sees the light passing it at c, the constant speed of light.
Meaning that the light is not traveling at any speed. Surely only a mad man would suggest it throttles itself up and down for spectators.
Therefore to satisfy the requirement of being at these multiple points outside of any possible velocity specific value; it must be everywhere along it's path simultaneously and c the speed of light is not the speed of light's travel, but the speed of perception of light along it's line of instantiation.

You must accept light being instantly everywhere along it's path is a more rational explaination than light incrementally ratcheting up it's velocity relative to moving objects. Were the relative speeds and locations charted you would quickly realize the light at the last point of observation would needs have arrived in a time interval indicating a travel at 140% the speed of light, while being observed to move at c.

Think of this as being like arriving at the next tollbooth far to soon, but seen traveling at legal speeds, you will still get ticketed.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
So you are saying that the mass of the "Expansion" moved faster than the light of the expansion?

No, it only seems like that to you because you're thinking of the expansion as an explosion, radiating outwards.


However little "c" is dealing with frames relative to a rotating sphere.
Which is to say relativity simply does not apply to this model whatsoever.

What? Could you please elaborate?


The problem with c is that no matter your speed, light is moving relative to you at the same speed... Each ship sees the light passing it at c, the constant speed of light. Meaning that the light is not traveling at any speed. Surely only a mad man would suggest it throttles itself up and down for spectators.

Oh, dear, you're a nonbeliever in special relativity, are you?


Therefore to satisfy the requirement of being at these multiple points outside of any possible velocity specific value; it must be everywhere along it's path simultaneously and c the speed of light is not the speed of light's travel, but the speed of perception of light along it's line of instantiation.

Light does not have infinite velocity.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Reason dictates that we should laugh when someone suggests we are so "lucky" as to be just the right distance and period from the first light to be able to witness it. The notion ranks right up there with the Earth being the center of the universe.

I understand there was matter before the stars formed and light was observable.
I understand the universe is expanding.

I also understand some believe it collapses and repeats with a bang.


Without a bang the Big Bang is the big dust cloud theory. I never heard of that one.

Oh but I do believe in Special Relativity!

I believe in little c in accordance with the parameters of the theory which is in respect to frames of reference relative to a rotating sphere.

And only to frames of reference relative to a rotating sphere.

In fact it is the rotation of the sphere which causes the frame dragging.

Special Relativity is not a difficult read, look for yourself!

However by understanding that each and every observer no matter their direction and speed of travel relative the light source views the light as passing at "c"; I have no choice but to abandon the notion that light has any motion whatsoever.

c remains constant but the frequency red shifts. Consider the difference.

My take is that light is probably the impostion upon one of our observable dimenesions by something in an unobservable dimension which is not bound by the constraints of the dimension of time.
(like a ripple in a pond, viewable as a wave or a point on the surface of that dimension caused by the interference of something on the other side of the surface.)

We become aware of light relative to our dimensions and the impostion of their relationship to time. We observe the intersection of something outside of time from within our dimension of time and can only observe it during the period of our intersect. This would give us the perception of speed because we are seeing the ripple of the dimension travel at c, not the light which is outside our dimension.

Re-read what I wrote above. Look up the behavior of light and "c". I am not misstating the relationship to multiple observers.

c behaves paradoxically. I am simply refusing to ignore the paradox.
I understand of course that c was never intended to be applied to sequential linear travel outside the frame of reference of a rotating sphere.

However you could make the space ships in my analogy rotating spheres and the logic would remain intact.

I appreciate that most physicists jeer at such notions. However a few at the highest levels of the profession sometimes say things which make me think they may be closer in agreement with me than the others. Unfortunately they mostly speak in mathematics and I in logic.


[edit on 24-8-2009 by Cyberbian]

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Cyberbian]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
how can you be so sure space travelling can only be done with the kind of physics thats only understood from the beginning of civilizition to now?

[edit on 24-8-2009 by platipus]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join