Bigbang, a fantasy?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 8 Jan 2010 14:58 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hi7gkr$da1$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:22:04 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >>>[...] >>> >>>> No, but they are so stupid I'm laughing my bloody head off at their >>>> posts. Haven't laughed so much in years. >>> >>>Which is all that really matters to you, isn't it? >>> >>>You just want to have a giggle. You don't really care about science or >>>your latest wild assed guess. You just like to pretend you are smarter >>>than other people, and have a giggle at their apparent expense. >>> >>>Yeah, that doesn't look pathetic at all when someone looks at this >>>behavior and notices it has been going on for ten years. >> >> It is not my fault that you are hopelessly indoctrinated. [...]
From: John Kennaugh on 9 Jan 2010 10:20 Androcles wrote: > >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:Fmozx0DzWxRLFwNY(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >> Androcles wrote: >>> >>>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>>news:yqX+C7HNicRLFwar(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >>>> Androcles wrote: >>>>> >>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>>>news:i1u9k5h9o9vo71snujj5q2j65ai8qape0b(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0800 (PST), mluttgens >>>>>> <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>See http://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Marcel Luttgens >>>>>> >>>>>> There was no BB. Light loses energy as it travels. >>>>>> >>>>>Nonsense. Light spreads its energy over an ever-increasing area, none is >>>>>lost. >>>>>If I fire six rounds at you and only one hits, you "lost" five of them. >>>> >>>> Except where vast distance is involved light gets fainter but does not >>>> change colour. "Spreading over an ever increasing area" is "getting >>>> fainter". >>> >>>Inverse square law (or one of them), together with E = h(nu). >>> >>>Star emits N photons per unit of time, omnidirectionally. >>>At a distance of 1 string, M photons fall on one square eyeball >>>in one unit of time. >>>At a distance of 2 strings, M/4 photons fall on one square eyeball >>>in one unit of time. >>>At a distance of 4 strings, M/16 photons fall on one square eyeball >>>in one unit of time. >>>At a distance of 5 strings, only one photon falls on one square eyeball >>>in one unit of time. >>>At a distance of 6 strings, only one photon falls on one square eyeball >>>and it takes more than one unit of time for it to happen, so the exposure >>>time has to be increased. >>>But at 7 strings the star is so faint it can only be seen as part of >>>galaxy, >>>and stars that are part of galaxies are circling. >>>That means the light they emit is travelling at c+v as they approach >>>and c-v as they recede. Being 7 strings away, the fast light emitted >>>later catches up with the slow light emitted earlier, like this: >>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF >>>For most of the time, most of the stars are Wilson-Sekerin time >>>expanded and red-shifted. (Wilson saw it before I did and Sekerin >>>knew about it.) Occasionally the star will appear to go nova >>>as the blue shifted photons arrive, but this doesn't last long. >> >> I am trying to understand what you are saying. I see from your diagram >> that if light speed is source dependent it will result in redshift most of >> the time and blue shift for a much shorter period (on the diagram marked >> region of reversal). Questions arising. > >That's right. > > > >> >> 1/ What is the time scale between reversals? i.e. something which could be >> observed or is the time scale so long it exceeds the period we have been >> able to observe. > >What is the period of a galaxy and how far away is it? >Let's say it's a million years to make one complete orbit. >You have to position yourself somewhere on the vertical >scale and sit there for a million years to see one cycle for one >star. Let's say you see it red for 550,000 years and >blue for 450,000 years. >Then choose a further position and sit there for another >million years. This time you see it red for 600,000 years >and blue for 400,000 years. >But that's just one star, they are all doing it at a different >phase. So the overall effect is more dull red than bright >blue and that increases with distance. > > >> >> 2/ Surely a galaxy which is edge-on would give a large redshift while one >> face-on very little. Applying conventional interpretation 'distant' >> galaxies' would be edge on while 'near' galaxies would be face on - I >> would have thought that would be noticed. > >See for yourself: > http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg > http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/DetailWF4.gif > http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/images/tour_ggs_hdf_l.jpg >I count as much blue as I do red in those images, but you be the judge. If anything I see the more blue smaller objects - if small = further away then that is the opposite of what BB says, however it doesn't show my point either. Your explanation for producing red shift requires that a galaxy is rotating and viewed edge on. Edge on galaxies do not appear in these pictures to be any redder than face on galaxies - or am I missing something? > >> 3/ I'm a little confused in that you say that "Occasionally the star will >> appear to go nova" but your argument seems to hinge on the idea that you >> can no longer see individual stars only the galaxy as a whole. >> >When one star reaches its maximum output it'll shine above the rest. >This gives astronomers a distance clue, they have very little else to >work with other than magnitude. Parallax only works locally and not >at all for galaxies. Even the nearest, M31 in Andromeda or the Megallanic >clouds, are only approximated. The estimate for M31 is 2.0 +/- 0.5 >million light years. Astronomy is a very imprecise science when it >comes to distance. > >> >>>> Using your analogy if the bullet is fired in outer space the impact >>>> energy >>>> of each bullet (analogous to colour) will not vary with distance >>>> although >>>> the number of bullets hitting you may. >>> >>>The bullets are from a machine gun mounted on a crank. >>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Engine.gif >>>If you are far enough away a cluster of bullets will arrive in bursts >>>and then there will be a lull in the rate of slow bullet arrival. >>> >>> >>>> If the bullets are fired in air then friction would reduce their energy >>>> with distance analogous to red shift. >>>> >>>> You have perhaps 4 scenarios. >>>> 1/ a photon doesn't hit anything and arrives as it set out. >>>> 2/ a photon hits something - end of photon. >>>> 3/ a photon interacts with something causing a loss of energy. >>>> 4/ a photon interacts with something causing no loss of energy. >>>> >>>5/ a photon's speed is relative to the source. >>> >>> >>> >>>> We can ignore 2 we have nothing to observe. >>>> The question then comes down to "can a photon travel vast distances >>>> through space without interacting with anything" or put another way what >>>> percentage would come into category 1. >>>> >>>> Fox suggested extinction effects due to interstellar particles. Whether >>>> you believe in the extinction effect or not if Fox's guesstimate is >>>> anywhere near correct it suggests that all photons are likely to have >>>> encountered a matter particle by the time they have travelled 1 ly so >>>> for >>>> distances where red shift is noticeable we can rule out 1 and we are >>>> left >>>> with 3 and 4. I see no reason why all interactions should be loss less >>>> so >>>> even if some are scenario 4 it would not rule out the "tired light" >>>> explanation. However it depends not only on the validity of 3 which >>>> might >>>> be considered in itself a certainty, but on an interaction where the >>>> loss >>>> of energy is minute and near constant. >>>> >>>We can ignore 1,2,3 and 4, the logical answer is 5. >>>Even with its false colour, this image doesn't show Hubble's red shift >>>for all galaxies. >>> http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg >>>I conclude Hubble was cherry-picking his galaxies to suit his theory. >> >> I assume that Hubble's 'law' was formulated by correlating distances >> measured using parallax with redshift giving a limited data-base with >> increasing "error bars" with distance. >> >>>The universe is infinite, the big bonk is a fantasy. >> >> OTOH I can't think of a good reason why it should be static. > >A static population is one where the number of births equals the >number of deaths, it doesn't mean individuals live forever. > >The steady state universe is infinite in both time and space, but >individual stars are born and die. Where the clouds of matter that >form stars comes from is not known, but they are definitely there. > http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970119.html OK you have some system of constantly re-cycling what is there > >Grasping the infinite is difficult from most people, but the >opposite, a finite universe, is anathema. What is outside it but >more nothing, and beyond the edge of the furthest galaxy >why can't there be another galaxy? I can always add one to >the highest number there is. We are in deep philosophical waters here. To me nothing can be infinite or putting it another way the only thing which can be infinite is nothing or nothingness itself. One may perhaps contemplate an infinite nothingness - space. In fact it is difficult, if not impossible, to contemplate a finite space as one is then left with the question if space is finite what limits it, what is beyond it? What contains it? One ends up with "turtles all the way down". Perhaps us and what we can see (our universe) is occupying an infinitesimal part of that infinite nothingness. One may speculate that there is more to our "universe" than we can actually see, other objects too far from us to observe. One can contemplate the idea that if we travel in our imagination far enough we would pass the last galaxy and see nothingness in front of us and see our 'universe' getting smaller behind us. The problem with that is one would assume that energy is constantly escaping from our universe into the infinite nothingness so it has a finite life which would imply a beginning unless there is a constant energy input replenishing the energy lost. One might contemplate that our bit of the infinite nothingness is typical of the rest and there is an infinite universe with an infinite number of galaxies so that the energy lost is gained from elsewhere. While that is a simple solution it is hard to contemplate if one realises what *infinity* means which brings me full circle that to me nothing can be infinite. I offer no solutions. > >> Suppose the entire universe is rotating. > >That's impossible for me to imagine. It implies a centre of rotation >and we would be at it. not necessarily. You don't have to be at the centre of a carousel to be effected by rotation. >Geocentricity went out with Copernicus and is >illogical. > >> The further from the centre of rotation a galaxy is the larger its speed >> and the greater its transverse Doppler. > >Simply not observed Red shift increasing with distance? I appreciate you are not convinced but the majority of physics is. > and anyway the galaxies are independent >of each other. so are ants on the earth it doesn't mean the earth isn't rotating and that the ants do not share that rotation. >You couldn't even get water going down the kitchen >sink to do that, it would drag against the side walls. Drop some >corks or styrofoam crumbs in and watch. ???? > >> Note that emission theory predicts the same transverse Doppler as SR. > >Note that emission theory predicts NO transverse Doppler, the >opposite of SR. Wrong - see below. > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img110.gif >That's as far blueshifted as you can get and proof Einstein was a >ranting lunatic. It is also proof that he knew what a vector is, but >only when it suited him. >Where do you get these outlandish ideas from? Simple mathematics. X---->v Y T In order for light leaving X to hit T it has to set out in the direction XY where YT = vt. The photons have a component of velocity c in the direction XY and a component v in the X direction such that the resultant is in the direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle XY = c YT = v so the velocity X-T = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength) So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2) If X is orbiting T it is always orthogonal and the light reaching T is not travelling at c so is Doppler shifted. None of that exotic "time dilation" nonsense but genuine Doppler shift the result of a simple velocity triangle. It is possibly easier to see if observed from The IFoR in which the light is emitted in which, according to emission theory, light travels every which way at c O Y T v<--- Light leaves O when O is orthogonal w.r.t T but when it reaches T, T is at Y and has a component of motion away from X which will result in lower frequency. Of course if the source is in orbit around Y it is constantly changing its IFoR and will no longer be in the IFoR of O (the IFor in which the light was emitted) when light reaches Y. Waldron's ballistic theory gives a slightly different result as his theory is basically a photon theory rather than a wave theory. He calculates the same change of velocity as above but uses the change in velocity to calculate the energy of the photon reaching T. He calculates the Transverse Doppler shift as f'/fo = (1 - v^2/(2.c^2)) which differs only in forth order v/c term. >> Everything in the universe appears to be rotating or orbiting around >> something else. If the universe as a whole is not rotating it is unique in >> that respect. If it is rotating then transverse redshift would increase >> with distance. > >If everything revolves around something else then something else revolves >around everything. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/barycentre.gif velocity is relative but rotation is absolute. How would we know if the entire universe had a rotation about its centre of gravity? -- John Kennaugh
From: Androcles on 9 Jan 2010 13:22 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:RMpWrUI66JSLFwV$@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... > Androcles wrote: >> >>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:Fmozx0DzWxRLFwNY(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >>> Androcles wrote: >>>> >>>>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>news:yqX+C7HNicRLFwar(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >>>>> Androcles wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>>>>>news:i1u9k5h9o9vo71snujj5q2j65ai8qape0b(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:32:36 -0800 (PST), mluttgens >>>>>>> <mluttgens(a)orange.fr> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>See http://www.spacetelescope.org/new/htmeheic1007.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Marcel Luttgens >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There was no BB. Light loses energy as it travels. >>>>>>> >>>>>>Nonsense. Light spreads its energy over an ever-increasing area, none >>>>>>is >>>>>>lost. >>>>>>If I fire six rounds at you and only one hits, you "lost" five of >>>>>>them. >>>>> >>>>> Except where vast distance is involved light gets fainter but does >>>>> not >>>>> change colour. "Spreading over an ever increasing area" is "getting >>>>> fainter". >>>> >>>>Inverse square law (or one of them), together with E = h(nu). >>>> >>>>Star emits N photons per unit of time, omnidirectionally. >>>>At a distance of 1 string, M photons fall on one square eyeball >>>>in one unit of time. >>>>At a distance of 2 strings, M/4 photons fall on one square eyeball >>>>in one unit of time. >>>>At a distance of 4 strings, M/16 photons fall on one square eyeball >>>>in one unit of time. >>>>At a distance of 5 strings, only one photon falls on one square eyeball >>>>in one unit of time. >>>>At a distance of 6 strings, only one photon falls on one square eyeball >>>>and it takes more than one unit of time for it to happen, so the >>>>exposure >>>>time has to be increased. >>>>But at 7 strings the star is so faint it can only be seen as part of >>>>galaxy, >>>>and stars that are part of galaxies are circling. >>>>That means the light they emit is travelling at c+v as they approach >>>>and c-v as they recede. Being 7 strings away, the fast light emitted >>>>later catches up with the slow light emitted earlier, like this: >>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF >>>>For most of the time, most of the stars are Wilson-Sekerin time >>>>expanded and red-shifted. (Wilson saw it before I did and Sekerin >>>>knew about it.) Occasionally the star will appear to go nova >>>>as the blue shifted photons arrive, but this doesn't last long. >>> >>> I am trying to understand what you are saying. I see from your diagram >>> that if light speed is source dependent it will result in redshift most >>> of >>> the time and blue shift for a much shorter period (on the diagram marked >>> region of reversal). Questions arising. >> >>That's right. >> >> >> >>> >>> 1/ What is the time scale between reversals? i.e. something which could >>> be >>> observed or is the time scale so long it exceeds the period we have been >>> able to observe. >> >>What is the period of a galaxy and how far away is it? >>Let's say it's a million years to make one complete orbit. >>You have to position yourself somewhere on the vertical >>scale and sit there for a million years to see one cycle for one >>star. Let's say you see it red for 550,000 years and >>blue for 450,000 years. >>Then choose a further position and sit there for another >>million years. This time you see it red for 600,000 years >>and blue for 400,000 years. >>But that's just one star, they are all doing it at a different >>phase. So the overall effect is more dull red than bright >>blue and that increases with distance. >> >> >>> >>> 2/ Surely a galaxy which is edge-on would give a large redshift while >>> one >>> face-on very little. Applying conventional interpretation 'distant' >>> galaxies' would be edge on while 'near' galaxies would be face on - I >>> would have thought that would be noticed. >> >>See for yourself: >> http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg >> http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/DetailWF4.gif >> http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/images/tour_ggs_hdf_l.jpg >>I count as much blue as I do red in those images, but you be the judge. > > If anything I see the more blue smaller objects - if small = further > away then that is the opposite of what BB says, That would be my conclusion, too. But Hubble would not have seen those (if small = further away) objects at all, it only became possible with the advent of the telescope named for him. Hence his crackpot theory was based on limited data, and like all crackpot theories it gained popularity when the press got hold of it and placed Hubble on a pedestal. Now he's a minor god sitting on the right hand of his Holiness The Eminent Majesty Lord Reverend Saint Albert Rabbi Einstein, Chief Chrononaut and Prominent Theoretical Physicist. > however it doesn't show > my point either. > Your explanation for producing red shift requires that > a galaxy is rotating and viewed edge on. Not at all. It only requires rotation and SOME angle of inclination from the celestial plane (face on). Nature is not digital, face on or edge on, it is analogue with infinite angles in between. > Edge on galaxies do not appear > in these pictures to be any redder than face on galaxies - or am I > missing something? You've already made the point, if anything you see the more blue smaller objects - if small = further away then that is the opposite of what BB says. You tell me what you are missing. Consider this: some galaxies will be moving away, but not all. "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time." - /quote "Abraham Lincloln said this." Actually, no, he didn't (although it is incorrectly widely attributed to him). It is originally from the boss of a circus named Barum,who is Lincoln's friend. Actually, I think you mean P. T. Barnum of the world famous Ringling Bros. Barnum and Bailey Circus. I always thought that although this expression was spoken by Abraham Lincoln it was actually written by Mark Twain. Any one shed any light on that theory? " /unquote -- WikiAnswers. > >> >>> 3/ I'm a little confused in that you say that "Occasionally the star >>> will >>> appear to go nova" but your argument seems to hinge on the idea that you >>> can no longer see individual stars only the galaxy as a whole. >>> >>When one star reaches its maximum output it'll shine above the rest. >>This gives astronomers a distance clue, they have very little else to >>work with other than magnitude. Parallax only works locally and not >>at all for galaxies. Even the nearest, M31 in Andromeda or the Megallanic >>clouds, are only approximated. The estimate for M31 is 2.0 +/- 0.5 >>million light years. Astronomy is a very imprecise science when it >>comes to distance. >> >>> >>>>> Using your analogy if the bullet is fired in outer space the impact >>>>> energy >>>>> of each bullet (analogous to colour) will not vary with distance >>>>> although >>>>> the number of bullets hitting you may. >>>> >>>>The bullets are from a machine gun mounted on a crank. >>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Engine.gif >>>>If you are far enough away a cluster of bullets will arrive in bursts >>>>and then there will be a lull in the rate of slow bullet arrival. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If the bullets are fired in air then friction would reduce their >>>>> energy >>>>> with distance analogous to red shift. >>>>> >>>>> You have perhaps 4 scenarios. >>>>> 1/ a photon doesn't hit anything and arrives as it set out. >>>>> 2/ a photon hits something - end of photon. >>>>> 3/ a photon interacts with something causing a loss of energy. >>>>> 4/ a photon interacts with something causing no loss of energy. >>>>> >>>>5/ a photon's speed is relative to the source. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> We can ignore 2 we have nothing to observe. >>>>> The question then comes down to "can a photon travel vast distances >>>>> through space without interacting with anything" or put another way >>>>> what >>>>> percentage would come into category 1. >>>>> >>>>> Fox suggested extinction effects due to interstellar particles. >>>>> Whether >>>>> you believe in the extinction effect or not if Fox's guesstimate is >>>>> anywhere near correct it suggests that all photons are likely to have >>>>> encountered a matter particle by the time they have travelled 1 ly so >>>>> for >>>>> distances where red shift is noticeable we can rule out 1 and we are >>>>> left >>>>> with 3 and 4. I see no reason why all interactions should be loss less >>>>> so >>>>> even if some are scenario 4 it would not rule out the "tired light" >>>>> explanation. However it depends not only on the validity of 3 which >>>>> might >>>>> be considered in itself a certainty, but on an interaction where the >>>>> loss >>>>> of energy is minute and near constant. >>>>> >>>>We can ignore 1,2,3 and 4, the logical answer is 5. >>>>Even with its false colour, this image doesn't show Hubble's red shift >>>>for all galaxies. >>>> http://harleyk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/HubbleDeepFieldL.jpg >>>>I conclude Hubble was cherry-picking his galaxies to suit his theory. >>> >>> I assume that Hubble's 'law' was formulated by correlating distances >>> measured using parallax with redshift giving a limited data-base with >>> increasing "error bars" with distance. >>> >>>>The universe is infinite, the big bonk is a fantasy. >>> >>> OTOH I can't think of a good reason why it should be static. >> >>A static population is one where the number of births equals the >>number of deaths, it doesn't mean individuals live forever. > >> >>The steady state universe is infinite in both time and space, but >>individual stars are born and die. Where the clouds of matter that >>form stars comes from is not known, but they are definitely there. >> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970119.html > > OK you have some system of constantly re-cycling what is there > Yeah, but it's a mystery where the cloud comes from. That's why I say there are enough mysteries in Nature to go around without Man creating more of them. Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural phenomena, IN THAT ORDER, it is not the invention of mathematical black holes and then go looking for them. >> >>Grasping the infinite is difficult from most people, but the >>opposite, a finite universe, is anathema. What is outside it but >>more nothing, and beyond the edge of the furthest galaxy >>why can't there be another galaxy? I can always add one to >>the highest number there is. > > We are in deep philosophical waters here. To me nothing can be infinite > or putting it another way the only thing which can be infinite is > nothing or nothingness itself. Ok, it is deeply philosophical, but so what? "It might be assumed that, for any formal criterion, a set exists whose members are those objects (and only those objects) that satisfy the criterion; but this assumption is disproved by a set containing exactly the sets that are not members of themselves. If such a set qualifies as a member of itself, it would contradict its own definition as a set containing sets that are not members of themselves. On the other hand, if such a set is not a member of itself, it would qualify as a member of itself by the same definition. This contradiction is Russell's paradox." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox For 'set' read 'universe'. The language of physics is mathematics and the rules are logic. > > One may perhaps contemplate an infinite nothingness - space. In fact it > is difficult, if not impossible, to contemplate a finite space as one is > then left with the question if space is finite what limits it, what is > beyond it? What contains it? One ends up with "turtles all the way > down". Yes, that's exactly what an infinite universe is. The question is whether infinite turtles is absurd or not, given that the alternative is the absurd BB, something from nothing, a beginning without an end. The not so good book opens with "In the beginning God created" -- but what created God? Turtles forever and ever, Amen, perhaps... One absurdity cannot offset the other, faith is bigotry. So now we are stuck for a lack of proof and can only degenerate into a flame war. "I'm right and you're wrong, so there!" "No, I'm right and you're wrong, so there with knobs on!" > Perhaps us and what we can see (our universe) is occupying an > infinitesimal part of that infinite nothingness. One may speculate that > there is more to our "universe" than we can actually see, other objects > too far from us to observe. One can contemplate the idea that if we > travel in our imagination far enough we would pass the last galaxy and > see nothingness in front of us and see our 'universe' getting smaller > behind us. The problem with that is one would assume that energy is > constantly escaping from our universe into the infinite nothingness so > it has a finite life which would imply a beginning unless there is a > constant energy input replenishing the energy lost. > One might contemplate that our bit of the infinite nothingness is > typical of the rest and there is an infinite universe with an infinite > number of galaxies so that the energy lost is gained from elsewhere. > While that is a simple solution it is hard to contemplate if one > realises what *infinity* means which brings me full circle that to me > nothing can be infinite. I offer no solutions. > We are in deep philosophical waters here. To me it's turtles all the way down, up, left, right, forward and back. The telescopes show turtles in all directions. You envisage empty space as infinite, I do the same but pop the occasional turtle into it when it gets boring. The idea of a beginning is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche that it is almost impossible to contemplate there never was one, yet that same psyche will not contemplate an end either. >> >>> Suppose the entire universe is rotating. >> >>That's impossible for me to imagine. It implies a centre of rotation >>and we would be at it. > > not necessarily. You don't have to be at the centre of a carousel to be > effected by rotation. You have to be ON it, and your carousel has a radius too great to contemplate. As it is we are already on a carousel with a tiny radius of 93,000,000 miles and the only motion we detect is the motion we see. We are right back to "And yet it moves" - Galileo. Moving the centre from the Earth to the Sun to the Milky Way doesn't mean there IS a centre and we can't detect it if it did, the other turtles don't move enough for us to see them do so. >>Geocentricity went out with Copernicus and is >>illogical. >> >>> The further from the centre of rotation a galaxy is the larger its speed >>> and the greater its transverse Doppler. >> >>Simply not observed > > Red shift increasing with distance? I appreciate you are not convinced > but the majority of physics is. "You can fool some of the people all of the time." -- Abe Barnum or P. T. Lincoln. Claudius Ptolemeus managed it for 1400 years thanks to the Church of Rome. Isaac Asimov wrote in "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright" , ISBN 0-380-44610-3 (concerning life after death) [ If you want to argue the point, present the evidence. I must warn you, though, that there are some arguments I will not accept. I won't accept any argument from authority. ("The Bible says so") I won't accept any argument from internal conviction ("I have faith it is so") I won't accept any argument from personal abuse ("What are you, an atheist?") I won't accept any argument from irrelevance ("Do you think you have been put on this Earth just to exist for a moment of time?) I won't accept any argument from anecdote ("My cousin has a friend who went to a medium and talked to her dead husband") And when all that, and other varieties of non-evidence are eliminated, there turns out to be nothing.] >> and anyway the galaxies are independent >>of each other. > > so are ants on the earth it doesn't mean the earth isn't rotating and > that the ants do not share that rotation. > The Sun and the ants share a common barycentre. Anyway, I can SEE the Sun crossing the sky and so can the ants. > >>You couldn't even get water going down the kitchen >>sink to do that, it would drag against the side walls. Drop some >>corks or styrofoam crumbs in and watch. > > ???? Try it. Buy a new hard-drive, fill your kitchen sink with water, sprinkle crumbled white hard-drive packing material on the water and pull the plug out. Watch carefully. Experiment over, clean up and put remaining packing material, hard-drive and pretty box in the waste bin. Remove U-bend (water trap) from sink drain pipe and recover the crumbs, carefully saving them in a sandwich bag for future use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystyrene >> >>> Note that emission theory predicts the same transverse Doppler as SR. >> >>Note that emission theory predicts NO transverse Doppler, the >>opposite of SR. > > Wrong - see below. > >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img110.gif >>That's as far blueshifted as you can get and proof Einstein was a >>ranting lunatic. It is also proof that he knew what a vector is, but >>only when it suited him. >>Where do you get these outlandish ideas from? > > Simple mathematics. > > X---->v > > > > > > > Y T > > > In order for light leaving X to hit T it has to set out in the direction > XY where YT = vt. The photons have a component of velocity c in the > direction XY and a component v in the X direction such that the > resultant is in the direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle > XY = c YT = v so > > the velocity X-T = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag > So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L > But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength) > So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2) > ANY angle is NOT transverse. > If X is orbiting T it is always orthogonal and the light reaching T is > not travelling at c so is Doppler shifted. None of that exotic "time > dilation" nonsense but genuine Doppler shift the result of a simple > velocity triangle. Bwhahahahahaha! Too funny! X emits (fires) 2 bullets each second. T sees (is hit by) 1 bullet each second (red shift) or 4 bullets each second (blue shift). After one hour X has fired 7,200 bullets and 3600 have hit T (red shift) or 14,400 bullets have hit T (blue shift). What happened to the missing bullets (red shift) or where do the extra bullets come from (blue shift)? The tick fairy has gotten to you. Rework your logic. > It is possibly easier to see if observed from The IFoR in which the > light is emitted in which, according to emission theory, light travels > every which way at c > > O > > > > > > > Y T > v<--- > > Light leaves O when O is orthogonal w.r.t T but when it reaches T, T is > at Y and has a component of motion away from X which will result in > lower frequency. Of course if the source is in orbit around Y it is > constantly changing its IFoR and will no longer be in the IFoR of O (the > IFor in which the light was emitted) when light reaches Y. > > Waldron's ballistic theory gives a slightly different result as his > theory is basically a photon theory rather than a wave theory. He > calculates the same change of velocity as above but uses the change in > velocity to calculate the energy of the photon reaching T. He > calculates the Transverse Doppler shift as > > f'/fo = (1 - v^2/(2.c^2)) > > which differs only in forth order v/c term. > This Waldon guy is a fruit cake, bullets do not vanish into or appear from thin aether. Note that emission theory predicts NO transverse Doppler, the opposite of SR. >>> Everything in the universe appears to be rotating or orbiting around >>> something else. If the universe as a whole is not rotating it is unique >>> in >>> that respect. If it is rotating then transverse redshift would increase >>> with distance. >> >>If everything revolves around something else then something else revolves >>around everything. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/barycentre.gif > > velocity is relative but rotation is absolute. Not in this frame of reference it isn't. http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov "ROTATING FRAMES FEATURE IMAGINARY EFFECTS. DON'T TRY TO USE THEM."-- Wilson news:drh9e553jdb7u87m75v26nerpghee6bk1p(a)4ax.com "DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it). news:aqqqm35ka2ef6qheidr8b1qh2bi0tv1bgo(a)4ax.com "A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'... hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jgdnss0ddualtsrnm7n(a)4ax.com Androcles' LAW I FOR ROTATING FRAMES OF REFERENCE. Every body perseveres in its circular motion, or of accelerated motion in a curved line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon. Wilson may not be able to use them, but I can. > How would we know if the > entire universe had a rotation about its centre of gravity? Buy a new hard-drive, fill your kitchen sink with water, sprinkle crumbled white hard-drive packing material on the water and pull the plug out. Watch carefully. Experiment over, clean up and put remaining packing material, hard-drive and pretty box in the waste bin. Remove U-bend (water trap) from sink drain pipe and recover the crumbs, carefully saving them in a sandwich bag for future use. Then you'd know.
From: Androcles on 9 Jan 2010 19:16 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:282ik5hplafuepsrahh0cbv1mb7s93jpms(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:38:15 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:Fmozx0DzWxRLFwNY(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >>> Androcles wrote: >>>> > >>> I am trying to understand what you are saying. I see from your diagram >>> that if light speed is source dependent it will result in redshift most >>> of >>> the time and blue shift for a much shorter period (on the diagram marked >>> region of reversal). Questions arising. >> >>That's right. >> >> >> >>> >>> 1/ What is the time scale between reversals? i.e. something which could >>> be >>> observed or is the time scale so long it exceeds the period we have been >>> able to observe. >> >>What is the period of a galaxy and how far away is it? >>Let's say it's a million years to make one complete orbit. >>You have to position yourself somewhere on the vertical >>scale and sit there for a million years to see one cycle for one >>star. Let's say you see it red for 550,000 years and >>blue for 450,000 years. >>Then choose a further position and sit there for another >>million years. This time you see it red for 600,000 years >>and blue for 400,000 years. >>But that's just one star, they are all doing it at a different >>phase. So the overall effect is more dull red than bright >>blue and that increases with distance. > > This cannot be correct... > When an orbiting star is moving away from earth, its light will move at <c > and > will be redshifted. When it moves towards Earth, its light is blue > shifted. > > For a circular orbit, the star spends equal times moving towards and away > from > Earth...so the red and blue shifts should be observed in equal > proportions. So there is no Sekerin-Wilson time stretching, never mind what the math shows. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF This cannot be correct... Make up your useless fuckin' mind, Einstein dingleberry.
From: eric gisse on 9 Jan 2010 20:28
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] Three stupid people arguing, and they all think they are the smartest people in the room. How delightful. |