swansont Posted April 24, 2017 Posted April 24, 2017 I note you have chosen to ignore the blue shifted question of objects galaxies moving towards us at enormous speeds. The Andromeda galaxy could just be a slow coach. What about space between us and another galaxy shrinking at light speed, or even 3c if it could happen, as was claimed by science geek. It's not my area, but what galaxy (or galaxies) are approaching us at enormous speeds? Strange mentioned recessional values of 3c. Nothing about approaching galaxies, though.
Sensei Posted April 24, 2017 Posted April 24, 2017 (edited) It's not my area, but what galaxy (or galaxies) are approaching us at enormous speeds? Andromeda (together with its satellite galaxies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy "The Andromeda Galaxy is approaching the Milky Way at about 110 kilometres per second (68 mi/s)." (lucky for us, not really fast though) "This makes the Andromeda Galaxy one of about 100 observable blueshifted galaxies." Edited April 24, 2017 by Sensei 1
swansont Posted April 24, 2017 Posted April 24, 2017 Andromeda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy "The Andromeda Galaxy is approaching the Milky Way at about 110 kilometres per second (68 mi/s)." "This makes the Andromeda Galaxy one of about 100 observable blueshifted galaxies." That's 0.0004c Handy andy described that as being a "slow coach". The implication from the comments is that there is a galaxy moving much, much faster 1
Strange Posted April 24, 2017 Posted April 24, 2017 (edited) I was happy with the expansion of space until someone told me it is expanding at 3c, not at 0.3c as I had originaly mistakingly understood. Note that expansion is not a speed, it is a scaling effect. Therefore (by simple arithmetic) the speed of separation is proportional to distance. So at some distance, the expansion will be 0.3c, at the particle event horizon it is about 3c, beyond that it is 4c, and so on. Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. I note you have chosen to ignore the blue shifted question of objects galaxies moving towards us at enormous speeds. The Andromeda galaxy could just be a slow coach. What about space between us and another galaxy shrinking at light speed, or even 3c if it could happen, as was claimed by science geek. There is local motion within our galaxy cluster, which means that some galaxies are moving towards one another. On cosmological scales everything is moving away from everything else and so there is only red-shift. I understood years ago in hypothetical black holes everything is sucked in never to escape including light. Today gamma ray bursts are sometimes reported as coming from claimed black holes. Radiation from active black holes comes from the accretion disk around the black hole, not from within the black hole. Edited April 24, 2017 by Strange 2
Handy andy Posted April 25, 2017 Author Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) Hi Thanks All for the replies. I am still a little confused between inertial velocity and the speed of galaxies in relation to each other, as I imagine others may be. I fully understand the ABCDEF description above. But am guessing special relativity only applies to inertial reference frame locally, not on a galactic scale. If this is the case how does it stand up in an accelerating observable universe I am getting more confused, and am resetting to a none detectable ether string theory. @ Mordred Thankyou for the explanatory link ref apparent velocity based upon the recessive velocity formula and actual inertial velocity which relativity uses. However the link doesnt work http://tangentspace....ocs/horizon.pdf could you please post again. @ Strange How is Andromeda not blue shifted. Are you stating you dont believe Andromeda is coming this way or that the Blue shift is nonsense and should be ignored. Again thankyou all for the replies I find this incredibly interesting. Edited April 25, 2017 by Handy andy
swansont Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 Hi Thanks for the reply, Your answer seems to be disagreeing with the Andromeda It's been established that Andromeda is not approaching us at anything close to the speed of light.
Handy andy Posted April 25, 2017 Author Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) It's been established that Andromeda is not approaching us at anything close to the speed of light. I know but it is approaching, and will collide spoiling everyones day in a few years time, and since it is approaching it must be blue shifted. Special relativity applies only to inertial frames, which has me a little confused. Does this mean only where gravity exists. All particles are subject to gravity. In the vacuum of space I understand there is matter, all be it not very dense and therefore there must be gravity between these particles, in the expanding space. Can someone explain. The space between galaxies is increasing at above light speed, and c is just the maximum velocity we can percieve. Under relativity every situation is considered by relative velocities of objects, particles, people(george nd gracie), galaxies etc with reference to each other. So a galaxy can move away from us at above light speed, and conversely must be able to approach us at above light speed, even if none have been detected. Andromeda is blue shifted, is there a max to blue shift before it cant shift any more. Would we even be able to percieve matter galaxies approaching us with a velocity greater than light from another inertial reference frame. DOH Edited April 25, 2017 by Handy andy
swansont Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 I know but it is approaching, and will collide spoiling everyones day in a few years time, and since it is approaching it must be blue shifted. Special relativity applies only to inertial frames, which has me a little confused. Does this mean only where gravity exists. All particles are subject to gravity. In the vacuum of space I understand there is matter, all be it not very dense and therefore there must be gravity between these particles. Can you explain. If the space between galaxies is increasing at above light speed. The fact that some galaxies are receding at greater than light speed does not mean this is happening everywhere. The recession from expansion is proportional to the distance from us. Distant objects recede faster than nearer ones. 2
Handy andy Posted April 25, 2017 Author Posted April 25, 2017 The fact that some galaxies are receding at greater than light speed does not mean this is happening everywhere. The recession from expansion is proportional to the distance from us. Distant objects recede faster than nearer ones. Sorrry I added a bit to my post above whilst you were posting The space between galaxies is increasing at above light speed, and c is just the maximum velocity we can percieve. Under relativity every situation is considered by relative velocities of objects, particles, people(george and gracie), galaxies etc with reference to each other. So a galaxy can move away from us at above light speed, and conversely must be able to approach us at above light speed, even if none have been detected. Andromeda is blue shifted, is there a max to blue shift before it cant shift any more?. Would we even be able to percieve matter galaxies approaching us with a velocity greater than light from another inertial reference frame, if space was contracting between us and it at above light speed.
Strange Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 Hi Thanks All for the replies. I am still a little confused between inertial velocity and the speed of galaxies in relation to each other, as I imagine others may be. I fully understand the ABCDEF description above. But am guessing special relativity only applies to inertial reference frame locally, not on a galactic scale. If this is the case how does it stand up in an accelerating observable universe I am getting more confused, and am resetting to a none detectable ether string theory As you say, SR doesn't apply on cosmological scales, so the expanding/ accelerating universe makes no difference. Calculations on that scale are derived from GR. @ Strange How is Andromeda not blue shifted. Are you stating you dont believe Andromeda is coming this way or that the Blue shift is nonsense and should be ignored. Andromeda is blue shifted because of relative motion in our local cluster.
Handy andy Posted April 25, 2017 Author Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) As you say, SR doesn't apply on cosmological scales, so the expanding/ accelerating universe makes no difference. Calculations on that scale are derived from GR. Andromeda is blue shifted because of relative motion in our local cluster. Previously quoted There is local motion within our galaxy cluster, which means that some galaxies are moving towards one another. On cosmological scales everything is moving away from everything else and so there is only red-shift. I am easily confused however I found this pdf. It explains the misunderstandings and where they come from regarding space. It also explains how space is expanding and can also contract, and Andromeda etc. An interesting thought occurred to me, ref the expanding space and red shift. What happens to a photon of light in contracting space and blue shift, if space shrinks to zero locally around the photon what does it do DOH I am travelling for a few days now and will not have access to internet for a while. I have loads of new stuff to read and some good pointers. The Hawkings book I initially disagreed with is so out of date, it is practically worthless. Thank you all, for your answers. Andy Additional edit Some questions have sprung into my head, as a result of the attached document. If space has no edge, is it infinite, how can it expand beyond a none existent edge ? Space can move, change shape, expand, shrink, be warped, or stretched. Light that is redshifted appears at lower frequency, disapears or ceases to exist, or be measurable. If space can expand on a cosmic scale, can it also contract around a wave with sufficient energy and make it into a particle. Using the blackhole concept, space is shrunk down to nothing. Would a photon become so blue shifted it becomes a particle? Electrons are particles that have no known shape, but have polarity and spin, which "might" infer they are a dipole and have a shape and dimensions, similar to a donut. Can radiation be viewed as an expansion of space from a particle with no dimensions as a result of the particle being destoyed? Looking at the double slit experiment, and wave particle duality, is it all just contractions and expansion of space. (Vibrations of space(aether) or strings) With space oscillating a wave or particle into and out of existence. A particle occupying a zero space trapped in a vortex a wave occupying a wavelength and free to move in a straight line. Cosmic Background radiation is not red shifted as far as I am aware. Could Cosmic Background Radiation be the result of a continuing creation and expansion of space, and not a big bang. Contracted space, decaying into expanded space. If space can be warped, twisted, made to vibrate, move around in the form of waves and particles(vortices). Is gravity not just another movement or disturbance in space as a result of the movement of all the different types of waves made of space. The disturbance being greater nearer to the particle or waves causing the disturbance. Can we create a similiar disturbance artificially in the direction we wish to move and create a gravity driven propulsion system. LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf Edited April 25, 2017 by Handy andy
Strange Posted April 25, 2017 Posted April 25, 2017 If space has no edge, is it infinite, how can it expand beyond a none existent edge ? The universe may be infinite, in which case it has no edge. Or it may be "finite but unbounded" meaning it has a topology that has no edges. The best analogy is to consider the 2D surface of the Earth (just the surface). This has a finite area but there is no edge - you can travel as far as you like in any direction (you may end up where you started from). That area could increase (expand) without needing an edge. Cosmic Background radiation is not red shifted as far as I am aware. It is. It is the redshifted radiation from a plasma that was at about 3,000 degrees. 1
Handy andy Posted April 27, 2017 Author Posted April 27, 2017 The universe may be infinite, in which case it has no edge. Or it may be "finite but unbounded" meaning it has a topology that has no edges. The best analogy is to consider the 2D surface of the Earth (just the surface). This has a finite area but there is no edge - you can travel as far as you like in any direction (you may end up where you started from). That area could increase (expand) without needing an edge. It is. It is the redshifted radiation from a plasma that was at about 3,000 degrees. Yes I agree with the red shift on radiation, I only speed read the attachment the first time, I have now studied it, and fully agree.. The concept of expansion however is in a state flux, there are various theories around. The concept of the big bang is hugely misunderstood and not helped by popular physics books or websites. My reading of the pdf attachment above is that the big bang is interpreted as an expansion of space, not the origins of all matter as popularly put forward, I do not view the expansion of space as being the origins of all matter. I do however view space as being a substance with possibly more than 4 dimensions as I think is validated by the attachment and current cutting edge theories. Space it seems can expand and cause an increased rate of expansion in the universe. Conversely it can contract as demonstrated when sucked into a singularity or black hole, similarly if a black hole can cause space to contract, then so can matter, even if not on such a noticeable scale. Red and blue shift is affected by the expansion of space, light can therefore be affected by the contraction of space. Gravity appears to bend light, possibly through the contraction of space towards a mass. Matter may in actual fact cause space to contract, or absorb space, causing the apparent omnidirectional gravitational stretching of space. The stretching of space explained by general relativity, may in fact be the contraction of space around mass. With no mass around space expands. This would be a simple explanation of how gravity works in the universe. Space expands behind a photon and contracts in front of it. Space may also contract around a particle. The only other conceivable way I can see gravity working is a vibration in space emanating from each individual molecule, and is more trapped in a fluid idea of space rather than an expanding or contracting space. In all instances thinking about gravity the only conceivable way of understanding it, is that space is a substance, it is not devoid of properties, as popularly put forward by many. Space whether expanding or a fluid is the source of gravity, and stating space is the aether may be annoying, and Michelson and Morley failed to detect it. If they had understood the expansion and contraction of the universe it would have been self evident. The experiments were void because they did not understand the aether or space. Matter when it is destroyed gives of radiation, Not every nobel prize winning physicist agrees with the big bank concept. Space when it expands may give off radiation, when a dimension unfolds are ceases to exist. Cosmic Background radiation may be evidence for the expansion of space not the origins off all matter as is claimed by some big bangers. This is equivalent to when matter is destroyed it gives off energy as radiation. When light is absorbed by an atom the electron goes to a higher energy level, when it loses energy it gives of a photon of light(radiation) At the quantum level when two gamma rays collide do they momentarily form an atom, similar to when two particles collide momentarily forming another particle before splitting and going on their merry way. Philosophically thinking of the origins of the universe, what came first infinite space or zero space, perhaps both existed at the same time, giving rise to extra dimensions we can not perceive, perhaps these are dimensions being explored in string theory. Which seems to be bound in boundary conditions, and is a mathematical bloody nightmare with thousands of possible solutions. To be more annoying Would anyone disagree that space is a substance, it has properties it is expanding and contracting can be warped and twisted, it carries all known forces and is the source of all matter and life in the universe. Would anyone deny that space is the ether and makes up all things.
Strange Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 Yes I agree with the red shift on radiation, I only speed read the attachment the first time, I have now studied it, and fully agree.. The concept of expansion however is in a state flux, there are various theories around. The concept of the big bang is hugely misunderstood and not helped by popular physics books or websites. My reading of the pdf attachment above is that the big bang is interpreted as an expansion of space, not the origins of all matter as popularly put forward, I do not view the expansion of space as being the origins of all matter. Exactly. The big bang model describes the cooling of the universe from an early hot, dense state. It says nothing about "creation". Would anyone disagree that space is a substance, it has properties it is expanding and contracting can be warped and twisted, it carries all known forces and is the source of all matter and life in the universe. Would anyone deny that space is the ether and makes up all things. I would certainly disagree that it is a substance. Do you really think that a distance of 1 mile is made of something? The rest depends on what exactly you mean by those words. But I think I would disagree with most of it. All forces (fields) exist within space. If you want to consider that as meaning they are "carried" by space, then I guess that is up to you. But it is potentially very misleading. And, obviously, without space then matter and life would not exist. But saying that it is "the source" of those things seems wrong. You can, of course, call space "the ether" but it seems a bit pointless and potentially confusing. It certainly isn't the lumineferous ether. Even Einstein once described space-time as aether, but he went on to emphasise that it has no physical properties of a substance. And it doesn't make up all things.
swansont Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 The space between galaxies is increasing at above light speed, and c is just the maximum velocity we can percieve. Under relativity every situation is considered by relative velocities of objects, particles, people(george and gracie), galaxies etc with reference to each other.[/size] Space is added "at above light speed" (an awkward phrase, but I think I understand what it means) only if you are looking at a point sufficiently far away. So a galaxy can move away from us at above light speed, and conversely must be able to approach us at above light speed, even if none have been detected. Andromeda is blue shifted, is there a max to blue shift before it cant shift any more?. Would we even be able to percieve matter galaxies approaching us with a velocity greater than light from another inertial reference frame, if space was contracting between us and it at above light speed. [/size] How? Adding space can only cause recession. An interesting thought occurred to me, ref the expanding space and red shift. What happens to a photon of light in contracting space and blue shift, if space shrinks to zero locally around the photon what does it do DOH What contracting space? If space can expand on a cosmic scale, can it also contract around a wave with sufficient energy and make it into a particle. Using the blackhole concept, space is shrunk down to nothing. Would a photon become so blue shifted it becomes a particle? A photon can't turn into a massive particle. That violates conservation of energy or momentum (Take your pick. If you conserve one, you don't conserve the other)
Handy andy Posted April 27, 2017 Author Posted April 27, 2017 Exactly. The big bang model describes the cooling of the universe from an early hot, dense state. It says nothing about "creation". I would certainly disagree that it is a substance. Do you really think that a distance of 1 mile is made of something? The rest depends on what exactly you mean by those words. But I think I would disagree with most of it. All forces (fields) exist within space. If you want to consider that as meaning they are "carried" by space, then I guess that is up to you. But it is potentially very misleading. And, obviously, without space then matter and life would not exist. But saying that it is "the source" of those things seems wrong. You can, of course, call space "the ether" but it seems a bit pointless and potentially confusing. It certainly isn't the lumineferous ether. Even Einstein once described space-time as aether, but he went on to emphasise that it has no physical properties of a substance. And it doesn't make up all things. With out space there is nothing zip nada. Space is a a substance it can grow and shrink, warp and distort, do you think that a distance is fixed in space. If a distance changes between two points sepparated by a substance the substance is changing evolving growing. What part of all forces exist or are transmitted by space do you think is misleading. Without space there would be no forces nada zip diddly squat. I called space the aether as it amuses me I recognize the aether means different things to different people and could be confusing . For me it is restricted to WTF is space . String theory would suggest space has more than the usual 4 dimensions, and can unfold expand and contract. Those same strings appearing from different dimensions of space form all matter and all forces. String theory is the only mathematical theory to include gravity. It is a mathematical monster, with numerous possible outcomes, and may never be completed. Background radiation and the expansion and contraction of space however might be proof of string theory. Nothing exists without space for it to exist in. Radiation appeared in space as space expands. Matter decays into radiation, quantum matter appears as if by random from radiation colliding, occasionally this matter has sufficient energy to become real matter, after a few trillion years particles coalesce into gas or a plasma of sorts, then Plasma theory kicks in, and it beats the crap out of the concept of all matter appearing from a singularity. I am know space exists I know it is expanding and contracting, By demonstrating it can change space is a substance. By examining the amount a photon of light is bent by gravity, it may be possible to infer the rate at which space is shrinking towards a planet, sun or galaxy. Space is added "at above light speed" (an awkward phrase, but I think I understand what it means) only if you are looking at a point sufficiently far away. How? Adding space can only cause recession. What contracting space? A photon can't turn into a massive particle. That violates conservation of energy or momentum (Take your pick. If you conserve one, you don't conserve the other) My ideas evolved after studying the pdf I posted. Space contracts around a black hole is the popular science view. A Particle can decay into a gamma ray, if contained in a singularity or collided with another high energy gamma ray it could momentarily appear as a particle similar to Feynman diagrams.
Strange Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 Space is a a substance it can grow and shrink, warp and distort, do you think that a distance is fixed in space. Do you have any evidence for that? What measurable properties does this substance have? If a distance changes between two points sepparated by a substance the substance is changing evolving growing. That is the fallacy of begging the question. If a distance changes between two points not separated by a substance then there is no substance to change, evolve, grow. That is all space is: distance. What part of all forces exist or are transmitted by space do you think is misleading. Without space there would be no forces nada zip diddly squat. You are confusing space as the volume within which things exist (e.g. the fields that mediate the various forces) and the thing itself. I called space the aether as it amuses me OK. I might start calling it Fred. String theory would suggest space has more than the usual 4 dimensions, and can unfold expand and contract. Space has 3 dimensions, not 4. String theory is the only mathematical theory to include gravity. Er, no. I can think of at least two others. Both of which has been around for one or centuries.
swansont Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 My ideas evolved after studying the pdf I posted. Space contracts around a black hole is the popular science view. A Particle can decay into a gamma ray, if contained in a singularity or collided with another high energy gamma ray it could momentarily appear as a particle similar to Feynman diagrams. It doesn't really say much for your idea if reading one pdf can change it so drastically. It's a tacit admission that this has not been thought through, and is not based on anything that has a solid grounding. Space "contracting" around a black hole does not give you a blueshift. A particle cannot decay into a gamma ray. If you are in a singularity you are inside a black hole, and you can't really say what's going on. "it could momentarily appear as a particle similar to Feynman diagrams." is nonsensical. A gamma (which is a photon) could intermittently appear as a particle/antiparticle pair, but not as a single particle. Feynman diagrams have rules. 1
Handy andy Posted April 27, 2017 Author Posted April 27, 2017 (edited) Do you have any evidence for that? What measurable properties does this substance have? That is the fallacy of begging the question. If a distance changes between two points not separated by a substance then there is no substance to change, evolve, grow. That is all space is: distance. You are confusing space as the volume within which things exist (e.g. the fields that mediate the various forces) and the thing itself. OK. I might start calling it Fred. Space has 3 dimensions, not 4. Er, no. I can think of at least two others. Both of which has been around for one or centuries. According to string theory it is the only theory that includes all known forces, I do not wish to defend their claims, as I am still getting back up to speed on the maths, and I am in know hurry. Space as we know it has 4 dimensions one space and one time. Fred perhaps only has 3, 2 spatial and one time. You are confusing the fields that exist in space as being separate from space. Read the pdf I posted by some Australian academics working in the field of astronomy, do you disagree with them as well. Space between galaxies (points in space) is increasing. Scientists talking about Black holes have in the past claimed space will disappear or contract in the blackhole, photons of light are bent by gravity By examining the amount a photon of light is bent by gravity, it may be possible to infer the rate at which space is shrinking towards a planet, sun or galaxy. If it can expand it can shrink. Space "contracting" around a black hole does not give you a blueshift. A particle cannot decay into a gamma ray. If you are in a singularity you are inside a black hole, and you can't really say what's going on. "it could momentarily appear as a particle similar to Feynman diagrams." is nonsensical. A gamma (which is a photon) could intermittently appear as a particle/antiparticle pair, but not as a single particle. Feynman diagrams have rules. I never claimed space contracting around a black hole would give you a blue shift, but since you raise it, it is an interesting concept, as space will be retracting into the black hole any light moving towards you will be moving at light speed through space that is moving away from you, and will be blue shifted perhaps only appearing as gamma rays. electron positrons pairs when they annihilate give of a gamma ray with circa 511eV of energy each. The Feynman diagram was a quick stab, I had not remembered the particle/antiparticle pair production but it does make sense, thanks for that. You may be aware I am going from memory some of which is fading. What I had suggested about the black hole was if there is a singularity then any light being forced into such a space might become a particle, which when destroyed outside the black hole could return to being gamma radiation(photon) again. Wave particle duality is a nonsense, all things are waves, of different shapes, some open ended some looped around etc this is the same in string theory as well as particle physics etc. Thank you all for the replies, I am learning a lot from this thread, even though it is considered to be Trash. The pdf I posted could be used as a reference document for people on the expansion of the universe I found it very interesting, even if you all do not agree with its open ended conclusions. (Ref the ionization thread I started under amateur science and projects, does anyone have any ideas on the separation of ions in a very hot gas using a magnetic field. I have given up hope of getting help on analysing maxwells equations and incorporating relativistic effects via the Lorentz equations with the circuit idea I have. I will work out the maths myself in time relatively speaking.) Edited April 27, 2017 by Handy andy
swansont Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 I never claimed space contracting around a black hole would give you a blue shift, but since you raise it, it is an interesting concept, as space will be retracting into the black hole any light moving towards you will be moving at light speed through space that is moving away from you, and will be blue shifted perhaps only appearing as gamma rays. electron positrons pairs when they annihilate give of a gamma ray with circa 511eV of energy each. We were discussing blueshift. Why did you bring up black holes if it was off-topic? The Feynman diagram was a quick stab, I had not remembered the particle/antiparticle pair production but it does make sense, thanks for that. You may be aware I am going from memory some of which is fading. What I had suggested about the black hole was if there is a singularity then any light being forced into such a space might become a particle, which when destroyed outside the black hole could return to being gamma radiation(photon) again. A gamma or a particle inside of a black hole can't get outside of the black hole to be destroyed. It's a black hole. Thank you all for the replies, I am learning a lot from this thread, even though it is considered to be Trash. That's your assessment, not anyone else's. Sorry you thinks so.
Handy andy Posted April 27, 2017 Author Posted April 27, 2017 We were discussing blueshift. Why did you bring up black holes if it was off-topic? A gamma or a particle inside of a black hole can't get outside of the black hole to be destroyed. It's a black hole. That's your assessment, not anyone else's. Sorry you thinks so. We were discussing space or the aether, blue shift, red shift black holes are all on topic. Space is a pretty big subject is it not. I understand I was not the only one caught out by the speed of the expansion of the universe, so I guess more than just me have been learning here I am sad you think I have learnt nothing on the thread, that is your opinion, and I will not try to change it. Actual Black holes are only theoretical, and are a result of general relativity. A number of claimed black hole discoveries have bean made, but no actual black holes have been definitely found. One is inferred to be hidden some where in the milky way, but is hidden from view, others are inferred but nothing is proven. The actual definition of black holes could be reduced from a singularity to a very dense or high gravity body, which could theoretically swallow all space and matter and disappear from view in science books. The concept of a contracting universe died years ago, when it was found to expanding faster than predicted. The concept of space you and others have discussed here has evolved and improved along the way. I found it interesting even if you didn't. A few thousand other voyeurs have viewed it, so perhaps it amused them as well. Is Special Relativity covered on any of the other threads Does anyone have any sentient thoughts on time and space or how many dimensions we have in the universe or space. The simple little test with a couple of clocks flying opposite ways around the world, appeared to slow time, or for the planes to take longer to get back to the same point in space, one marginally more than the other due to the earths spin. Was the test ever done over the poles, did the two mobile clocks then have the same time. Atomic Clocks moving in space, are affected by the movement through space. If space carries all forces including those at the atomic level in a clock and the clocks were moving with reference to it, at a different rate to the clock on the ground, would they not be affected. Thought analogy (gravity equivalent to a gas) a stationery pendulum on the earth with a gravity flowing over it to the centre of the earth. Another pendulum being transported around the earth with enough speed so that the gas (gravity) flowing to the centre of the earth affects the movement of the pendulum will affect the time passed. Is there already a thread somewhere on special relativity, or a pdf someone could post on this. Kind Rgds Andy
Strange Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 Actual Black holes are only theoretical, and are a result of general relativity. A number of claimed black hole discoveries have bean made, but no actual black holes have been definitely found. One is inferred to be hidden some where in the milky way, but is hidden from view, others are inferred but nothing is proven. Given the size and mass (both largely determined by observations of the stars orbiting it) a black hole is about the only explanation. And it is not hidden from view. There is an ongoing project to image it: https://blackholeimager.gsfc.nasa.gov The actual definition of black holes could be reduced from a singularity to a very dense or high gravity body, which could theoretically swallow all space and matter and disappear from view in science books. The concept of a contracting universe died years ago, when it was found to expanding faster than predicted. It is very hard to follow your threads when you jump between non-sequiturs like this. The simple little test with a couple of clocks flying opposite ways around the world, appeared to slow time, or for the planes to take longer to get back to the same point in space, one marginally more than the other due to the earths spin. Was the test ever done over the poles, did the two mobile clocks then have the same time. Atomic Clocks moving in space, are affected by the movement through space. Equivalent measurements have been made in all sorts of ways, there is no evidence that it depends on orbiting the Earth. It has nothing to do with "clocks being affected". Nor by the movement through space. Time dilation is seen in fundamental particles (no moving parts).
swansont Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 We were discussing space or the aether, blue shift, red shift black holes are all on topic. Space is a pretty big subject is it not. Discussions work better when you don't randomly change topics. Actual Black holes are only theoretical, and are a result of general relativity. A number of claimed black hole discoveries have bean made, but no actual black holes have been definitely found. One is inferred to be hidden some where in the milky way, but is hidden from view, others are inferred but nothing is proven. The actual definition of black holes could be reduced from a singularity to a very dense or high gravity body, which could theoretically swallow all space and matter and disappear from view in science books. The concept of a contracting universe died years ago, when it was found to expanding faster than predicted. If you have evidence of their existence, you can't call them only theoretical. Out of curiosity, what do you think is required for something to count as being "actually discovered"? Is Special Relativity covered on any of the other threads Does anyone have any sentient thoughts on time and space or how many dimensions we have in the universe or space. The simple little test with a couple of clocks flying opposite ways around the world, appeared to slow time, or for the planes to take longer to get back to the same point in space, one marginally more than the other due to the earths spin. Was the test ever done over the poles, did the two mobile clocks then have the same time. Atomic Clocks moving in space, are affected by the movement through space. If space carries all forces including those at the atomic level in a clock and the clocks were moving with reference to it, at a different rate to the clock on the ground, would they not be affected. Thought analogy (gravity equivalent to a gas) a stationery pendulum on the earth with a gravity flowing over it to the centre of the earth. Another pendulum being transported around the earth with enough speed so that the gas (gravity) flowing to the centre of the earth affects the movement of the pendulum will affect the time passed. Is there already a thread somewhere on special relativity, or a pdf someone could post on this. Kind Rgds Andy There are lots of threads on relativity. Clocks moving to the poles would not have the same change in their frequencies as clocks moving E-W. That would be a fun experiment to do, but with so many tests of relativity having been carried out, I doubt you could get funding to do it.
Handy andy Posted April 27, 2017 Author Posted April 27, 2017 Discussions work better when you don't randomly change topics. If you have evidence of their existence, you can't call them only theoretical. Out of curiosity, what do you think is required for something to count as being "actually discovered"? There are lots of threads on relativity. Clocks moving to the poles would not have the same change in their frequencies as clocks moving E-W. That would be a fun experiment to do, but with so many tests of relativity having been carried out, I doubt you could get funding to do it. The topic has not changed randomly, it has followed a line of thought based around the concept of space (which I annoyingly called the aether, and others call fred) Actually discovered would infer incontrovertible hard evidence, agreed via more than one observatory, without possible counter arguments, otherwise it is hardly better than speculation we have been having on this discussion forum, from which I have learned, I suspect some others will have also. Special Relativity I am retired and don't want funding to go to the poles, also since the ice caps have largely vanished the only interest for me going there would be to sail the north west passage, and since there is little wind near the poles this would be a motor, and boring, cold damp and miserable sailing. I am not aware of the many tests done on special relativity, but always have thought it to be an instrument error caused by the movement through space (the aether) as I tried to explain by analogy above. Thanks for all ideas people have given. This thread has been thought provoking for at least one (me). I was hoping for more interaction on the ionisation thread I started, that appears to have crashed and burned, apart from a couple of posts. I have things to do for a few days and might not have internet, so I will not be able to answer posts for a few days, please carry on without me or lock the thread. Kind Regards Andy
swansont Posted April 27, 2017 Posted April 27, 2017 I am not aware of the many tests done on special relativity, but always have thought it to be an instrument error caused by the movement through space (the aether) as I tried to explain by analogy above. You need a model, not an analogy. A way to predict the result, based on some mechanism. 1
Recommended Posts