Spyman

I interpret the original picture differently, I see 1D of time and 2D of space, the WMAP spacecraft are placed in the center of the 2D space circle and at the present location on the time scale. In my view the WMAP spacecraft represents our centre position in our observable part of the Universe and each timeslice is therefore a solid planar disk of space, filled with stuff at different locations from the centre. Our observable universe is not hollow, it is a filled spherical volume around us in the centre. The whole Universe could be curved inward on itself and form a hollow hypersphere, but on the scale of our observable limits it's considered to be locally flat. I do definately not think that NASA tries to show somecind of a resulting curvature of spacetime. Note: I am not able to view Widdekind's images from this computer so I am not able to comment on those.

Most of them don't think at all. Would you mind extending on that statement? Because if you claim that most people, considering a possibility that our huge Universe could accommodate extraterrestrial intelligent lifeforms which just like us could develop a techology to travel through space between stars, "don't think at all", then you seem to be the one with insufficient thoughts.

I don't know, I was never any good in history and the technical parts of how it might be possible with relativity theory I better leave for the experts but in a simplified view: we can move freely in three space dimensions and we know that we are moving forward in time, so it's not that far fetched to imagine a controlled displacement in a time dimension. Paradoxes are caused by impossible situations, so either time travel like in movies, are impossible or there is some mechanism preventing paradoxes, alternative universes is one popular explanation but there exists others, like this one: The Novikov self-consistency principle, also known as the Novikov self-consistency conjecture, is a principle developed by Russian physicist Igor Novikov in the mid-1980s to solve the problem of paradoxes in time travel, which is theoretically permitted in certain solutions of general relativity (solutions containing what are known as closed timelike curves). Stated simply, the Novikov consistency principle asserts that if an event exists that would give rise to a paradox, or to any "change" to the past whatsoever, then the probability of that event is zero. In short, it says that it's impossible to create time paradoxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

Before the recombination the Universe is thought of as a hot dense plasma which was effectively opaque to radiation, if the photons are not able to travel further than the closest particles then any difference in propagation speed should be tiny. Hotter areas would decompress into cooler areas with lower pressure but compared to the huge expansion rate of space on large scales in this early time period I don't think the difference would change much. IMHO, I think that if there exists a larger pattern in the Universe than what we currently are able to observe and base our understanding of, then there might very well be huge areas with matter separated from huge areas of antimatter, but the voids filled with radiation and empty of matter would not be much greater than the areas filled with matter or antimatter by this mechanism.

We are continuously traveling into the future one second every second but according to relativity the rate at which time ticks are relative the observers frame of reference, as such an observer accelerating or in a different gravitational field or propagating with a high speed relative another observer will measure a different rate of ticks between the two observer's clocks. So one observer could age only a few years during a long space trip while plenty of years could have passed on Earth for the other observer. There is however no way back, we can't travel backwards in time, only slow the rate how time passes relative other observers. While the space traveler has aged less during his time travel into the future, he has never the less aged too, he can't undo this ageing or go back to the time when the journey started.

Can you explain the mechanism for how matter and antimatter will annihilate and tend to cause expansion?

But I do belive that we will be able to travel between stars and survive despite our problems, I have faith in mankind and hope for the future. We are pretty fragile right now both to ourselves and to moder nature, since we are all stacked on one single planet, but as soon as we manage to colonize even one more planet we will be much safer against catastrophic failure and when we have habitats in three or four star systems then the human race will be more or less immortal. Obviously people thinking that aliens can visit us also belives they can survive long enough.

It's good to see that we didn't manage to scare you away with the quibbling, take your time and when you are ready post your questions.

While I partly choosed the word "outflow" to visualize a stream of water pouring out from the battery, like in the analogy were water relates to the current, that is not all I had in mind or the whole truth. A battery is a containter were energy is stored, this energy gets transferred to the equipment and gets consumed. The correct technical terminology for the the rate at which energy is flowing out from the battery or getting consumed is Power, which is measured in Watt and is defined as one joule per second. In direct current resistive circuits, electrical power is calculated using Joule's Law: Power = Voltage * Current I have seen more advanced multimeters able to measure power directly but most standard multimeters don't have a setting for this and as such depending on circumstances two multimeters might be needed. If the battery is in good shape and not overstrained such that it is able to keep its voltage stable then it is enough to know the voltage and measure the current or if the load is a simple like a resistor or at least stable then it's enough to know the impedance and measure the voltage, the other unit can be calculated from Ohm's Law. But when the battery is close to empty or under excessive strain, the voltage will drop fast and if the load is fluctuating like for an amplifier connected to a loudspeaker were the amplitude and frequency of the sound changes rapidly, then both the voltage and current needs to be measured simultaneously.

I am sorry ewmon, but I don't know what to make of this example either, can you please explain whats new with it? Because both your intentions and my explanations has already been covered from post #21.

What are you afraid of? There exists a lot of different ideas on the internet, some are made by reputable scientists while others are from crackpots which either lack knowledge or merge to much faith into their models. The idea of "a very slow moving Earth located next to the epicenter of the Big Bang" are not in accordance with current scientific cosmological consensus.

Mermaids don't have a theory of gravity, but they have a theory of quantum magic. The wild arcane forces behaves randomly and their strange movements are more or less impossible to predict on small scales, however on larger scales, like the spherical surfaces of bubbles, the mysterious field holding the lifegiving breath are attractive to each other. When two bubbles get close enough they simply merge and create a larger bubble, so the theory of quantum magic predicts that in the direction smaller bubbles take off at there should be a huge bubble with strong arcane attraction. Some of the greater minds of the mermaids even speculate that this huge bubble could be so enormous that is totally surrounds and contains their whole world and maybe even other alien worlds inside it.

Well, I have another opinion of that and you fail miserably in convincing me otherwise, since you insist on repeatedly continuing to attack my wording, even after that I already have, more than once, admitted there might be language problems and that I didn't use the correct terminology. Furthermore and most important in this stupid argument of the correct usage of words, why did you not answere my question of which is more important, terminology or working principle? Do you or do you not admitt that understanding of the working principle is more important? I agree that it is helpful if people use the same terminology and there could be problems when someone doesn't, but usually it can be solved with a friendly conversation instead of a bashing, if people are willing to try. Also, you seem to neglect that I actually did explain my wording in post #21. I don't know what to make of your examples, they seem wrong: A person who doesn't understand the working principle and then connects the multimeter wrongly could damage both the battery and the multimeter, while getting hurt to boot. Also if someone already have a basic understanding on the working principle and what they want to measure then they know both how to connect the multimeter and what settings they should use. Knowledge of whether potential is measured in voltage, current in amperes and resistance in ohms is less important. If someone already know the basics and have made the conclusion that a different battery characteristics is needed then they already know why and which battery to use instead. Asking a random clerk in a random store of which batteries to use for a new short-wave radio will likely not lead to any good advice at all, from my experience you are lucky if you find someone able to translate from a LR6 to AA size. If you on the other hand ask a clerk that is a specialist with good knowledge, then all you have to know is what equipment you need the battery for. The only student in the electronics class that is going to be able to explain a phenomena to the teacher is the one with knowledge of the working principle, someone spouting from ignorance and randomly inserting technical terminology words are not going to make any sense at all. ---------- Now if you truly are worried about people reading my explanation and getting "intellectual barriers" then you yourself should answere and explain the question in the OP with the correct technical terminology. That way you would contribute positively to this thread in a helpful manner instead of repeatedly attacking my wording.

LOL ewmon, what is most important for learning, the exactly correct technical terminology or the basic of the working principle for the phenomena in question? Everything I have said are correct and IMHO helpful for people trying to understand electricity, although as I already have admitted there might be language problems and I have certainly used a lot of layman's terms instead of correct terminology because people starting to learn are not likely already well versed with it. Anyone reading through this thread can see that your intentions with the last post is obviously not to be helpful at all, but instead solely made to flame me...

Well, if a person who has "studied and/or worked with electricity for decades" is not able to understand my explanation in my post #21, then I simply suspect you don't want to either. From the tone of your posts and the following long windled explanations and arguments of details that is more or less beside the point of what Anilkumar asked for and my explanations of, I draw the conclusion that you for some unknown reason are trying to put me down instead of trying to be helpful. Since your goal seems to be to only criticize and belittle me, I frankly don't see the point in wasting my time further on trying to "define" words for you. But you might ponder this: If I would have used the expression: "Operating voltage is dictated by the state-of-discharge and the actual load imposed by the equipment", then I probably could have satisfied you but my goal was to help Anilkumar and I don't think that expression would have been very helpful. Yes, the voltage always drops on usage and different batteries have different discharging curves. But I don't see your point, I never opposed this or said something against it and already mentioned the discharge curve briefly in my post #8: "I think it might need to be noted while the battery can be in its rated range it does still decrease when it gets drained. There is a flat slope of the output voltage from a battery, slowly dropping as the battery gets uncharged until a breaking point is reached and the slope sharply turns steep down, when the battery gets exhausted." Yes, the batteries are not fixed on a constant voltage of exactly 1.500 Volts, depending on type and remaining charge the terminal voltage of the battery will differ, they have a known normal range for normal use. I don't see your point here either, I never said something different and I have a hard time to understand why or how you fail to reach an understanding. If I would have belived that you were genuine interested and trying to understand then I would have extended further on what I ment with "maintaining the rated voltage" but as I already have explained above I won't. (Unless someone else is asking.) Here I strongly disagree with you, independent of where one might draw the limit of what a "nearly depleted battery" actually is and what the defined range of "rated" voltage are, a measurement of the battery voltage will still drop during a load and then regain some potential when the load is disconnected. Some batteries on the verge of their current use might even regain enough to run the load for another few minutes, if they get a longer duration of rest. The main point here is that Anilkumar asked how a nearly empty battery would show a voltage in range with its ratings with a voltmeter and then still not function when the load gets connected, which is what I have tried to explain and seem to have succeded with, except for you even though you try to claim to already understand and have knowledge of this. I agree that they never will regain their full voltage or get back to exactly 1.500 Volts, which I never said that they would either, but they are likely to return to a level within their normal range of rated voltage when the load gets disconnected and they still are only nearly empty. I did test on three different depleted 1.5 Volt AA batteries which all had laid in a recycle bin for a longer duration, as load I used a 12 Volt 20 Watt lightbulb: Battery 1 1.393 Volts before connecting Load 1.100 Volts after a few seconds with Load 1.310 Volts a few minutes after disconnecting load 0.900 Volts after more than 10 minutes with Load connected again 1.100 Volts 10 seconds after disconnecting Load again 1.150 Volts after 1 minute without Load 1.221 Volts after 10 minutes without Load Note: This battery surprised me of having quite a lot of energy still left inside it, I guess it would suffice for usage in a computer mouse or a TV remote controller for some time yet and that it likely had been used in a high-drain load like a digital camera or something similar since someone has discarded it. Battery 2 1.231 Volts before connecting Load 0.370 Volts directly after connecting Load 0.305 Volts after a few seconds with Load 0.985 Volts directly after disconnecting Load 1.175 Volts after 1 minute without the Load 1.218 Volts after 10 minutes without the Load Note: This battery seems more like what I expected and what I thought of when explaining for Anilkumar. Battery 3 0.912 Volts before connecting Load 0.008 Volts directly after connecting Load 0.005 Volts after a few seconds with Load 0.612 Volts directly after disconnecting Load 0.832 Volts after 1 minute without the Load 0.863 Volts after 10 minutes without the Load Note: This was the most exhausted battery of them and is more like the "nearly depleted battery" ewmon is talking about, but even when it's this highly discharged the battery is still able to recover a large amount of its terminal voltage when the load is disconnected and almost return to the voltage it had before. If you don't trust me then I suggest that you take a few depleted batteries and measure for yourself...

Spyman, your language skills are seriously getting in the way of describing the reality of electricity. I've studied and/or worked with electricity for decades, and you are not describing electricity properly or clearly. You repeatedly use the word "outflow", which I have never seen or heard used before. You still describe causes and effects improperly. For example, the statement below has very little scientific meaning. Any load that doesn't undergo a catastrophic failure is "able to consume" more of what you strangely call "outflow". It seems that your source of information is not scientific. Ok, ewmon let's see if we can come to an understanding... First, here is the context: With the background layed out here is another try to explain it more properly: If Anilkumar connects a Voltmeter to an almost empty 1.5 Volt battery, the Voltmeter will load the battery with a resistance of around 10 Mega Ohm which will cause a current of ~0.15 mikro Amperes. This low strain will likely not exhaust the chemical energy left inside the battery during Anilkumar's measurement of the voltage. In layman's terms: "the battery's maximum outflow is higher than what the load can consume". With other words: the battery is able to keep the rated voltage while supporting this current and the load will have a current flow through it, with the rated voltage, that is lower than what the battery is able to sustain. When Anilkumar on the other hand connects a load with a low resistance, like a lightbulb of around 1 Ohm, then the load would be able to let through a current of 1.5 Amperes, if the battery is able to uphold the rated voltage while the current flows through the lamp making it shine bright. But since the battery is almost empty, the chemical energy is nearly depleted, so it won't be able to uphold the rated voltage and ten millioooooon times higher current than with the Voltmeter. Instead the battery voltage drops to the highest value that gives the maximum current it is able to support, through the load in it's weakened state. In layman's terms: "the battery's maximum outflow is lower than what the load is able to consume". With other words: the battery is not able to keep the rated voltage while supporting this current and the load would have a current flow through it, with the rated voltage, that is higher than what the battery is able to sustain. Is that scientific enough for you or is there still something nagging you? Don't bite your tongue, please spit it out in the open for further discussion. For instance, do you like dalemiller object to my use of the word "drained"?

Was the Universe created by Stephen Hawking since his initials "SH" is imprinted on the Cosmos? Since the day the first Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data were released, in 2003, all manner of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies have been reported; there’s been the cold spot that might be a window into a parallel universe, the “Axis of Evil”, pawprints of local interstellar neutral hydrogen, and much, much more. But do the WMAP data really, truly, absolutely contain evidence of anomalies, things that just do not fit within the six-parameters-and-a-model the WMAP team recently reported? In a word, no. http://www.universetoday.com/55200/seven-year-wmap-results-no-theyre-not-anomalies/ Galaxy Zoo: The large-scale spin statistics of spiral galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey We re-examine the evidence for a violation of large-scale statistical isotropy in the distribution of projected spin vectors of spiral galaxies. We have a sample of $\sim 37,000$ spiral galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, with their line of sight spin direction confidently classified by members of the public through the online project Galaxy Zoo. After establishing and correcting for a certain level of bias in our handedness results we find the winding sense of the galaxies to be consistent with statistical isotropy. In particular we find no significant dipole signal, and thus no evidence for overall preferred handedness of the Universe. We compare this result to those of other authors and conclude that these may also be affected and explained by a bias effect. http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3247

To see something requires photons to enter our eyes or equipment for observation and as such photons from the past would either have had to been delayed, like what they normally are when coming from a distance or get trapped in the past in a container and then released today, which in both cases doesn't need a timemachine or other timedevices. If we build a device that could view visions from the past, then that device must interact with the photons in the past to either duplicate them or simply catch them. This interaction would make it subjected to the same problems as with other timemachines since these interactions should interfere with the past.

Yes, the electrical resistance for a material depends on its properties, size and the environment. There are different cinds of fans and therefore also different ways to regulate their speed, small fans for DC power, like in computers, usually have some cind of voltage regulation, but bigger industrial fans, like for ventilation, normally runs on AC power with frequency converters controlling their speeds. Irons tools, electrical heating radiators and similar equipment have a rather simple adjustable thermostat that either turns the power on or off when the temperature is below or above desired value, but there exists voltage or current regulators for increased precision or smoother strain on the supply.

Hmm, sorry to cause confusion, I did not intend to say that only certain conditions can end up with exhausted batteries, I only tried to explain that the use of the word "drained" in my post #2 was not wrong, as opposed by dalemiller. A battery can not give a higher outflow than what it can support, but you can connect a load that would produce a higher outflow if the battery could support it, instead of giving this impossible outflow the battery instead chokes on internal resistance due to a depletion of chemical energy, which reduces the terminal voltage until the outflow matches what it can support. Votlage, current and resistance follows Ohm's law, were: Voltage = Current * Resistance. As such I meant that "then" is what will happen then if that condition happens and "empties" means that the battery is getting more and more empty because the battery's maximum outflow is lower than what the load is able to consume, which in turn very fast forces the voltage to drop lower and lower until the battery is no longer able to give noticeable outflow at all.

From my understanding of General Relativity, a totally empty space volume, without quantum fluctuations and radiation so that it is a perfect true vacuum, would be exactly flat and as such I think if introducing a field of negative energy balancing against matter and normal energy would together keep space flat on average, but locally gravity would curve space and on larger scales negative energy would accelerate expansion. Therefore my personal guess, without reading the book and with limited understanding of relativity, is that Hawking's idea is based on a flat Universe. Before the discovery of Dark Energy the shape of the Universe cold either be closed as curved inward, flat or open as curved outward but with Dark Energy the Universe can have any shape and still be open or closed. A curved inward universe could still feature an accelerating expansion and be open and so could also a flat universe with Dark Energy. The Universe is expanding with an accelerating rate which would indicate that it is open but the overall geometry of space could still be flat. Flat universe If the average density of the universe exactly equals the critical density so that Ω=1, then the geometry of the universe is flat: as in Euclidean geometry, the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees and parallel lines continuously maintain the same distance. Absent dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching a fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as an open universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

No, I think we have both parts, each observer will see the others light redshifted in his own frame. Reciprocity Sometimes the question arises as to how the transverse Doppler effect can lead to a redshift as seen by the "observer" whilst another observer moving with the emitter would also see a redshift of light sent (perhaps accidentally) from the receiver. It is essential to understand that the concept "transverse" is not reciprocal. Each participant understands that when the light reaches her/him transversely as measured in terms of that person's rest frame, the other had emitted the light aftward as measured in the other person's rest frame. In addition, each participant measures the other's frequency as reduced ("time dilation"). These effects combined make the observations fully reciprocal, thus obeying the principle of relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect Cosmological Redshift is not thought to be due to doppler but instead caused by space expanding. Expansion of space In the early part of the twentieth century, Slipher, Hubble and others made the first measurements of the redshifts and blue shifts of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. They initially interpreted these redshifts and blue shifts as due solely to the Doppler effect, but later Hubble discovered a rough correlation between the increasing redshifts and the increasing distance of galaxies. Theorists almost immediately realized that these observations could be explained by a different mechanism for producing redshifts. Hubble's law of the correlation between redshifts and distances is required by models of cosmology derived from general relativity that have a metric expansion of space. As a result, photons propagating through the expanding space are stretched, creating the cosmological redshift. There is a distinction between a redshift in cosmological context as compared to that witnessed when nearby objects exhibit a local Doppler-effect redshift. Rather than cosmological redshifts being a consequence of relative velocities; instead, the photons increase in wavelength and redshift because of a feature of the spacetime through which they are traveling that causes space to expand. Due to the expansion increasing as distances increase, the distance between two remote galaxies can increase at more than 3 × 108 m/s, but this does not imply that the galaxies move faster than the speed of light at their present location which is forbidden by Lorentz covariance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

The CMBR has been stretched/redshifted to a wavelenght of ~1100 times longer by the expansion of the Universe. The energy of photons was subsequently redshifted by the expansion of the Universe, which preserved the blackbody spectrum but caused its temperature to fall, meaning that the photons now fall into the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The radiation is thought to be observable at every point in the Universe, and comes from all directions with (almost) the same intensity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_cosmology#Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation This recombination event happened at around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old. This is equivalent to a redshift of z = 1,088. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

If the curvature was totally random then it would be very unlikely that it was exactly zero, but then it would also be hard to explain why it got so close to zero, even if it of course could be a pure coincidence. If there is a rational explanation of how it got to be this value, if the curvature was determined in a scientific event, then it is no longer totally random and without any understanding of this process we are not able to make conclusions of which value is more or less likely to occur. Speculations that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing" while the physical laws, that we can observe today, are valid and rules, should logically predict that energy needs to be balanced to zero for the entire Universe. The overall geometry of our observable universe is nearly zero, but if the whole Universe is much much larger than our observable part, then we might still measure a flat spacetime locally due to inaccuracy in our instruments, even if the total Universe could be of slightly positive or negative curvature. Hawking seems to advocate that the Universe was created in a physical process at the Big Bang and while better measurements of the spacetime curvature in the future might show him wrong or strengthen his view, at the moment it falls within the tolerance level of our observations.

Anyone anywhere can observe the CMBR, unless they are somehow locally shrouded from the surrounding universe, but depending on relative position different observers will see different parts of it. The CMBR is explained as a relic radiation permeating the Universe that remains from the Big Bang and is not something locally to our Solar system or the inside of Milky Way galaxy. In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is a form of electromagnetic radiation filling the universe. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is pitch black. But with a radio telescope, there is a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation