Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sedit

The expanding universe and perception

Recommended Posts

This is a question that has been floating in my mind for some time now but because of lack of formal training and self taught mathmatical and science skills iv lacked a full out way of formulating this onto paper.

 

Im sure many if now all here has seen the example of how space is expanding by the use of dots drawn on a ballon correct?

 

Now every one stated how we can tell that the universe is expanding by measuring the distance inbetween each of those dots...

 

This is where my confusion comes into play.

 

the dots that one is measuring the distance in between are them self expanding at the same rate as the distance of the space inbeteen . If an observer is one of those 'dots' how could the possibly measure the distance inbetween point A and point B if there unit of measurement was expanding at the same rate as the distance is.

 

did this make sence?

 

Wouldnt the distance appear the same to the observer nomatter how fast the universe was expanding.

 

something like this would also suggest that the red shift is observed because of the difference between the speed of expantion and then the speed of light

if i remember my formulas correctly

 

I have tryed to use something along the same lines to explain my belief that gravity may possibly be a side effect of the object we are standing ons

expansion causing it to catch up to un instead of us falling towards it but this is always where i hit a road block because of my lack of formal mathmatical training

 

If interest is shown in this i will take the time to dig up all my half scribbled notes and copy some of my more important practice equations if you will.

 

Any thoughts? comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you come to this conclusion?

 

It has been my assumsion that science has felt that there are only a few endings to a finit universe and they are

 

Static.. the universe always was and will be where it is today

 

closed.. it will eventialy collapse onto it self in a big implosion,

 

and

 

Open.. where it will end with total black out where all galaxys are so far apart that a galaxy is left in total cold desolation.

 

I value your quick responce to my post but i fail to see how any of the valid known expantion theorys states that it is based on the creation of matter from nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

North - You cannot just assert things as if they are fact, and not back up what you are saying. I quite agree with Sedit. You need to prove to all of us that you're not just some FOS kid. Let's see some references, and please stop with the nonsense. The posts you've made during the past few hours incline me to believe that you're on some sort of hallucinagen. Please prove me wrong by making more sense and supporting your claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did you come to this conclusion?

 

It has been my assumsion that science has felt that there are only a few endings to a finit universe and they are

 

Static.. the universe always was and will be where it is today

 

closed.. it will eventialy collapse onto it self in a big implosion,

 

and

 

Open.. where it will end with total black out where all galaxys are so far apart that a galaxy is left in total cold desolation.

 

I value your quick responce to my post but i fail to see how any of the valid known expantion theorys states that it is based on the creation of matter from nothing.

 

I see your points

 

first static;

 

at one point in my thinking I thought this concept was a possibility

 

however I don't now ( I'll explain why not later )

 

second , implosion;

 

big-bang

 

unless we think in terms of the BB as the result of a BH( black-hole ) then this concept is ruled out

 

third possibility , galaxies are spread apart, hence blackness

 

obviously not happening

 

the fourth though is this ;

 

Cosmic Plasmas ;

 

where matter is created from the galactic core and moved out into space

 

quasars

 

which is what mainstream astrophysics is now considering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"obviously not happening"

 

How you figure because until we find out how much darkmatter and how it works then this is seeming to be the highest probibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the universe is expanding , surely all the laws onf conservation are violated,

 

"beginning"- singularity

"expansion into nothing"

open universe "the big rip"

 

how can we assume any of these laws of the universe if these create the paradoxes we try to answer.

 

 

Surely these laws are man made and have manifested themselves so that we can explain our small little insignificant part of the universe , with reasonable agreement amongst us.

 

either they are universal or they are not. So if matter or space came from the singularity , how can there be a conservation of anything or the big bang could not have happened as we believe.

 

your views ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see if we can stick with the subject at hand, please -- if Sedit has a serious question then I'd like him to get a serious answer. If Sedit wants to engage in speculations we can move the thread to that subboard. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our macroscopic conservation laws stem from continuous symmetries. If those symmetries were broken at the time of the big bang, those conservation laws need not hold. I'm not sure what the current thinking is on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
North, you're not Bishadi are you by any chance?

 

I see that Bishadi was banned at the BAUT forum (Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forum). My impression is that they are extremely tolerant of argumentative crackpots at BAUT---that you have to be very argumentative and completely immune to reason, in order to get banned. It could be that North does come to us from BAUT. Whether or not he was Bishadi, or someone else (I don't know about that.)

 

Anyway, thanks Tom Vose for the lead.

======================================

 

I agree with what Pangloss said. Let's get back to business.

Let's see if we can stick with the subject at hand, please -- if Sedit has a serious question then I'd like him to get a serious answer. If Sedit wants to engage in speculations we can move the thread to that subboard. Thanks.

 

This is a question that has been floating in my mind for some time now but because of lack of formal training and self taught mathmatical and science skills iv lacked a full out way of formulating this onto paper.

 

Im sure many if now all here has seen the example of how space is expanding by the use of dots drawn on a ballon correct?

 

Now every one stated how we can tell that the universe is expanding by measuring the distance inbetween each of those dots...

 

This is where my confusion comes into play.

 

the dots that one is measuring the distance in between are them self expanding at the same rate as the distance of the space inbeteen . If an observer is one of those 'dots' how could the possibly measure the distance inbetween point A and point B if there unit of measurement was expanding at the same rate as the distance is.

 

 

The balloon analogy is just an analogy to help your mind picture how the distances between remote galaxies are changing (galaxies far enough apart so they they aren't bound gravitationally in a cluster.)

 

Any analogy has limits, you can't push it too far. Some people try to improve the balloon model by representing the galaxies as PENNIES glued onto the balloon. Then it is clear that expansion does not make them change size.

 

In the overall large-scale pattern of expansion, the sizes of things like planets, the solar system, the Milkyway galaxy, and even locally bound clusters of galaxies does not take part. That is because physical forces dominate over Hubble law expansion. The crystal bonds of a rock, the metal bonds of a metal ruler, the gravity bonds of the planets orbiting the sun, and so on. These things mostly stay the same size.

If they change size it is for other reasons having nothing to do with Hubble law expansiion.

 

Anyway the confusion you mentioned in your post came from pushing the analogy too far---to where you thought the spots painted on the balloon must be expanding. :-D That's not part of the picture. That's why some people say to picture pennies glued on, because pennies stay the same size.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Any analogy has limits, you can't push it too far. Some people try to improve the balloon model by representing the galaxies as PENNIES glued onto the balloon. Then it is clear that expansion does not make them change size."

 

The balloon was just an analogy I my self was using to state my question

 

Where as other forces may be fighting against expansion they are still doing just that and putting energy into doing so.

 

My main point of this thead is how would one measure a change in the size of an object if the ruler is expanding at the same rate as the object attemping to be measured

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
North, you're not Bishadi are you by any chance?

 

NO

 

if you need any more proof let me know , please

 

"Any analogy has limits, you can't push it too far. Some people try to improve the balloon model by representing the galaxies as PENNIES glued onto the balloon. Then it is clear that expansion does not make them change size."

 

The balloon was just an analogy I my self was using to state my question

 

Where as other forces may be fighting against expansion they are still doing just that and putting energy into doing so.

 

My main point of this thead is how would one measure a change in the size of an object if the ruler is expanding at the same rate as the object attemping to be measured

 

good question

Edited by north
multiple post merged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seen on the show on history channel today called The Universe

That explained that dark energy with a repulsive force is quickly becoming the strongest possibility for 'The End'

 

but back on topic,if you understand what i mean in my last post about an expanding ruler, if the objects are light years apart would it then become visible to the observer that something was not quite right as opposed to if the two where side by side?

 

I speculate that the object that was attempted to be mesured would appear to be shrinking correct?

 

Because the Farther the object is away from the observer/ruler the more time drag would become evident and you would see the object earlyer in time ergo when it was at a smaller state.

 

Now im just musing on the topic on hand at the moment but it always has been a curiousity of mine how one would go about measuring movement in something that we are matching the speed of. Like Being unable to see the background while two trains are moving in the same direction and same speed

 

Einstein himself used something along these lines to explain relativity but I am unaware if he ever gave any examples of how one would go about measuring relative motion against an unknown background.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"to where you thought the spots painted on the balloon must be expanding. :-D That's not part of the picture"

 

I do believe that they are expanding and not out of nievity but out of the fact that it dosn't make much sence to believe that the universe is elastic yet mass is uneffected by its expansion, even if it is a slower rate this may help explain a few thoughts of mine

Edited by Sedit
added more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I seen on the show on history channel today called The Universe

That explained that dark energy with a repulsive force is quickly becoming the strongest possibility for 'The End'

 

but back on topic,if you understand what i mean in my last post about an expanding ruler, if the objects are light years apart would it then become visible to the observer that something was not quite right as opposed to if the two where side by side?

 

I speculate that the object that was attempted to be mesured would appear to be shrinking correct?

 

" appear " is the key word here

 

because to the object it is not shrinking

 

 

 

Because the Farther the object is away from the observer/ruler the more time drag would become evident and you would see the object earlyer in time ergo when it was at a smaller state.

 

Now im just musing on the topic on hand at the moment but it always has been a curiousity of mine how one would go about measuring movement in something that we are matching the speed of. Like Being unable to see the background while two trains are moving in the same direction and same speed

 

Einstein himself used something along these lines to explain relativity but I am unaware if he ever gave any examples of how one would go about measuring relative motion against an unknown background.

 

realitivity is based on perception

 

for instance ;

 

a star behind the sun

 

the stars light is bent not from space-time which is the main-stream thinking but because the suns atmosphere

 

which Einstein did not consider

 

its not so much that he was wrong , just that the interpration of the physical dynamics is wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" appear " is the key word here

 

because to the object it is not shrinking

 

 

 

 

 

realitivity is based on perception

 

for instance ;

 

a star behind the sun

 

the stars light is bent not from space-time which is the main-stream thinking but because the suns atmosphere

 

which Einstein did not consider

 

its not so much that he was wrong , just that the interpration of the physical dynamics is wrong

 

Examples please. I understand where you are comming from but please please give me a refrence because with out one it is in no way answering my question that has had me stumped for sometime, so please lets keep this ON topic and include a refrence if your going to tell me something that goes against what every one has learned to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, 08:45 PM #16

Originally Posted by north

" appear " is the key word here

 

because to the object it is not shrinking

 

 

realitivity is based on perception

 

for instance ;

 

a star behind the sun

 

the stars light is bent not from space-time which is the main-stream thinking but because the suns atmosphere

 

which Einstein did not consider

 

its not so much that he was wrong , just that the interpration of the physical dynamics is wrong

 

 

Examples please. I understand where you are comming from but please please give me a refrence because with out one it is in no way answering my question that has had me stumped for sometime, so please lets keep this ON topic and include a refrence if your going to tell me something that goes against what every one has learned to believe.

 

so lets go further in my example

 

if I raise the Earth so that the north pole of the Earth is parallel to the north pole of the sun there is little bending of light

 

why ? because both poles are at the same level , so the light from the star behind the sun goes straight . the is no bending down towards the Earth

 

now if I bring the the southern pole of the Earth to the north pole of the sun , then the same thing happens , with the light of the star as did when I brought up the north pole of the Earth , no bending , just straight through

 

however the northern pole of the Earth is now well above the suns atmosphere and as a consequence there is no bending of the light from the star behind the sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting on those references, north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting on those references, north.

 

none , there is only one other person who has argued the same way and that was about a yr ago on another site

 

my argument is based on Reason alone

 

take it from there

 

north

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Like I said, still waiting on those references, north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup. Like I said, still waiting on those references, north.

 

like I said

 

none

 

just hoped you could Reason it out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if I raise the Earth so that the north pole of the Earth is parallel to the north pole of the sun there is little bending of light

....................................................................

OK I may be new here but ill be the first to not ask for refrence.....but to call BS on this one.

 

Why?

 

Because A: einstiens equations where based around the bending of light around mass(or more accuretly deflaction of light)

and B:WHY oh why do you say this? electromagnetism is not strong enough to bend the fast moving photon ....do you get that in mine/your terms?(i was just like your north, still kinda am but you have to understand that without proof theory means nothing)

 

North while i admire your enthusiasm i just came from a christmas party an am not sure i can be more blunt at this point

 

What your are basing your OPINIONS on is a few scarce documents on electrogravitation. And where i cant say i compleatly disagree you as a scientist musk ask your self for proof because without data science is worth nothing.

If you cant show refrence please stop posting in my threed because Im pretty sure i have heard what you have to say and i would like people to talk to me and not discreadit you ok

 

Now does any one have an idea what i have been TRYING to discuss and any sort of an answer to my problem without going into lala land with i hopes an I thinks???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

realitivity is based on perception

 

for instance ;

 

a star behind the sun

 

the stars light is bent not from space-time which is the main-stream thinking but because the suns atmosphere

 

which Einstein did not consider

 

its not so much that he was wrong , just that the interpration of the physical dynamics is wrong

 

Do the calculation, then, based on index of refraction, and see what you get.

 

Our macroscopic conservation laws stem from continuous symmetries. If those symmetries were broken at the time of the big bang, those conservation laws need not hold. I'm not sure what the current thinking is on this.

 

Just ran across this

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081216131106.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.