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.

 

Expanding Space Is Retarded

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No offense, but the wording in the name you chose for this thread is a good indicator of why you are having difficulty comprehending the cosmos.

I see your calling a theory "retarded,"because you dont understand the idea or dont want to understand the idea.

Just saying I dont see what the purpose was of this thread. It seems like your mind was already made up regarding your stance on this issue. What were you hoping to achieve? Clearly, people have already explained to you the various scientific theories regarding what "space" is. You claim to have had prior knowledge of said theories, and to have dismissed them.

Lets be honest with each other, everything regarding this issue is theoretical. The theories make sense, but who's to say which is more correct? A theory is only a theory, doesnt matter if its coming from you, or myself.

Unless, you are willing to provide us with some groundbreaking data, proving the dark matter theory false. Surely, you must have SOMETHING that makes you so sure of your stance.

Dont worry. I'll wait


[edit on 31-3-2010 by WhiteDevil013]




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Look up Nassim heramein. He has a different approach to the space/time expansion contraction theory.

his videos are free online, and his ideas are a breath of fresh air. he even improved on the swarthchilds proton (cant spell that guys name!) and also improved Einsteins field equations.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Schwarzschild's own equations prevent black holes from forming.

If you look at Schwarzschild's original work, it is regular in all of space time.

This was the solution proposed to explain the movement of Mercury under Einstein's theory.

Einstein accepted this proposal, which is also why Einstein himself never believed in black holes. Schwarzschild's solution absolutely prohibits them.

Einstein knew that if black holes really did exist, they would undermine his theory. Einstein even published a paper arguing against black holes.

That aside, no mechanism of force has been proposed to explain why space should expand or why such expansion should impart force on galaxies.

The whole thing is illogical on its face.

nothing can not bend or expand.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is patently illogical to conclude that nothing can give rise to something.

This statement is true whether discussing the big bang which arose from nothing or the expansion of space imparting movement to galaxies with a force of nothing.

Nothing begets nothing.



Your absolutely right my friend.. You are just missing one small fact that will clear everything up rather simply "There is no such thing as nothing" There is always something. Its impossible for nothing to exist.

The void u are refeering to as space is a misconception as space is granular at distances close to the plank length scale and so is made up of SOMETHING and is not nothing..

The problem here is your thinking.... Not the physics.. I can explain more but like a few have mentioned a little google search will reveal alot to you..

Just remember that there is no such thing as nothing!! it doesnt and cannot exist!! THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING. peace!!



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
sorry for double post

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Originally posted by mnemeth1
Schwarzschild's own equations prevent black holes from forming.

If you look at Schwarzschild's original work, it is regular in all of space time.

This was the solution proposed to explain the movement of Mercury under Einstein's theory.

Einstein accepted this proposal, which is also why Einstein himself never believed in black holes. Schwarzschild's solution absolutely prohibits them.

Einstein knew that if black holes really did exist, they would undermine his theory. Einstein even published a paper arguing against black holes.

That aside, no mechanism of force has been proposed to explain why space should expand or why such expansion should impart force on galaxies.

The whole thing is illogical on its face.

nothing can not bend or expand.


en.wikipedia.org...




The significance of the singularity at r = 2M (in natural units) was first raised by Jacques Hadamard, who, during a conference in Paris in 1922, asked what might happen if a physical system could ever obtain this singularity. Albert Einstein insisted that it could not, pointing out the dire consequences for the universe, and jokingly referred to the singularity as the "Hadamard disaster".[4]

Schwarzschild's original model of a star assumed an incompressible fluid; Einstein pointed out that this was an unreasonable assumption, as sound waves would propagate at infinite speed. In his own work, Einstein reconsidered a model of a star where the components of the star were orbiting masses, and showed that the orbital velocities would exceed the speed of light at the Schwarzschild radius. In 1939, he used this to argue that no such thing can happen, and so the singularity could not occur in nature.[5] The same year, Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder considered a model of a dust cloud, where the dust particles of the cloud were moving radially, towards a single point, and showed that the dust particles could reach the singularity in finite proper time. After passing the limit, Oppenheimer and Snyder noted that light cones were directed inwards, and that no signal could escape outside.[6]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



In one view, the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with time, and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how to transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects like the redshift are the same in both views


The ultimate reality is that EITHER WAY you look at it, space is imparting force upon the galaxies.

The ultimate reality is that if redshift is a function of velocity, the real physical distance must be increasing between us and the visible galaxies.

If you assume its because of inertia imparted by the big bang, this precludes the velocity being from the expansion of space.

If you assume its because space itself is expanding, this precludes inertia from the big bang.

If you assume it is because space itself is expanding, a mechanism of force must be explained as to why galaxies are moving away from us when space is "added" out of nothing between us.

If space is added between us, it is imparting real physical force upon the galaxies pushing them apart. If it wasn't, the added space between us would flow around the galaxies without moving them.

Of course, its patently ridiculous to believe space simply appears between us and this is the cause of expansion. Its more likely that the hand of Zeus is pushing galaxies apart than that explanation.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


That's right, what that article fails to mention though is that Oppenheimer used a faulty derivation of Schwarzschild's solution authored by a man named Hilbert in his equations.

In Hilbert's solution, spacetime is not regular - and hence, why Oppenheimer was able to get away with his nonsense.

Einstein never agreed with it.

Einstein didn't even believe the universe was "expanding" until Hubble came up with his galaxy redshift plots.

Its unfortunate that Einstein wasn't around long enough for us to do plots of Quasar redshifts though. Because those plots absolutely refute the notion that redshift is a function of velocity.




[edit on 31-3-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Thanks for the following link, Maslo: en.wikipedia.org...

At which I found the second sentence to read:



Gravity assistance can be used to accelerate, decelerate and/or re-direct the path of a spacecraft. The "assist" is provided by the motion (orbital angular momentum) of the gravitating body as it pulls on the spacecraft.


Forgive me for being observant, but you said:



The slingshot effect does not work like that, your final speed relative to a planet being slingshoted is not changed. Only your speed relative to other planets or sun could be changed by slingshot. The momentum is conserved, because the spacecraft also affects velocity of the planet being slingshoted.


Gotcha!

If you're going to source something, you'd dam well better read it in it's entirety and understand the concept or I am sure as heck gonna call you on it, Bro.

ATS ... Keepin' it real.

Actually, I already knew that the slingshot is used by NASA to accelerate and decelerate their crafts in flight. That's how they went to the moon and back, and sped all of the intra and extra solar craft onto their missions.

The explanation of gravity assist (formally) is: "The additional speed of the spacecraft has been won at the planet's expense. As a result of the encounter, it slows imperceptibly in its orbit and, as a result, moves fractionally closer to the Sun."
Thing is, when they first observed it, gravitational theory couldn't account for it.
So this - it took some of the planets mojo when it left it - theory was born. Back in the sixties there was no way to prove or disprove.

Attempts have been made by ground and space based equipment to observe this phenomenon as craft are launched beyond orbit using grav assist. Currently to date, no reduction in velocity, orbit or mass has ever been observed.
But, those same instruments can make out that a sun, millions of miles away, has an orbiting body by observing and measuring the almost indiscernible wobble effect the gravitational pull that planet has on it's sun.
A factual inconsistency.
Things = Hummmmm.

The flaw in contemporary theory of gravity (why they say you can't fall off the earth) is really the erroneous reclassification of the work function equation into a work detector equation.
Here's the math:
Work function: W= F d (where W=work, F=force and D=distance). It's use was to mathematically express physical labor. i.e., the more force used to move an object, the further the object is moved, therefore the more measurable work is done to perform this task. And easily transposed to solve for x.
Over time, this simple tool underwent a subtle, but misguided transformation to be a work detector.
Layman's:
You have a rock that is just too heavy to move. Even using an all out effort. You can push with everything you have, and become exhausted without moving it one inch. Using the work function as a detector to measure your effort would show zero work has been done. "The hell, you say" to me. Cause your tired and sweatin' your gulliunes off. You worked, right? Work function as a work detector says ..... BUZZ. Wrong answer.
You went zero distance. No work performed.
Well, with out boring you with more math (Even though I know how much ya all love it)
The work function became a Modified Work Function that Newton incorporated in his theory. And, poof!
Gravity.
A force which can be measured, BUT NOT SOURCED, is dropping apples on dudes head.

Any body gotta Tylenol?

[edit on 4/1/2010 by LatentElement]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Thus, the big bang, black holes, and all other warping space nonsense must be considered just that - nonsense.


Don't worry, its all just an elaborate illusion. Sorry for any inconvenience you may have experienced as a result of asking questions to the nature of reality. The ride will be over soon enough.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LatentElement
reply to post by Maslo
 


Thanks for the following link, Maslo: en.wikipedia.org...

At which I found the second sentence to read:



Gravity assistance can be used to accelerate, decelerate and/or re-direct the path of a spacecraft. The "assist" is provided by the motion (orbital angular momentum) of the gravitating body as it pulls on the spacecraft.


Forgive me for being observant, but you said:



The slingshot effect does not work like that, your final speed relative to a planet being slingshoted is not changed. Only your speed relative to other planets or sun could be changed by slingshot. The momentum is conserved, because the spacecraft also affects velocity of the planet being slingshoted.


Gotcha!

If you're going to source something, you'd dam well better read it in it's entirety and understand the concept or I am sure as heck gonna call you on it, Bro.

ATS ... Keepin' it real.

Actually, I already knew that the slingshot is used by NASA to accelerate and decelerate their crafts in flight. That's how they went to the moon and back, and sped all of the intra and extra solar craft onto their missions.

The explanation of gravity assist (formally) is: "The additional speed of the spacecraft has been won at the planet's expense. As a result of the encounter, it slows imperceptibly in its orbit and, as a result, moves fractionally closer to the Sun."
Thing is, when they first observed it, gravitational theory couldn't account for it.
So this - it took some of the planets mojo when it left it - theory was born. Back in the sixties there was no way to prove or disprove.

Attempts have been made by ground and space based equipment to observe this phenomenon as craft are launched beyond orbit using grav assist. Currently to date, no reduction in velocity, orbit or mass has ever been observed.
But, those same instruments can make out that a sun, millions of miles away, has an orbiting body by observing and measuring the almost indiscernible wobble effect the gravitational pull that planet has on it's sun.
A factual inconsistency.
Things = Hummmmm.


[edit on 4/1/2010 by LatentElement]


No, you still dont understand it. The spacecraft is NOT accelerated relative to planet being slingshoted! It can only be accelerated relative to some other planet, or sun. There is nothing mysterious about it and it is not true that we cannot account for it. Simple physics.

Do you realize what kind of sensitivity would be needed to measure this little slowing down of a slingshoted planet? We cannot measure it. There is no factual inconsistency.




You have a rock that is just too heavy to move. Even using an all out effort. You can push with everything you have, and become exhausted without moving it one inch. Using the work function as a detector to measure your effort would show zero work has been done. "The hell, you say" to me. Cause your tired and sweatin' your gulliunes off. You worked, right? Work function as a work detector says ..... BUZZ. Wrong answer.


No, you did not worked. All your effort did was create some waste heat, and no mechanical work was done. You are exhausted because your energy was converted to useless heat.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paladin327
but anyway, going back to the expanding ballon example, place 2 grains of sand on the outside of the balloon, blow up the ballon so it is rigid enough to measure. note distances. blow balloon up more, note differences have changed. this is how the universe's expansion was explained to me in 2 courses on astronomy. the ballon is space-time, and the sand is... something in the universe.


Which is not correct.

Space is also inside atoms. Do atoms grow? if they grew in the same pace as the universe, then there would be no red shifting, because distances between planetary bodies wouldn't change: the planetary bodies would grow themselves.

In the balloon & sand example you gave, the grains of sand would grow together with the balloon, and thus no change in distance would be observed.

What happens is that new space is being generated that pushes matter away from matter.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Of course, its patently ridiculous to believe space simply appears between us and this is the cause of expansion. Its more likely that the hand of Zeus is pushing galaxies apart than that explanation.



Why? space was created somehow, and it's the same force that continues to create space.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you assume its because of inertia imparted by the big bang, this precludes the velocity being from the expansion of space.


As I said you can pick more than one frame of reference and transform between them using general relativity, so let's just pick this frame of reference for now, inertia from the big bang, and that the galaxies are moving through space and don't have velocity from the expansion of space.

And to keep the discussion focused on the OP topic, for now let's disregard the dark energy/cosmological constant issue, in other words using the pre-1998 standard model before dark energy was discovered.

What's the problem with inertia from the big bang explaining the redshift results, or whatever else you think the problem is?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

What's the problem with inertia from the big bang explaining the redshift results, or whatever else you think the problem is?


If you say inertia is from the "big bang", this makes little sense of what we observe cosmologically.

We see the "fastest" objects being the objects with the most mass, namely quasars.

Given that, it is illogical on its face to assume galactic velocities were imparted by physical reactions within a big bang. The more mass an object has, the more energy required to move it. We should expect to see large objects with low red shifts and small objects with higher red shifts. - exactly the opposite of what we do see.

But that fact aside, I'll lay it out for you again since you still don't get it.

If you say there is any kind of velocity of galaxies being imparted EITHER BY BIG BANG INERTIA OR BY "EXPANDING" SPACE - it doesn't matter which one you chose - the reality of those presumptions is that galaxies are moving away from us in terms of real physical distance.

If space is "expanding" and this is causing the galaxy to recede away from us, the real physical distance between us is growing larger.

If galaxies are moving because of force imparted by the big bang, the real physical distance between us is growing larger.

Now - if the real physical distance between us is growing larger - FORCE MUST BE IMPARTED!

If I put two balls on the ground near each other and then spray a stream of water between them, the water spreading out as it strikes the ground will force the balls apart.

If I do the exact same thing, only this time the balls are unable to feel any water pressure, it doesn't matter how much water I add between the balls, they will not move.

If I add "space" between galaxies, in order for galaxies to separate, the galaxies must have force imparted to them by this space or they would simply remain fixed in place.

Adding space between galaxies would result in the space flowing around the galaxies, just as the water in the second example flows around the balls, if space did not impart any force upon the galaxies.

So - where's the force?

[edit on 1-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So - where's the force?


The force from the big bang is the force in the pre-1998 standard model.

And in the post-dark-energy standard model, added to that is some mysterious unknown force, called "dark energy".

Here's a graph to illustrate the models:

Source:
www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...


The pre-1998 standard model thoughts were that the universe was probably on one of the lower three curves representing examples of closed, flat, and open but non accelerating universes. And if you understand how to interpret graphs, you can see that there's no acceleration after the big bang in those three models, in fact there's deceleration, and how much deceleration there is depends on the various densities represented by the omega values in the upper left of the graph. Since there was no acceleration, there was no force needed other than the decelerating force of gravity.

The post 1998 model which includes dark energy has pointed out something unexpected. None of the 3 lower curves we thought were likely seem to be as likely now, as new data suggest that the top curve colored in red may be the most likely, and only that red curve DOES show acceleration and in that model, you're right that some force is required to cause that acceleration.

We don't understand what that force is so we called it dark energy, and we dusted off what Einstein called his biggest mistake, the cosmological constant and said maybe it's got something to do with that. It's a mystery, nobody really understands it, and that's why it's called "dark".


Although no-one has any idea of what dark energy may actually be, it appears to be unsettlingly similar to the force of cosmic repulsion or “cosmological constant” discarded by Einstein back in 1929 (as mentioned in the section on The Expanding Universe and Hubble’s Law), and this remains the most likely contender, even if its specific properties and effects are still under intense discussion. Other candidates are so-called “quintessence” and so-called “phantom energy”, although all of these ideas are essentially still at the hypothesis stage.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

So - where's the force?

[edit on 1-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


A better question is what is causing this force, and the answer is - we dont know. But we call this force cosmic inflation and dark energy. (there are two such forces hypothesised actually, or one with varying strength)

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology)

It is also important to realize that for an expansion to exist there is not any need for a force to be present - a force is needed only to change the speed of expansion (for acceleration).
Inertia ensures that if space expands with some speed (which means that galaxies recede from each other) then this expansion will continue (galaxies will continue to recede, with some corrections due to gravity..).



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
The universe is expanding in energy mass and space and or ether
so live with it.
That is what we observe.
That is what is happening.
The Sun has to be increasing in mass, from the nothing or ether,
to keep on generating energy.

Another apparent natural phenomena that is rejected but true.

So we see its called fusion where mass increases from the
ether as easy as alpha particles obtain electrons to become
Helium atoms.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



"We don't understand what that force is so we called it dark energy"


How about there is no force.

How about you don't understand it because it doesn't really exist.

How about the universe is steady in state and the models of expansion and acceleration are wrong.

How about red shift is entirely caused by the known properties of plasma well described by Wolf back in the late 80s.

Of course, this would be patently ridiculous. Its much better we invent make believe forces to explain observation rather than examine the underlying assumptions of Einstein's theories.



Polarization-induced spectral changes on propagation of stochastic electromagnetic beams
Jixiong Pu, Olga Korotkova, Emil Wolf, Phys. Rev. E 75, 056610 (2007)
scitation.aip.org...&gifs=yes

Correlation-induced Doppler-type frequency shifts of spectral lines
E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2220 - 2223 (1989)
prola.aps.org...

Invariance of the Spectrum of Light on Propagation
Emil Wolf Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1370 - 1372 (1986)
prola.aps.org...

Redshifts and Blueshifts of Spectral Lines Emitted by Two Correlated Sources
E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Letters, 58, 2646, 1987
plasmascience.net...

“Invariance and non-invariance of the spectrum and of the degree of polarization of stochastic electromagnetic beams on
propagation”,
J. Pu, O. Korotkova and E. Wolf,
Opt. Lett. 31, 2097-2099 (2006).
It has been known for some time that the spectrum of light may change on propagation, even in free space. The theory of this phenomena was developed within the framework of scalar theory. In this paper we generalize it to electromagnetic beams, generated by planar, secondary, stochastic sources. We also derive an electromagnetic analog of the so-called scaling law. When this law is satisfied the normalized spectrum of the beam is the same throughout the far zone and is the same as the normalized source spectrum. We illustrate our analysis by an example.


“Effects of source polarization and source coherence on far-zone spectra of stochastic beams"
O. Korotkova, J. Pu and E. Wolf,
(submitted to Phys. Rev. E).
It was shown some years ago that the spectrum of a stochastic scalar field depends not only on the source spectrum but also on the degree of coherence of the source. In this paper we show that there are electromagnetic sources, whose degree of polarization also affects the spectrum of the radiated field. We illustrate the analysis by diagrams which show the far-zone spectra of some stochastic electromagnetic beams generated by sources of different states of coherence and different degrees of polarization. The spectra of the radiated field depend both on coherence properties of the source and its degree of polarization and are found to be different in different directions of observation


Optical redshifts due to correlations in quasar plasmas
Lama, W.; Walsh, P.J. Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 31, Issue 6, Dec. 2003 Page(s): 1223 - 1229
ieeexplore.ieee.org...=1265342
Summary: While it is commonly accepted that cosmic redshifts are caused by the expansion of space, there are some puzzling cases. For example, a number of quasars having very large redshifts appear to be close to galaxies having much lower redshifts. If the standard cosmological model of the universe is correct, then the apparent proximity of quasars and galaxies must be incorrect, and the quasars must be much farther away. Then we are puzzled by the enormous luminosity of the quasars, which must be thousands of times more energetic than an entire galaxy, and by their enormous speeds, which must approach the speed of light. But if the quasar redshifts have a significant contribution from another mechanism besides expansion, then their proximity to low redshift galaxies and the quasar energy and speed puzzles would be resolved. One physical mechanism that produces redshifts is optical correlations. In fact, correlation-induced spectral changes on scattering from gases or plasmas can mimic the major features of redshifts caused by expansion. We will present a high-level, hopefully intuitive, overview of the theory that has been developed over the past decade and try to draw some concrete conclusions about the relevancy of the effect to the redshifts from quasars.


Non-cosmological redshifts of spectral lines
Emil Wolf Nature 326, 363 - 365 (26 March 1987); doi:10.1038/326363a0
www.nature.com...
We showed in a recent report1 (see also refs 2–4) that the normalized spectrum of light will, in general, change on propagation in free space. We also showed that the normalized spectrum of light emitted by a source of a well-defined class will, however, be the same throughout the far zone if the degree of spectral coherence of the source satisfies a certain scaling law. The usual thermal sources appear to be of this kind. These theoretical predictions were subsequently verified by experiments5. Here, we demonstrate that under certain circumstances the modification of the normalized spectrum of the emitted light caused by the correlations between the source fluctuations within the source region can produce redshifts of spectral lines in the emitted light. Our results suggest a possible explanation of various puzzling features of the spectra of some stellar objects, particularly quasars.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Now, is it more crazy to believe red shift is caused by known properties of plasma or is it more crazy to believe "expanding space" is causing red shift?

Is it more crazy to believe space is bending and imparting force on objects out of nothing or is it more crazy to believe measurable deterministic physical processes are responsible?

What is the more rational and simpler explanation?

I do not believe in the hand of Zeus.

I do not believe nothing can expand and impart force on something.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join