Michael F. D. Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Oddly to say such conclusion possible to do by using of existing theory. - A BB theory . - A theory of expanding universe. - A theory of the expansion of space at the speed of light. - A red shift in spectrum of the stars which "confirms" all these theories. So. Is it not strange, that the observer is residing on the Earth, of a thousand of the years does observes a not changed picture of starry sky? Considering "theoretically maximum speed of the light" with which occurs the expansion of space, observer must see enough a quickly changing picture of the location of stars. Accepting all enumerated above a theories as reliable, it is possible to expect several explanations why this does not occur. 1) The Earth founds in the centre of universe and all stars are slowly moves relative the Earth from this point. The red shift can be observed in ALL DIRECTIONS without exception. 2) Whole visible universe in process of the expansion runs at a speed of "c" to a one direction together with the Earth from a Zero Point. But, why to a one direction? If expansion occurs in the manner of 3D sphere then the whole matter must exist in the manner of fine shell of this sphere. Herewith with an each instant the shell must becomes some fine. This must be exactly so, since BB was began with a flashing of light. But we does not observe this.. And once again a red shift persistently exists on all directions. 3) Space enlarges at the speed of light without any object having mass. In the manner of light radiation and gravity field. Any Star does not takes the participation in this process . They are moves off from the Earth with a small speed . Consequently a space and stars are independent and comply with a different law. All objects having mass "has fallen out" from space and live its life. The Single reliable fact this red shift under unchanging picture of the mutual location of the stars. Considering this fact, variants 2) and 3) it is possible to acknowledge as not having sense. From these three variant the less absurd and confirmed by observations is a first . Existing on today a picture of universe could be formed , if the material from which were formed stars, was evenly portioned in a whole volume of universe SIMULTANEOUSLY. WITHOUT EXPANSION OF SPACE SUBSEQUENTLY. But how it is possible to combine this statement with a red shift? This is possible to do if do recall about "fourth dimension of spacetime" . This is TIME. It is exactly a moving of time which we observe as expansion of universe. In ONE DIRECTION ONLY. ALONG WITH ALL OBJECTS. The red shift proves that move of time has a different speed for miscellaneous objects i.e each object exists in its Time Cycle. But what is a Space? This is illusion of Time. Space exists in the limit of sphere with Plank's lenght diameter. Since a spatial volume of universe is close to a zero value, we can take any object as the centre of this "sphere" . The Earth is not a worse object by comparison any other one and can be correspond to this "spatial centre of universe". Thereby a one statement is proved with two completely different standpoint. Consequently it is a TRUTH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael F. D. Posted June 30, 2003 Author Share Posted June 30, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ No. A reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. Is it not strange, that the observer is residing on the Earth, of a thousand of the years does observes a not changed picture of starry sky? I'm afraid they do change. Quite a lot actually. That's your argument down the drain then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 The Single reliable fact this red shift under unchanging picture of the mutual location of the stars. Actually, the Andromeda galaxy is in blue shift at the moment, as I recall, so it's moving towards our galaxy. In about 3 billion years they'll collide. Which proves that not everything is in red shift... as all your arguements seem to rely upon :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 indeed. all those sparkly things in the night sky are in constant movement our night sky is grossly different than the night sky of Julius Ceasar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Caesar, not Ceasar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 When we view the 3 degree background radiation edge of the universe in all directions, is it just out there or has someone calculated a distance for it? Is it uniform? If the universe were a sphere you could judge your nearness to the center by your distance from the edge. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 aman said in post #8 :When we view the 3 degree background radiation edge of the universe in all directions, is it just out there or has someone calculated a distance for it? Is it uniform? If the universe were a sphere you could judge your nearness to the center by your distance from the edge. Just aman It is a sphere (ignoring the effects of the change of the speed of light in a medium), centred on us. Or at least the observable universe is. Then there's problems with equivilence of rest frames, the impossible nature of finding the edge of the universe, and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 well we certainly aren't the literal center of the universe, but it could depend on your perspective. Could it be said when i jump out of a plane that i am moving the earth toward me? OK i guess the doesn't really work, but this is the example i have that makes me wonder : Say you had a ball out in space, (transparent for purposes of the experiment), in the center of this ball is a smaller ball. Its not suspended there by anything, just floats cuz theres no gravity (yeah i know there's not really ZERO gravity, cuz then it wouldn't be matter, but you know what i mean). If you move the transparent ball, wouldn't the center ball remain in its place? But from the perspective of the small ball, it is moving somewhere, when really its its universe (the transparent ball) that is moving around it. Would it be possible with some kind of incomprehensibly advanced technology for one to anchor themselves to a fixed spot in the universe, and will the universe to move around them? Ok, well theres probably an infinate amount of problems with this, and easier ways (though still too advanced for us) to come about 'effortless' transportation, but what do you think about the perspective idea anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 Incorrect. All rest frames are equally valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 Sorry, what does that mean? Does that mean it is or isn't a matter of perspecitve---- what do you say about the space ball concept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 27, 2003 Share Posted October 27, 2003 MrL_JaKiri said in post #11 :All rest frames are equally valid. I think a sticky explaining this concept would be useful to a lot of people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now