100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Is there a "before" the big bang? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
"VELOCITY AND ENERGY
Energy is the quantitative measure of motion and forces. Energy is another aspect of time and also comes from the expansion of space. Energy measurement takes into account both motion and forces within an object. Velocity or speed is the qualitative measure of motion. Velocity measures how fast or slow a motion is compared to another more basic motion like the speed of light while energy takes into account motion as well as forces within a mass. Time is possibly an emergent concept that arises secondary to the presence of motion and forces. It is proposed here that the motion and forces are due to expansion of the universe. Slower expansion of space around large masses like earth and sun could be considered as the cause of slower time linking time to the expansion of space. Gravity can be explained on basis of tendency of matter composed of billions of particles orbiting at tremendous velocities to move from faster to slower time when placed in a time differential. This explains why gravity is always attractive. This new approach towards understanding time eliminates the infinite gravity or singularity of black holes. It also shows us that not only gravity of large masses but motion of objects also can curve space which leads to the beautiful mechanism of length contraction. It leads to a deeper understanding of why time slows with motion and in gravity. It also provides a clear explanation of why there cannot be a twin paradox. This new understanding of time linking it with the expansion of space may have been already confirmed by the discovery that the universal expansion appears to be accelerating. If time is indeed related to the expansion of space and our time is slowing down then as we make measurements of light emitted by distant supernova (when time was faster) we will be measuring their frequency changes from our slower time. This will give an illusion that the universal expansion is accelerating. Similarly the pioneer anomaly can be explained by slowing of our time during the period the signal travels from earth to pioneer space craft and back. These predictions are not based on any exotic phenomenon but on Einstein’s relativity and can be easily tested. This new approach in understanding of time, motion, and gravity could bring about a revolution in physics." http://www.timephysics.com/what-causes-time.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/06/11 03:43 PM
|
|
The previous post was not written by me. A link was posted to the source.
Its purpose is to present an alternative view (and a new theory or idea) by persons (other than myself) concerning the idea that the appearance of the accelerating speed of this expanding universe is not the case at all. It is an illusion. Also, if true, it shoots a hole in the idea that galaxies are or could soon be actually moving away from us faster than the speed of light. It has been stated, however, on a link provided, that something is causing the appearance of an acceleration that seems to be moving away from us faster and faster and that it could eventually appear to us that galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. I am of the opinion that it is not possible for them to be moving faster than the speed of light away from us, and that it is simply an illusion caused because our local time is slowing down in relation to what we are witnessing in space. I would add also, that the appearance of something does not mean that is what is actually happening. Scientists have not stated that any galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. I also don't think that the expansion of the universe is accelerating at all. Logically, the expanding universe is not actually accelerating, but it is actually also slowing down. However, in relation to us, it is not slowing down as fast as we ( and our local time) are slowing down. The time dilation between us and what we are seeing is causing it to appear that the universe expansion is accelerating when it is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The previous post was not written by me. A link was posted to the source. Its purpose is to present an alternative view (and a new theory or idea) by persons (other than myself) concerning the idea that the appearance of the accelerating speed of this expanding universe is not the case at all. It is an illusion. Also, if true, it shoots a hole in the idea that galaxies are or could soon be actually moving away from us faster than the speed of light. It has been stated, however, on a link provided, that something is causing the appearance of an acceleration that seems to be moving away from us faster and faster and that it could eventually appear to us that galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. I am of the opinion that it is not possible for them to be moving faster than the speed of light away from us, and that it is simply an illusion caused because our local time is slowing down in relation to what we are witnessing in space. I would add also, that the appearance of something does not mean that is what is actually happening. Scientists have not stated that any galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. I also don't think that the expansion of the universe is accelerating at all. Logically, the expanding universe is not actually accelerating, but it is actually also slowing down. However, in relation to us, it is not slowing down as fast as we ( and our local time) are slowing down. The time dilation between what we are seeing is causing it to appear that the universe expansion is accelerating when it is not. It wouldn't matter how much proof anyone gives you but here is some more definitive explanation of how galaxies can and do move away from each other at the speed of light. Since you didn't understand the other link I gave you and misquoted it out of context, here is another one for you to read. As you read it please think of your quote above that says, "Scientists have not stated that any galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. I also don't think that the expansion of the universe is accelerating at all." "Scientists have not stated that any galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. I also don't think that the expansion of the universe is accelerating at all." First you claim to know more than Einstein, now you know more than Hubble. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 A short quote is: ... a more fair question to ask might be whether or not any galaxies in the visible universe (the part we can currently see) are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Surprisingly, the answer is yes! Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial has a calculator which allows you to compute many quantities, including distance, for different models of the universe and for galaxies at different "redshifts" from us (the redshift is an experimentally easy-to-determine property of the galaxy's light that tells us how much the universe has stretched between the time the light was emitted and the time it was received). Using the best observationally-determined values for the universe's rate of expansion, acceleration and other parameters (which are the default inputs for the calculator), I found that if you use a value of around 1.4 for z (the redshift), you get the required distance of 4,200 megaparsecs. Therefore, any galaxy with a redshift greater than 1.4 is currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Dave Rothstein 2003 Dave is a former graduate student and postdoctoral researcher at Cornell who used infrared and X-ray observations and theoretical computer models to study accreting black holes in our Galaxy. One thing I found amusing is that some of his explanations are very similar to the ones I gave earlier that you (incorrectly) said I never made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/06/11 04:31 PM
|
|
Well then what this article is saying is that if a person and me got in our cars and I went 80 mph in one direction and he went 80 mph in the other direction then you could claim that we were moving away from each other at the speed of 160 mph as you are measuring the 'speed" as it relates to each driver.
I still would not say that I was going 160 mph (in relation to the world) although I would be moving away from the other driver at 160 mph when you add the two together. So if it were possible for an outside observer to see the galaxies moving away from each other, would any of them actually be moving faster than the speed of light in the universe? What would be the reference point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well then what this article is saying is that if a person and me got in our cars and I went 80 mph in one direction and he went 80 mph in the other direction then you could claim that we were moving away from each other at the speed of 160 mph as you are measuring the 'speed" as it relates to each driver. I still would not say that I was going 160 mph, although I would be moving away from the other driver at 160 mph. He is saying the opposite of what you stated regarding no scientist ever says regarding galaxies moving apart at speeds greater than the speed of light... or the galaxies moving at a speed greater than the speed of light ... or space expanding at speeds greater than the speed of light. Spacetime has no speed limit, only mass in local spacetime. It is simply impossible for you to admit you are wrong. If you understood the expansion of the universe, as described, you would understand that the "spacetime" in a black hole was moving faster than the speed of light. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What happens to a substance if its speed is more than the speed of light?
What happens with a substance if its speed is more than the speed of light? I think that it will disappear or replace somewhere but it wouldn't be destroyed!!! We do not know what happens to a substance if it moves faster than the speed of light for the very simple reason that it can never move faster than the speed of light. The speed of light poses a fundamental limit to the speed that an object can take, relative to objects nearby it. In fact, no object with any finite rest mass can move at the speed of light. That is why all the particles that move at the speed of light (e.g. photons) have zero rest mass. As a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its energy increases and becomes infinite at the speed of light, which is the reason why it can never be accelerated to reach that speed. This has actually been verified by experiments, and it has been shown that nothing moves faster than the speed of light. However, the above discussion only applies to objects on small scales in the universe -- for example, if you take a baseball or a planet or a star or a galaxy and try to accelerate these objects to the speed of light relative to objects nearby them, it is impossible to do. However, there is nothing which prevents objects that are separated by huge distances from moving relative to each other faster than the speed of light. Over these large distances, the effects of the universe's expansion become important, and the above discussion no longer applies. Technically speaking, the speed of light limit only applies when you are in an "inertial frame" -- that is, sitting where you are, without any forces acting on you, and measuring the speed of an object that moves past a ruler and clock that you are holding in your hand. Across the large distances in the universe, however, we have a very different set of circumstances. No one is in an inertial frame, because everyone is being accelerated with respect to everyone else, due to the universe's gravitational field and the fact that the universe is expanding. In effect, the universe's expansion isn't really due to galaxies moving "through space" away from each other, but rather due to the stretching of space itself, which isn't governed by the same limits that we are. Thus, although it's impossible to move through space (locally) faster than the speed of light, and it's impossible for anyone within the universe to send off a piece of "information" faster than the speed of light, it is still possible for the distances between faraway galaxies to increase faster than the speed of light, due to the rate at which the space between them is stretching. This faster than light "travel" doesn't have any effect on the material that makes up the galaxies (for example, their energy does not become infinite in any meaningful sense), since they aren't really moving with respect to each other in any way that they can measure directly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/06/11 04:58 PM
|
|
Well then what this article is saying is that if a person and me got in our cars and I went 80 mph in one direction and he went 80 mph in the other direction then you could claim that we were moving away from each other at the speed of 160 mph as you are measuring the 'speed" as it relates to each driver. I still would not say that I was going 160 mph, although I would be moving away from the other driver at 160 mph. He is saying the opposite of what you stated regarding no scientist ever says regarding galaxies moving apart at speeds greater than the speed of light... or the galaxies moving at a speed greater than the speed of light ... or space expanding at speeds greater than the speed of light. Spacetime has no speed limit, only mass in local spacetime. It is simply impossible for you to admit you are wrong. If you understood the expansion of the universe, as described, you would understand that the "spacetime" in a black hole was moving faster than the speed of light. What am I wrong about? You are talking about the speed of two objects moving away from each other combined! You are not talking about a galaxy moving faster than the speed of light. Which it cannot do. """We do not know what happens to a substance if it moves faster than the speed of light for the very simple reason that it can never move faster than the speed of light"""
That is all I am saying. Nothing can actually move faster than the speed of light. (Except maybe (apparently) radio waves from a pulsar.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/06/11 04:49 PM
|
|
----->> However, there is nothing which prevents objects that are separated by huge distances from moving relative to each other faster than the speed of light<-----
Relative to each other. This I understand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/06/11 04:59 PM
|
|
A galaxy cannot actually move faster than the speed of light, but because of the expansion of the universe, it can appear to be moving faster than the speed of light away from us (and in relation to us.)
(And that is because we are also moving away from it.) Correct? Since there is no frame of reference, as Einstein has said, everything is relative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A galaxy cannot actually move faster than the speed of light, but because of the expansion of the universe, it can appear to be moving faster than the speed of light away from us (and in relation to us.) (And that is because we are also moving away from it.) Correct? Since there is no frame of reference, as Einstein has said, everything is relative. In my statement and in the the quote you just made they used the term "Local". Things (mass) cannot move faster than the speed of light in LOCAL space/time. The article I posted went into great detail of the difference. Did you notice the "boat" analogy? I've explained the connection to "why black holes are black" three times and you ignore each one. There is no speed limit on spacetime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/06/11 06:06 PM
|
|
Take a black hole.
The gravity distorts space/time (basic Albert Einstein) The following statement says that mass distorts space and time, not gravity. It states that the mass distorting space and time PRODUCES the force of gravity. (I'm not so sure that is true.) “Albert Einstein described gravity in a revolutionary way in his Theory of General Relativity, which says that mass distorts space and time to produce the force of gravity. A black hole is an extreme example of mass warping space-time.” REF:http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/gravity.html However this says: Einstein didn't believe gravity was a force at all; he said it was a distortion in the shape of space-time, otherwise known as "the fourth dimension” REF: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question2322.htm But the question some people ask is what exactly is spacetime? Here is an interesting article on that: Fabric of Space Time http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/10/29/275021.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. I read your post about why black holes are black, and I've read many other explanations about why light does not escape a black hole. I saw no reason to say anything about it. It seems to be pretty common knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/06/11 11:24 PM
|
|
I still don't believe the universe is accelerating its expansion. I think it is slowing down.
It does not make logical sense that it would actually be accelerating. We are slowing down, and the expansion is slowing down. Or perhaps its just me slowing down. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still don't believe the universe is accelerating its expansion. I think it is slowing down. It does not make logical sense that it would actually be accelerating. We are slowing down, and the expansion is slowing down. Or perhaps its just me slowing down.
maybe there just is not enough information to make any kind of proof on this. Since we do not know where the universe ends, all we can see is as far as our best telescopes can see, it is all just a guess with everyone... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still don't believe the universe is accelerating its expansion. I think it is slowing down. It does not make logical sense that it would actually be accelerating. We are slowing down, and the expansion is slowing down. Or perhaps its just me slowing down.
maybe there just is not enough information to make any kind of proof on this. Since we do not know where the universe ends, all we can see is as far as our best telescopes can see, it is all just a guess with everyone... We have more hard information than you think. Here are the top ten things learned from the NASA WMAP probe. WMAP's Top Ten NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records! WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning measurements by over an order of magnitude The CMB became the "premier baryometer" of the universe with WMAP's precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.1%) WMAP's complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not made up of atoms) make up 23.3% (to within 1.3%) WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 72.1% of the universe (to within 1.5%), causing the expansion rate of the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" article WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008 WMAP has started to sort through the possibilities of what transpired in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, ruling out well-known textbook models for the first time. The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by WMAP appear "random"; however, there are several hints of possible deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed. Significant deviations would be a very important signature of new physics in the early universe. WMAP has put the "precision" in "precision cosmology" by reducing the allowed volume of cosmological parameters by a factor of 30,000. The three most highly cited physics and astronomy papers published in the new millenium are WMAP scientific papers--- reflecting WMAP's enormous impact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky
i think it is still subjective... "the oldest light that we know of" instead of "the oldest light in the universe" would sound better in my opinion. there is still a lot about this we do not know, and to make these statements seems a little conceded on the scientists part... I'm not trying to say they are wrong, but in the realms of possibilities, they very well could be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky
i think it is still subjective... "the oldest light that we know of" instead of "the oldest light in the universe" would sound better in my opinion. there is still a lot about this we do not know, and to make these statements seems a little conceded on the scientists part... I'm not trying to say they are wrong, but in the realms of possibilities, they very well could be. No. It is quite objective. No one is guessing. The data is measurements, photographs, and hard data. There is no difference here than NASA going into your oven and telling you, to within a thousandth of a degree, what your oven temperature is accurately. With measurements, the degree of accuracy is known. Many, like myself, think space is curved and the level of "flatness" measured by WMAP is simply not accurate enough to detect the curvature. The measurements only say that it is flat within the parameters they can measure. That is objective. If NASA said it is flat because common sense tells them it is so, that would be subjective. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky
i think it is still subjective... "the oldest light that we know of" instead of "the oldest light in the universe" would sound better in my opinion. there is still a lot about this we do not know, and to make these statements seems a little conceded on the scientists part... I'm not trying to say they are wrong, but in the realms of possibilities, they very well could be. No. It is quite objective. No one is guessing. The data is measurements, photographs, and hard data. There is no difference here than NASA going into your oven and telling you, to within a thousandth of a degree, what your oven temperature is accurately. With measurements, the degree of accuracy is known. Many, like myself, think space is curved and the level of "flatness" measured by WMAP is simply not accurate enough to detect the curvature. The measurements only say that it is flat within the parameters they can measure. That is objective. If NASA said it is flat because common sense tells them it is so, that would be subjective. so the scientists know where the universe stops? they know everything about what they cannot see? that is the arrogance i was referring to, they only know about what they can see, it is still a big guessing game, no matter what. when they are talking about something, it is not 100% the truth, regardless. it is like saying a ball will bounce this way on earth, and bounce a different way on another planet, even though we have never been to a different planet. till they go to another planet and bounce the ball, it is still speculation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky
i think it is still subjective... "the oldest light that we know of" instead of "the oldest light in the universe" would sound better in my opinion. there is still a lot about this we do not know, and to make these statements seems a little conceded on the scientists part... I'm not trying to say they are wrong, but in the realms of possibilities, they very well could be. No. It is quite objective. No one is guessing. The data is measurements, photographs, and hard data. There is no difference here than NASA going into your oven and telling you, to within a thousandth of a degree, what your oven temperature is accurately. With measurements, the degree of accuracy is known. Many, like myself, think space is curved and the level of "flatness" measured by WMAP is simply not accurate enough to detect the curvature. The measurements only say that it is flat within the parameters they can measure. That is objective. If NASA said it is flat because common sense tells them it is so, that would be subjective. so the scientists know where the universe stops? they know everything about what they cannot see? that is the arrogance i was referring to, they only know about what they can see, it is still a big guessing game, no matter what. when they are talking about something, it is not 100% the truth, regardless. it is like saying a ball will bounce this way on earth, and bounce a different way on another planet, even though we have never been to a different planet. till they go to another planet and bounce the ball, it is still speculation. Hmmmm. You misread the article. If they are saying the universe is flat, they are saying that they CAN'T see the limits in size because it is too big... maybe infinite. But since the light from the big bang is still around, WMAP can see it rather well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 11/07/11 12:34 PM
|
|
I doubt if there was only one "big bang." I think big bangs happen all the time.
Not to mention that the "big bang" was probably not all that big, but then what do we have to compare it with? Not much. Like some of the giant stars in this galaxy that dwarf our sun, there may be universes out there that dwarf ours making it look like a tiny speck. Our whole universe could be the size of a grain of sand in some other universe. We could be just a grain of sand on the beach of some other giant universe. Just like the world of people found on a floating piece of dust in the story "Horton hears a who." |
|
|
|
|
