Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
Donald Hamilton
Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
gaining speed as they go. It is either this or Einstein's
"antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
outward.<p>
Either the galaxies are being pushed by 'dark energy' or they are
simply falling toward the boundary of a finite universe attracted by a
gravity-like super force located at the boundary. The boundary is
simply where the laws of nature cease to exist. The universe cannot
exist beyond the "laws of nature" - there would be no gravity or
inertia, etc. or even space itself.
Don Hamilton
Ref. "The Mind of Mankind" Chapter 17 - "The Falling Galaxies".
dkomo
>
> Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
>
> Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
> boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
> to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
> gaining speed as they go. It is either this or Einstein's
> "antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
> that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
> outward.<p>
>
Our universe, though it may be finite, has no boundary. Think of a
sphere. Finite. No boundary. Ok?
The galaxies appear to be accelerating away from us simply from the
Hubble relation
v = Hd where the apparent speed of recession of an object is
proportional to the distance from our vantage point. Obviously, as
the distance continues to increase due to the expansion of space
between us and the object, the speed of recession of the object
appears to increase, which can be interpreted as an acceleration.
There is no "force" involved in any of this. It occurs solely due to
the properties of expanding space-time.
However, from independent evidence, the speed of expansion of the
universe itself has been discovered to be accelerating. It is the
energy of the vacuum ("dark energy") that causes this acceleration.
No one has theorized about a "Super Attractive Force" that is
"pulling" the galaxies outward. This is a dumbass concoction of your
own.
You know, I'm really glad I didn't waste time on your book. From this
post and previous posts of yours, it's clear you don't understand
astronomy or cosmology very well, and that probably holds for other
areas of science. You appear to be the archetypal writer of
pretentious pseudo-science. The New Age community probably really
digs your writing.
> Either the galaxies are being pushed by 'dark energy' or they are
> simply falling toward the boundary of a finite universe attracted by a
> gravity-like super force located at the boundary. The boundary is
> simply where the laws of nature cease to exist. The universe cannot
> exist beyond the "laws of nature" - there would be no gravity or
> inertia, etc. or even space itself.
>
> Don Hamilton
>
> Ref. "The Mind of Mankind" Chapter 17 - "The Falling Galaxies".
>
> http://novan.com/articles.htm
Androcles
"dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:3B6B81FC...@cris.com...
> Donald Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
> >
> > Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
> > boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
> > to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
> > gaining speed as they go. It is either this or Einstein's
> > "antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
> > that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
> > outward.<p>
> >
>
> Our universe, though it may be finite, has no boundary. Think of a
> sphere. Finite. No boundary. Ok?
finite.
>
> The galaxies appear to be accelerating away from us simply from the
> Hubble relation v = Hd where the apparent speed of recession of an object
is
> proportional to the distance from our vantage point.
it, although I'm glad you said "apparent". The empirical data you have is
that the further away an object appears to be, the greater the red-shift we
see in the light it sends us. Whether that is because the object is
accelerating away from us, or because something happens to light we see it
by isn't something we know, it is something you assume. For each radiant
body in the Universe, there is a "finite, boundaryless" sphere of energy
radiating radially from it, "ok"? And if the total energy is finite and the
sphere of radiation is expanding, what do you suppose happens to the finite
energy it contains within its volume? The 'density' of that energy must be
be reducing, right? A unit volume of space with unit energy at unit distance
from the source contains what amount of energy at 2 units? or 10, or 100
units? Do you see any sort of inverse law here? And if a unit of energy is
given by E = hf, then f = E/h, does it not? So if each photon expands with
distance to fill the ever increasing volume, we could conclude that its
frequenct reduces, and that is what we mean by red-shift, isnt' it? And
without the source moving away, either?
> Obviously, as the distance continues to increase due to the
> expansion of space between us and the object, the speed of
> recession
Hold on. Let me stop you in mid-sentence. What is "obvious" here?
I fail to see anything obvious. As I've just argued above, you are assuming
the object is accelerating away. I don't see a basis for that assumption.
The further away an object is, the greater the redshift I expect to see,
without it moving it all..
> of the object
> appears to increase, which can be interpreted as an acceleration.
Or as the expanding sphere of radiation it emitted.
> There is no "force" involved in any of this.
Correct.
It occurs solely due to the properties of expanding space-time.
What? Expanding space-time? Expanding relative to what? This is the Universe
were are talking about, not some soap-bubble that I can compare to other
soap bubbles and say "this one is growing". By what yardstick are you
measuring expansion? Some reference frame that is absolute, with tick marks
along the x,y,z, and t axes that show the surface of a bubble that is
expanding in time along a time axis? That's like being everywhere on the x
axis at the same "time", isn't it? I fail to see any expansion of
"space-time". If you want to expand space as a function of time, that I can
grasp. But expand space-time? How, and with what ruler do we measure it? It
makes no sense at all.
>
> However, from independent evidence, the speed of expansion of the
> universe itself has been discovered to be accelerating.
Oh yeah? Reference please.
> It is the energy of the vacuum ("dark energy") that causes this
> acceleration.
What's that, then? I've never seen any "dark energy". Unless you mean the
expanding photons I discussed earlier, but I don't see how they would push
massive objects apart. Maybe they do. Maybe the Universe is finite. And just
as maybe it is infinite too, because we have no way of knowing. If we
subract a dimension to make an analogy, then stars can be compared to
raindrops falling in a puddle of water. As we see each one raindrop strike,
ripples radiate from the point of impact, but the distance the ripples move
is finite. If you were an intelligent microbe living in the puddle and more
than 10 meters away a falling raindrop, how could you detect the ripples it
radiated? Al the energy has dissipated in the circle of expansion, and never
reaches you. If the "puddle" is an ocean on a plane extending indefinitely
in all directions (infinite, Euclidean) or the ocean covers the surface of a
sphere (finite, curved 'spacetime'), how can you tell from local
observations of falling raindrops? Each star has a finite lifespan, just as
the raindrop does.
> No one has theorized about a "Super Attractive Force" that is
> "pulling" the galaxies outward. This is a dumbass concoction of your
> own.
>
> You know, I'm really glad I didn't waste time on your book. From this
> post and previous posts of yours, it's clear you don't understand
> astronomy or cosmology very well, and that probably holds for other
> areas of science. You appear to be the archetypal writer of
> pretentious pseudo-science. The New Age community probably really
> digs your writing.
Hmm.. Or yours, I suppose. "Obviously" you "simply" have your own opinions
and enjoy being rude to others that see things differently to you.
I haven't seen any empirical data to suggest a super attractive force
either, but if it promotes freedom of thought and new ideas (so long as they
agree with empirical data) I don't see any purpose to your crass comments.
John R. Owens
Give me a break. If it worked the way you said, you'd see major
redshift on the monitor in front of your face. After all, the surface
of a sphere two feet in radius contains four times the area of a one
foot sphere. So, by your logic, at two feet from the monitor, the
frequency will be one quarter what it is when you're one foot from the
monitor. The photons are spread apart more widely, that's all. Lower
photon density, lower flux density, same energy per photon.
--
--John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Wade Hines
Androcles wrote:
> > Obviously, as the distance continues to increase due to the
> > expansion of space between us and the object, the speed of
> > recession
> Hold on. Let me stop you in mid-sentence. What is "obvious" here?
> I fail to see anything obvious. As I've just argued above, you are assuming
> the object is accelerating away. I don't see a basis for that assumption.
> The further away an object is, the greater the redshift I expect to see,
> without it moving it all..
Nope. The red shift (doppler effect) requires that the object be moving
away. It's velocity not distance or acceleration.
Jon Fleming
>
>"dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
>news:3B6B81FC...@cris.com...
<snip>
>>
>> Our universe, though it may be finite, has no boundary. Think of a
>> sphere. Finite. No boundary. Ok?
>No, it's not ok. A sphere has a radial boundary. That's what makes it
>finite.
A sphere only has a radial boundary if you step outside the sphere and
look at it in three dimensions. Form the point of view of a being
confined to the two-dimensional surface of the sphere and unable to
step off the sphere, the surface of the sphere is finite but
unbounded. The analogy to a higher dimensional universe is (I hope )
obvious.
<snip>
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
The Ghost In The Machine
<andr...@home.com>
wrote
on 4 Aug 2001 09:35:45 -0400
<_SSa7.69006$EP6.16...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>:
>
>"dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
>news:3B6B81FC...@cris.com...
>> Donald Hamilton wrote:
>> >
>> > Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
>> >
>> > Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
>> > boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
>> > to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
>> > gaining speed as they go. It is either this or Einstein's
>> > "antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
>> > that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
>> > outward.<p>
>> >
>>
>> Our universe, though it may be finite, has no boundary. Think of a
>> sphere. Finite. No boundary. Ok?
>No, it's not ok. A sphere has a radial boundary. That's what makes it
>finite.
The idea was to look at the sphere as though one were a Flatlander.
If you prefer, consider a 4-dimensional hypersphere, and someone
restricted to moving around in it perceiving only 3 dimensions.
>>
>> The galaxies appear to be accelerating away from us simply from the
>> Hubble relation v = Hd where the apparent speed of recession of an object
>is
>> proportional to the distance from our vantage point.
>"Simply"? What do you mean, "simply"? I fail to see anything simple about
>it, although I'm glad you said "apparent". The empirical data you have is
>that the further away an object appears to be, the greater the red-shift we
>see in the light it sends us. Whether that is because the object is
>accelerating away from us, or because something happens to light we see it
>by isn't something we know, it is something you assume. For each radiant
>body in the Universe, there is a "finite, boundaryless" sphere of energy
>radiating radially from it, "ok"? And if the total energy is finite and the
>sphere of radiation is expanding, what do you suppose happens to the finite
>energy it contains within its volume? The 'density' of that energy must be
>be reducing, right? A unit volume of space with unit energy at unit distance
>from the source contains what amount of energy at 2 units? or 10, or 100
>units? Do you see any sort of inverse law here? And if a unit of energy is
>given by E = hf, then f = E/h, does it not? So if each photon expands with
>distance to fill the ever increasing volume, we could conclude that its
>frequenct reduces, and that is what we mean by red-shift, isnt' it? And
>without the source moving away, either?
An interesting idea, although it appears unlikely to this particular
individual. I don't know what research has been done on the emission
of photons from particles moving at relativistic speeds, however.
I do know that certain galaxies exhibit blue shift, however, so
there are some issues here that suggest movement; obviously, if it
were merely a function of distance, every galaxy would exhibit
red shift, without exception.
I do wonder whether the human eye can perceive a single photon,
admittedly, and how far a star would have to be before the
photons spread perceptibly -- assuming such a concept makes sense.
Considering that the Sun pours out a phenomenal 3.94*10^26 W
of power, and that Planck's constant is 6.626 * 10^-34 J sec,
and that light photons (I'm not going to address the other photons
of blackbody radiation, since I don't know a lot about them)
have frequencies ranging from about 300 to 600 nm or so, which translate
into 5 * 10^14 to 1 * 10^15 sec-1, one gets the very very rough figure
of 1.19 * 10^45 photons per second. And our Sun is a fairly weak star.
If one has a round optical instrument about a cm across -- a little larger
than the human eye -- then one has to simply work out the radius of
a sphere which has 1 / (1.19 * 10^45) steradians = 3.14159*10^-4 m^2.
(A sphere is 4 * 3.14159 steradians; multiply a steradian by the
square of the radius to get the area.)
This done, we get r = sqrt(1.19*10^45 * 3.14159*10^-4) = 6.114*10^20 m,
at least to an order of magnitude. For comparison's sake, our galaxy
is estimated to be 50,000 parsecs; each parsec is 3.085678*10^16 m,
which means our galaxy is 1.542839*10^21 m.
Unfortunately, there are a bunch of other stars which tend to get in
the way.... :-) but it would be interesting to see if anyone's done
any research on this admittedly highly theoretical phenomenon (presumably,
one can attach a frequency counter and see how many photons are coming
in, if the star's far enough away and the aperture small enough -- assuming
no other stars are interfering).
I do not know whether the individual photons do in fact spread out
as they travel. However, I suspect they do not; Einstein's theory
implies that a photon travels the length of the universe in 0 seconds,
subjective time. There's no time for it to spread out!
Of course, from our more plebian viewpoint, it will take some
billions of years to get from here to there.
>
>
>> Obviously, as the distance continues to increase due to the
>> expansion of space between us and the object, the speed of
>> recession
>Hold on. Let me stop you in mid-sentence. What is "obvious" here?
>I fail to see anything obvious. As I've just argued above, you are assuming
>the object is accelerating away. I don't see a basis for that assumption.
>The further away an object is, the greater the redshift I expect to see,
>without it moving it all..
I'm not sure objects are accelerating, myself. They're merely moving.
Objects farther away from us are moving faster, that's all. There's
a peculiarity in that objects farthere away are moving faster than
they should be, though; hence the discussion in the popular press
about a "cosmological repellant" constant of some sort. I'm not
knowledgable enough on this subject to comment further.
[rest snipped]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 23d:22h:15m actually running Linux.
Life's getting too complicated, even listening to the radio.
Martin Gradwell
>
> Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
>
> Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
> boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
> to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
> gaining speed as they go.
Galaxies do appear to be experiencing an accelerated fall, as you say.
But, you say they accelerate "towards deeper and deeper space."
Presumably by 'deeper' you mean 'more distant, relative to us'. However,
if the length of the path followed by light from a distant galaxy is
increasing, it does not follow that the galaxy is becoming more distant.
It would follow if the light path was a straight line, but it is not.
Nevertheless I agree with everything you have said so far, but I would
use the most common meaning of "deeper", i.e. "closer to the centre"
or "further from the edge" Also, I would say that the gravity-like
"super Attractive Force" is so gravity-like that it is indistinguishable
from ordinary gravity, and that it exists not just at the boundary,
but also at all points within it.
> It is either this or Einstein's
> "antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
> that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
> outward.<p>
>
> Either the galaxies are being pushed by 'dark energy' or they are
> simply falling toward the boundary of a finite universe attracted by a
> gravity-like super force located at the boundary.
I would say "located at the centre". I can understand your usage,
because
distant galaxies do appear to be receding, all in different directions,
rather than towards a common centre. However, I would say that this is
an
optical illusion, that there is a single centre which has multiple
images,
and these images are so numerous and widely distributed that they appear
to occupy every part of the sky. This is because, regardless of initial
direction, light follows closed paths, So that light from a single
object
can arrive at an observer from widely varying directions, and the final
direction of a beam can be very different from the initial direction.
While actually falling towards a single common centre, different
galaxies
give the appearance of falling towards different images of that centre;
and those images themselves appear to recede, because observers are not
static but themselves take part in the general fall.
> The boundary is
> simply where the laws of nature cease to exist. The universe cannot
> exist beyond the "laws of nature" - there would be no gravity or
> inertia, etc. or even space itself.
But you are postulating that galaxies fall towards a place where laws
cease to exist. What happens when they get there? Do you postulate that
the boundaries grow over time, that the region where laws are applicable
is getting bigger?
Your ideas are in some ways similar to mine: you can conceive a universe
which has a boundary and a centre, and you can weather the jibes of the
idiots who take this as evidence that you have failed to understand the
unsupported assertions which are at the heart of modern cosmology.
However, given the idea of a centre and an edge, why not pursue it to
the logical conclusion? Things fall towards the centre. That is how
gravity works on every other scale, and that is how it works at the
largest scale that exists. There is no need to imagine any initial
impetus other than gravity, because the universe is not expanding.
For the same reason, there is no need to consider the question of
what it might be expanding into, or of how laws of nature might come
to apply in a region where formerly they did not.
And, most emphatically, there is no need to pretend that the universe
is infinite, or that it has ever been subjected as a whole to
practically
infinite density or pressure, or to any other impossible conditions.
There is no need to wonder about what might have preceded such a state.
Parts of the universe, such as individual galaxies, might indeed be
subjected eventually to conditions which we cannot hope to replicate,
but this can happen piecemeal, to different galaxies at different times;
and what happens to these galaxies in not might be on a scale which is
difficult to imagine, but it is not unobservable, and it is not much
different from what happens on smaller scales. in a quasar, every
infalling object is converted entirely into em radiation, because the
pressures are too great for it to exist as matter. That is all.
>
> Don Hamilton
>
> Ref. "The Mind of Mankind" Chapter 17 - "The Falling Galaxies".
>
> http://novan.com/articles.htm
Martin Gradwell, mtgra...@btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~mtgradwell/
Richard Uhrich
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> wrote
<big snip>
> I'm not sure objects are accelerating, myself. They're merely moving.
> Objects farther away from us are moving faster, that's all. There's
> a peculiarity in that objects farthere away are moving faster than
> they should be, though; hence the discussion in the popular press
> about a "cosmological repellant" constant of some sort. I'm not
> knowledgable enough on this subject to comment further.
>
> [rest snipped]
>
Actually, I believe _nearby_ galaxies appear to to receding too rapidly
relative to faraway galaxies. This implies the all expansion rates have
increased in the time since light traversed those distances.
Richard Uhrich
Isn't this 'boundary' simply an attempt to put man at the center of the
universe, again?
John R. Owens
Oh, and since then, it's occurred to me that the other possibility,
that I dismissed out of hand, should be explained away before someone
brings it up and says "but it could work this way!". In order for it to
work as described, only diminishing wavelength slightly over long
distances, you could also postulate that the numerical photon flux is
decreasing at a rate _almost_ proportionate to the square of distance,
but not quite, and the frequency decreases a little bit to compensated.
Due to the quantum nature of photons, they'd have to split to do this.
The most likely way they would do this would be to split into two, or
conceivably more, photons of half (or lesser fractions) the energy of
the original, therefore half the frequency. You'd get redshifts only
with frequencies of 1/(i^n) the original frequency, where i is the
number of photons that result from a split, n is the number of splits
that occurred. Still a maximum of half the frequency.
Alternatively, perhaps they more often split off a low-energy photon,
so that the "original" photon has slightly less energy, resulting in a
redshift, more or less. But then, you won't get any more visible
photons in the original (but slightly redshifted) frequency than you
started out with; you'd have overall less energy in that frequency range
than when the light started its journey. Plus, you'd get low-energy
(perhaps radio, or lower) waves coming in along with it, in
proportionately greater quantities as distance increases. Unless they
split off in a random direction as they pass through space. Which, I
will concede, might even look slightly like the Big Bang background
radiation. But the idea of photons splitting off like that
spontaneously, and in such small quanta that they produce a smooth curve
as distance increases, and so consistently that all photons arrive in
such a narrow band of the spectrum, just doesn't fly with me.
The way you've put it, it sounds like you expect that at some distance,
to use some hypothetical numbers, you just expect 4 photons to suddenly
split up into 5 at some distance, each with 4/5 the original energy, and
all going in approximately (but not quite) the same direction they
started out in. Ain't gonna happen, not while quantum mechanics is
worth even a small hill of beans.
Androcles
"John R. Owens" <j.o...@core.com> wrote in message
news:3b6c704a$0$42883$272e...@news.execpc.com...
reality
here, just a possibility. And of course for a photon to strike an atom, kick
an
electron up to a higher energy level, only to have it fall back in discrete
quantum levels, releasing discrete quanta of energy as discrete multiple
photons IS quantum mechanics, but the energy level of photons in general
isn't quantized (as the spectrum shows), that only occurs within the atom.
I see nothing in QM that would prevent a photon from losing frequency
with distance. The energy sphere, from the birth to the death of a star,
remains
finite. The sphere can expand, but the total energy it encloses, large as it
may be, cannot change.
You still haven't explained "dark energy".
Androcles
"Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3B6C1250...@rcn.com...
assumed
from distant objects having a greater redshif that those closer, then
it follows that the object is accelerating.
Androcles
assume the result of what we see at a great distance is caused by the object
accelerating away.
And I still have no explanation of "dark energy"...
Wade Hines
Androcles wrote:
>
> "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
>
> > Nope. The red shift (doppler effect) requires that the object be moving
> > away. It's velocity not distance or acceleration.
> If the velocity is supposed to be increasing as a function of distance,
> assumed
> from distant objects having a greater redshif that those closer, then
> it follows that the object is accelerating.
Maybe I missed some earlier context but on this specific point, the
velocity doesn't have to be increasing or decreasing. It doesn't matter
if the object is accelerating or not, it is the velocity that matters to
the red shift.
John R. Owens
I must admit, I'm not up on my dark energy. (I'm a layman, not a
formal scientist.)
As for the case of losing energy by discrete quantum interactions, one
other problem with that (beyond what I outlined in my previous followup
post): you could never get blueshift. And we wouldn't see the spread in
the spectrum that results from individual atoms/ions in a hot body (such
as a star) moving towards or away from us. OK, I guess that's two
problems. You could introduce the possibility that there's a doppler
shift AND energy loss over distance, but I think that's complicating
things rather unnecessarily. And I still believe (referring to my other
post again) that that would result in a wider spectrum spread for
objects at a longer distance than at a nearer distance (though, given
that it's already fuzzy from the thermal effects, this could be hard to
quantify). I don't know if observations have been done that
specifically relate to this, but I would think the data's out there, and
has probably already been applied to this matter. Anyone out there got
more on this than I do? (Ah, noticing which other newsgroups than t.o
this is cross-posted to, I suspect someone does.)
dkomo
>
> "dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
> news:3B6B81FC...@cris.com...
> > Donald Hamilton wrote:
> > >
> > > Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
> > >
> > > Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
> > > boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
> > > to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
> > > gaining speed as they go. It is either this or Einstein's
> > > "antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
> > > that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
> > > outward.<p>
> > >
> >
> > Our universe, though it may be finite, has no boundary. Think of a
> > sphere. Finite. No boundary. Ok?
> No, it's not ok. A sphere has a radial boundary. That's what makes it
> finite.
> >
I forgot to say "surface of a sphere" in what I wrote. The two
dimensional surface of the sphere is finite but unbounded. The
analogy of the surface of the sphere is often used to explain how our
universe can also be finite but unbounded.
But let's not press the analogy too hard. The sphere's surface is
embedded in a three dimensional space. Our universe's three
dimensional space (or four dimensional space-time) is not embedded
within a higher dimensional space (in "classical" general relativity).
Also, the universe has neither a uniquely defined radius, nor does it
have a center from which that radius emanates like the sphere does.
> > The galaxies appear to be accelerating away from us simply from the
> > Hubble relation v = Hd where the apparent speed of recession of an object
> > is proportional to the distance from our vantage point.
> "Simply"? What do you mean, "simply"? I fail to see anything simple about
> it, although I'm glad you said "apparent". The empirical data you have is
> that the further away an object appears to be, the greater the red-shift we
> see in the light it sends us. Whether that is because the object is
> accelerating away from us, or because something happens to light we see it
> by isn't something we know, it is something you assume.
You missed my point entirely here. Suppose you measure a car's
velocity at a certain time to be 40 mph. One minute later, you
measure it again and it is now 50 mph. Since acceleration is defined
as change in velocity per unit time interval, you can say the car
accelerated at 10 mph / minute. Ok?
Now back to the receding galaxies. For the record, let me state,
straight out of Astronomy 101, that the galaxies are *not* moving, but
rather the space between them is expanding, and they *appear* to
moving away from each other. I know that. I assume you know that. I
simply get tired of reiterating this same point over and over again in
posts on cosmology and assume that anyone reading this also knows it.
Nevertheless, the term "velocity of recession" of a galaxy is a
perfectly valid term. Just check any text on astronomy. They use
this term all the time and assume the reader doesn't confuse it with
*actual* velocities of galaxies.
So, let's say you measure the redshift of a distant galaxity which is
receding away from us at 90% of the speed of light. Its recession
velocity satisfies the Hubble relation V1 = H * D1 where V1 is its
apparent velocity and D1 is its distance from us *now* (not its
distance from us when the light was emitted). Some years later you
measure its recession velocity (or redshift) again, and this time you
find that its recession velocity is greater -- maybe now it's at
90.0005% of the speed of light. Since its apparent velocity of
recession has increased, it has *accelerated*.
But why has its velocity increased? Is there some mystical force
pushing it away or, God forbid, pulling on it (like a "Super
Attractive Force")? Nah, all that happened was that in the
intervening years, this galaxy's distance from us increased to D2, so
the Hubble relation says that the recession velocity V2 = H * D2 will
increase as well.
Ok?
Again, to reiterate, the Hubble relation is easy to demonstrate using
a "expanding balloon" model of the expanding universe. V = H * D
follows from simple geometry. Check any introductory text on
astronomy.
> For each radiant
> body in the Universe, there is a "finite, boundaryless" sphere of energy
> radiating radially from it, "ok"? And if the total energy is finite and the
> sphere of radiation is expanding, what do you suppose happens to the finite
> energy it contains within its volume? The 'density' of that energy must be
> be reducing, right? A unit volume of space with unit energy at unit distance
> from the source contains what amount of energy at 2 units? or 10, or 100
> units? Do you see any sort of inverse law here? And if a unit of energy is
> given by E = hf, then f = E/h, does it not? So if each photon expands with
> distance to fill the ever increasing volume, we could conclude that its
> frequenct reduces, and that is what we mean by red-shift, isnt' it? And
> without the source moving away, either?
>
Ho boy, is this confused. Each photon is not expanding with
distance. The photons retain their original energies and
wavelengths. Rather, what happens is that the photons are dispersed
across spheres of expanding radius, so that their *intensities*
(energy per unit area) drop off as radius squared. Look to see how
many photons cross a unit area at a given radius of the sphere. This
number will drop off as the radius increases. There is no red shift!
You were perhaps thinking of expansion red shift? This is the red
shift caused by space itself expanding, and is what actually produces
the red shifts we measure in the light from distant galaxies. That's
not what is happening in the ordinary radiant body example!
> > Obviously, as the distance continues to increase due to the
> > expansion of space between us and the object, the speed of
> > recession
> Hold on. Let me stop you in mid-sentence. What is "obvious" here?
> I fail to see anything obvious. As I've just argued above, you are assuming
> the object is accelerating away. I don't see a basis for that assumption.
> The further away an object is, the greater the redshift I expect to see,
> without it moving it all..
I didn't *assume* the object is accelerating away, I *explained* why
it appears to do so.
> > of the object
> > appears to increase, which can be interpreted as an acceleration.
> Or as the expanding sphere of radiation it emitted.
>
Your expanding sphere of radiation example was wrong as I showed
above.
> > There is no "force" involved in any of this.
> Correct.
> It occurs solely due to the properties of expanding space-time.
> What? Expanding space-time? Expanding relative to what? This is the Universe
> were are talking about, not some soap-bubble that I can compare to other
> soap bubbles and say "this one is growing". By what yardstick are you
> measuring expansion? Some reference frame that is absolute, with tick marks
> along the x,y,z, and t axes that show the surface of a bubble that is
> expanding in time along a time axis? That's like being everywhere on the x
> axis at the same "time", isn't it? I fail to see any expansion of
> "space-time". If you want to expand space as a function of time, that I can
> grasp. But expand space-time? How, and with what ruler do we measure it? It
> makes no sense at all.
> >
Ok, then just space is expanding, if that makes you happier. Proof?
The red shift of all galaxies. Expanding space-time is a term I see
all over the place.
> > However, from independent evidence, the speed of expansion of the
> > universe itself has been discovered to be accelerating.
> Oh yeah? Reference please.
Where have you been? This has been all over the news in the past two
years. Just google on "accelerating universe" and you'll find dozens
of stories on it.
> > It is the energy of the vacuum ("dark energy") that causes this
> > acceleration.
> What's that, then? I've never seen any "dark energy". Unless you mean the
> expanding photons I discussed earlier, but I don't see how they would push
> massive objects apart. Maybe they do. Maybe the Universe is finite. And just
> as maybe it is infinite too, because we have no way of knowing. If we
> subract a dimension to make an analogy, then stars can be compared to
> raindrops falling in a puddle of water. As we see each one raindrop strike,
> ripples radiate from the point of impact, but the distance the ripples move
> is finite. If you were an intelligent microbe living in the puddle and more
> than 10 meters away a falling raindrop, how could you detect the ripples it
> radiated? Al the energy has dissipated in the circle of expansion, and never
> reaches you. If the "puddle" is an ocean on a plane extending indefinitely
> in all directions (infinite, Euclidean) or the ocean covers the surface of a
> sphere (finite, curved 'spacetime'), how can you tell from local
> observations of falling raindrops? Each star has a finite lifespan, just as
> the raindrop does.
>
It's getting late and I'm getting tired. I'll respond to the "dark
energy" paragraph above tomorrow.
> > No one has theorized about a "Super Attractive Force" that is
> > "pulling" the galaxies outward. This is a dumbass concoction of your
> > own.
> >
> > You know, I'm really glad I didn't waste time on your book. From this
> > post and previous posts of yours, it's clear you don't understand
> > astronomy or cosmology very well, and that probably holds for other
> > areas of science. You appear to be the archetypal writer of
> > pretentious pseudo-science. The New Age community probably really
> > digs your writing.
> Hmm.. Or yours, I suppose. "Obviously" you "simply" have your own opinions
> and enjoy being rude to others that see things differently to you.
> I haven't seen any empirical data to suggest a super attractive force
> either, but if it promotes freedom of thought and new ideas (so long as they
> agree with empirical data) I don't see any purpose to your crass comments.
>
No, there's a difference between pulling ideas out of one's butt like
Hamilton did in his post and posting information that is backed by
scientific data and theory. I'm not just writing down my "opinions"
in this post, like he is in his. Everything I've written can be
verfied in any text on astronomy or cosmology. That you don't seem to
be able to tell the difference between b.s. opinions and science
probably means you should try reading one.
Just flapping one's arms and moving the air around won't necessarily
"promote freedom of thought and new ideas." It's more likely to
summon scorn and/or derision.
> > > Either the galaxies are being pushed by 'dark energy' or they are
> > > simply falling toward the boundary of a finite universe attracted by a
> > > gravity-like super force located at the boundary. The boundary is
> > > simply where the laws of nature cease to exist. The universe cannot
> > > exist beyond the "laws of nature" - there would be no gravity or
> > > inertia, etc. or even space itself.
> > >
B.S.
John R. Owens
>
> Androcles wrote:
> >
> > "dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B6B81FC...@cris.com...
> > > Donald Hamilton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
> > > >
> > > > Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
> > > > boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
> > > > to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
> > > > gaining speed as they go. It is either this or Einstein's
> > > > "antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
> > > > that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
> > > > outward.<p>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Our universe, though it may be finite, has no boundary. Think of a
> > > sphere. Finite. No boundary. Ok?
> > No, it's not ok. A sphere has a radial boundary. That's what makes it
> > finite.
> > >
>
> I forgot to say "surface of a sphere" in what I wrote. The two
> dimensional surface of the sphere is finite but unbounded. The
> analogy of the surface of the sphere is often used to explain how our
> universe can also be finite but unbounded.
Actually, I would say you had it right the first time. The technical &
geometrical definition of a sphere is the set of all points in a 3
dimensinal space that are at an equal distance from a particular point.
In common usage, people often refer to the sphere and its contained
space as a sphere. But that hardly makes it wrong to refer to the
surface taken alone as a sphere.
Marty Fouts
dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> You missed my point entirely here. Suppose you measure a car's
> velocity at a certain time to be 40 mph. One minute later, you
> measure it again and it is now 50 mph. Since acceleration is
> defined as change in velocity per unit time interval, you can say
> the car accelerated at 10 mph / minute. Ok?
>
You could say that. You wouldn't know it to be true for the two
observations, but you could say it. Technically what you know is that
the car's *average* acceleation over that time frame is 10 mph /
minute. There are an infinite number of acceleration curves that would
have gotten the car from 40mph to 50mph in 1 minutes.
> Now back to the receding galaxies. For the record, let me state,
> straight out of Astronomy 101, that the galaxies are *not* moving,
> but rather the space between them is expanding, and they *appear* to
> moving away from each other.
That's probably good enough for astronomy 101. It's not however,
consistent with observations. One of the things that makes
understanding the red shift 'interesting' is that the galaxies are
moving relative to one other.
[snip]
> receding away from us at 90% of the speed of light. Its recession
> velocity satisfies the Hubble relation V1 = H * D1 where V1 is its
> apparent velocity and D1 is its distance from us *now* (not its
> distance from us when the light was emitted). Some years later you
> measure its recession velocity (or redshift) again, and this time
> you find that its recession velocity is greater -- maybe now it's at
> 90.0005% of the speed of light. Since its apparent velocity of
> recession has increased, it has *accelerated*.
>
Those interested in doing the arithmetic for themselves might find
http://www.physics.csulb.edu/hubble.html
amusing.
[snip]
> Again, to reiterate, the Hubble relation is easy to demonstrate
> using a "expanding balloon" model of the expanding universe. V = H
> * D follows from simple geometry. Check any introductory text on
> astronomy.
And then, for kicks and a very amusing definition of 'easy', try to
derive the relativistic equations. (Start with Wheeler, et al,
_Gravity_)
[snip]
David Evens
Ah, I think you missed Androcles' (intentional) error: HE assumed
that the SAME object was being observed over distances varying by up
to billions of light years.
John R. Owens
The reason I had a big problem with the intermediate concept, and
dismissed it out of hand before I realized you'd probably bring it up if
I didn't, is that your claim was that "if each photon expands with
distance to fill the ever increasing volume, we could conclude that its
frequenct (sic) reduces, and that is what we mean by red-shift, isn't
it? And without the source moving away, either?". That case, as you
described it, would definitely follow an inverse square law, as I
described in my first reply (Was it my first? I'm starting to lose track
here.). So, to claim this as any kind of evidence for your hypothesis
as initially stated is quite ridiculous. As for our ad hoc modification
with the spontaneous low-energy quantum loss (I'll share credit or blame
with you for that, as the case may be ;), that was not at all as you
first described it, and it isn't supported by observed redshifts, it
merely (at best) isn't obviously contradicted by it. It's hardly
required to explain the redshift.
Martin Gradwell
Where are you getting this "technical and geometric definition" from?
According to my VNR concise encyclopedia of Mathematics, "The part of
space completely enclosed by a spherical surface is a sphere".
According to Chambers,
sphere n. a solid figure bounded by a surface of which all points are
equidistant from a centre: its bounding surface; ...
It seems to me that the second part of the Chambers definition is the
layman's usage, which arises because people generally prefer a single
word to a phrase such as "spherical surface", but this does result in
ambiguity and confusion, as here. In mathematical works, "sphere"
refers to the solid figure, not the surface.
> In common usage, people often refer to the sphere and its contained
> space as a sphere. But that hardly makes it wrong to refer to the
> surface taken alone as a sphere.
That depends. To avoid confusion, it is better to use unambiguous
terminology.
Now, to return to the original point: a spherical surface is finite
but has no bounding edge. It is said to be like the universe in
this respect.
This is a popular analogy, but there is no reason to suppose that
it gives any valid insight into the nature of the universe.
There is no reason to believe that the universe is finite but
unbounded, except for the repeated unsupported assertions that
this is the case. These assertions could, with equal validity, be
replaced by assertions that the universe is like a Mobius strip,
or a Klein bottle, or a doughnut, or a badly poured beer (which
explains the expansion - we're in the foam at the top of the glass),
or a half-cooked pizza. Or all of the above, simultaneously, in
a state of quantum superposition.
>
> --
> --John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Martin Gradwell, mtgra...@btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~mtgradwell
Donald Hamilton
> >
> > Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
> >
> > Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
> > boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
> > to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
> > gaining speed as they go. It is either this or Einstein's
> > "antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
> > that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
> > outward.<p>
> >
>
> Our universe, though it may be finite, has no boundary. Think of a
> sphere. Finite. No boundary. Ok?
It could be shaped like a sphere or it could be any other shape - the
main point is our universe exists only where the 'Laws of Nature'
exist (inertia, gravity, etc.) - where they no longer prevail the
universe cannot exist. That is the boundary of the universe and that
seems to be the area where a 'Super Atractive force' exists that
causes the galaxies to fall toward it.
> The galaxies appear to be accelerating away from us simply from the
> Hubble relation
> v = Hd where the apparent speed of recession of an object is
> proportional to the distance from our vantage point. Obviously, as
> the distance continues to increase due to the expansion of space
> between us and the object, the speed of recession of the object
> appears to increase, which can be interpreted as an acceleration.
> There is no "force" involved in any of this. It occurs solely due to
> the properties of expanding space-time.
Your expanding space-time also requires a constant expansion of the
Laws of Nature - Inertia, Gravity, Biology, EME, etc. - space cannot
exist without all the 'Laws' in place to guide matter and energy.
These laws together with matter and energy create the universe. So
from your perspective there must be a constant expansion of the 'Laws'
(space)?
>However, from independent evidence, the speed of expansion of the
>universe itself has been discovered to be accelerating. It is the
>energy of the vacuum ("dark energy") that causes this acceleration.
>No one has theorized about a "Super Attractive Force" that is
>"pulling" the galaxies outward. This is a dumbass concoction of your
>own.
Is there any other proof of the existence of this 'dark energy' other
then the accelerating galaxies?
As far as I know - you are right - its my own 'dumbass concoction' but
to me it explains the evidence better then the expanding space-time
theory.
>You know, I'm really glad I didn't waste time on your book. From
this
>post and previous posts of yours, it's clear you don't understand
>astronomy or cosmology very well, and that probably holds for other
>areas of science.
I just don't accept some of these contemporary 'Alice in Wonderland'
theories if better explanations also are possible.
Wasn't the accepted theory - a few years ago - that the expansion of
the universe will slow down and eventually regress? How about the
theory that the Earth is the center of the universe - that one lasted
for a couple of thousand years. The main lesson to be learned from
this is scientists are still groping for answers on how the universe
and all its laws operate. The scientific method has been able answer a
lot of these questions but we still have a long way to go. What a
boring world this would be if we knew all the answers!
G=EMC^2 Glazier
fall with,lets take this thought as space being concaved,and convexed.
Think of it as an hour glass,and from its middle we have space curving
away in all directions. 15 billion years ago out of the exact middle
came the BB. We see it now as space curvature. Space is taking all there
is in all three directions from the very beginning of time. This is
tricky stuff and hard to visualize. It is like a very smart fish trying
to understand gravity. Best regards to all herb
John R. Owens
>
> "John R. Owens" wrote:
> >
> > dkomo wrote:
> > >
> > > Androcles wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3B6B81FC...@cris.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Our universe, though it may be finite, has no boundary. Think of a
> > > > > sphere. Finite. No boundary. Ok?
> > > > No, it's not ok. A sphere has a radial boundary. That's what makes it
> > > > finite.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > I forgot to say "surface of a sphere" in what I wrote. The two
> > > dimensional surface of the sphere is finite but unbounded. The
> > > analogy of the surface of the sphere is often used to explain how our
> > > universe can also be finite but unbounded.
> > <big snip>
> >
> > Actually, I would say you had it right the first time. The technical &
> > geometrical definition of a sphere is the set of all points in a 3
> > dimensinal space that are at an equal distance from a particular point.
>
> Where are you getting this "technical and geometric definition" from?
>
> According to my VNR concise encyclopedia of Mathematics, "The part of
> space completely enclosed by a spherical surface is a sphere".
Well, it's a bit tautological, but none of my math books at hand have a
good discussion of spheres in them. Damn them. ;)
P.S. Oddly enough, while I was looking through my old books for math
texts, I came across my old "Golden Guide to Evolution". I'd forgotten
I had that. Heh.
> According to Chambers,
> sphere n. a solid figure bounded by a surface of which all points are
> equidistant from a centre: its bounding surface; ...
This one's a bit more informative.
> It seems to me that the second part of the Chambers definition is the
> layman's usage, which arises because people generally prefer a single
> word to a phrase such as "spherical surface", but this does result in
> ambiguity and confusion, as here. In mathematical works, "sphere"
> refers to the solid figure, not the surface.
I still disagree about the layman's usage, but I'll accept your
correction of what the mathematical definition is.
Mind me, when I think of the layman's usage, I'm thinking of one
referring to an actual physical body, such as a ball bearing, or a
planet, rather than a layman trying to express mathematical concepts.
And the definition as I'd thought of it would be much less useful in
describing such things, though it works pretty well for hollow things
such as a beach ball.
> > In common usage, people often refer to the sphere and its contained
> > space as a sphere. But that hardly makes it wrong to refer to the
> > surface taken alone as a sphere.
>
> That depends. To avoid confusion, it is better to use unambiguous
> terminology.
<snip>
Agreed. I noticed after the fact that I'd been referring to "the
surface of the sphere" pretty consistently myself, despite my notion of
what a sphere is.
Tom
<3b6d3dc2$0$93664$272e...@news.execpc.com>, "John stated..."
>
>Martin Gradwell wrote:
[...snip...]
>> It seems to me that the second part of the Chambers definition is the
>> layman's usage, which arises because people generally prefer a single
>> word to a phrase such as "spherical surface", but this does result in
>> ambiguity and confusion, as here. In mathematical works, "sphere"
>> refers to the solid figure, not the surface.
[...snip...]
(Piggybacking.)
When last I took mathematics, the usage in the USA was, as I
recall: "sphere" referred to a surface, and "ball" referred to
the object bounded by a sphere. This was, again as I recall,
irrespective of the dimension. So that a circle is a one-dimensional
sphere and a disk is a two-dimensional ball.
My memory may be faulty, or USAn usage may be different.
Tom
dkomo
>
> "John R. Owens" wrote:
>
>
> but has no bounding edge. It is said to be like the universe in
> this respect.
>
> This is a popular analogy, but there is no reason to suppose that
> it gives any valid insight into the nature of the universe.
>
> There is no reason to believe that the universe is finite but
> unbounded, except for the repeated unsupported assertions that
> this is the case.
If the universe had a boundary, this boundary itself would be a
violation of the cosmological principle: that the universe everywhere
is homogeneous and isotropic -- which means that you should be able to
look in any direction and the universe looks the same. An observer
near the boundary, if there was one, would see something entirely
different looking toward the boundary than he would see looking away
from it. Additionally, there is nothing in the field equations of
general relativity that could produce such a boundary.
Presumably, then, such an observer near the putative boundary could
then mark down on his/her/its star charts "Here be dragons," like the
ancient mapmakers of yore did when they assumed that the earth was
flat and had an edge over which ships could drop.
> These assertions could, with equal validity, be
> replaced by assertions that the universe is like a Mobius strip,
> or a Klein bottle, or a doughnut, or a badly poured beer (which
> explains the expansion - we're in the foam at the top of the glass),
> or a half-cooked pizza. Or all of the above, simultaneously, in
> a state of quantum superposition.
>
Again, all violations of the cosmological principle, plus a lot of of
other astrophysical data as well. You're *not* free to assert
anything you like. Unless, of course, your objective is to write a
whimsical book filled with pseudo-science which will sell well to the
New Age set. Then you can assert anything at all, as long as it's
cute and thought provoking.
Martin Gradwell
>
> "On 5 Aug 2001 08:32:49 -0400, in article
> <3b6d3dc2$0$93664$272e...@news.execpc.com>, "John stated..."
> >
> >Martin Gradwell wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
> >> It seems to me that the second part of the Chambers definition is the
> >> layman's usage, which arises because people generally prefer a single
> >> word to a phrase such as "spherical surface", but this does result in
> >> ambiguity and confusion, as here. In mathematical works, "sphere"
> >> refers to the solid figure, not the surface.
> [...snip...]
>
> (Piggybacking.)
>
> When last I took mathematics, the usage in the USA was, as I
> recall: "sphere" referred to a surface, and "ball" referred to
> the object bounded by a sphere.
"Ball" for interior, and "sphere" as surface, appear to be usages
restricted
to topology. Again from my encyclopedia of mathematics:
A 2-dimensional topological sphere "is any subset of E^3 that is
homeomorphic
to the SURFACE of a sphere, or intuitively speaking, a deformed sphere."
(my caps)
To use another source, for variety: In Britannica, references to the
surface
of a sphere are generally explicitly described as such.
".. a spherical triangle (a triangle formed by three arcs of great
circles
on the SURFACE of a sphere) .."
"On the SURFACE of a sphere, such as a geographical globe or the Earth
itself, the shortest distance between two points is an arc of a great
circle"
and so on. If a sphere *was* a surface, "surface of a sphere" would be
an
oxymoron.
> This was, again as I recall,
> irrespective of the dimension. So that a circle is a one-dimensional
> sphere and a disk is a two-dimensional ball.
>
> My memory may be faulty, or USAn usage may be different.
>
> Tom
Your memory is fine, afaik. Topology has a lot to answer for. In
general,
every branch of science or mathematics has its own terminology, designed
to
be incompatible with every other branch. The tower of Babel still
exists,
and more storeys are being added all the time.
Martin Gradwell
>
> Martin Gradwell wrote:
> >
> > "John R. Owens" wrote:
...
> > > Actually, I would say you had it right the first time. The technical &
> > > geometrical definition of a sphere is the set of all points in a 3
> > > dimensinal space that are at an equal distance from a particular point.
> >
> > Where are you getting this "technical and geometric definition" from?
> >
> > According to my VNR concise encyclopedia of Mathematics, "The part of
> > space completely enclosed by a spherical surface is a sphere".
>
> Well, it's a bit tautological, but none of my math books at hand have a
> good discussion of spheres in them. Damn them. ;)
Not as tautological as I made it appear. The definition of "sphere" in
the book was immediately preceded by a definition of "spherical surface"
(the surface described when a semicircle is rotated about its diameter),
which I skipped over to get to the meat.
> P.S. Oddly enough, while I was looking through my old books for math
> texts, I came across my old "Golden Guide to Evolution". I'd forgotten
> I had that. Heh.
>
> > According to Chambers,
> > sphere n. a solid figure bounded by a surface of which all points are
> > equidistant from a centre: its bounding surface; ...
>
> This one's a bit more informative.
>
> > It seems to me that the second part of the Chambers definition is the
> > layman's usage, which arises because people generally prefer a single
> > word to a phrase such as "spherical surface", but this does result in
> > ambiguity and confusion, as here. In mathematical works, "sphere"
> > refers to the solid figure, not the surface.
>
> I still disagree about the layman's usage, but I'll accept your
> correction of what the mathematical definition is.
Actually, "sphere" does refer to a surface in one branch of mathematics,
topology, as I have just admitted in a reply to "Tom" in this thread.
I suspect that every term imaginable is used in different ways by
different branches of science or mathematics.
> Mind me, when I think of the layman's usage, I'm thinking of one
> referring to an actual physical body, such as a ball bearing, or a
> planet, rather than a layman trying to express mathematical concepts.
> And the definition as I'd thought of it would be much less useful in
> describing such things, though it works pretty well for hollow things
> such as a beach ball.
The concept of "surface" is an abstraction, and even though a beach ball
is hollow, it still has a solid region which is distinct from and
bounded
by inner and outer spherical surfaces. I suspect that layman's usage
refers more commonly to the solid object, as being less abstract.
If a sphere is a surface, then it is hard to say why we talk of such
things
as the volume of a sphere. A surface does not have a volume.
>
> > > In common usage, people often refer to the sphere and its contained
> > > space as a sphere. But that hardly makes it wrong to refer to the
> > > surface taken alone as a sphere.
> >
> > That depends. To avoid confusion, it is better to use unambiguous
> > terminology.
> <snip>
>
> Agreed. I noticed after the fact that I'd been referring to "the
> surface of the sphere" pretty consistently myself, despite my notion of
> what a sphere is.
Yes.
>
> --
> --John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Martin Gradwell, mtgra...@btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~mtgradwell/
John R. Owens
>
> Tom wrote:
> >
> > "On 5 Aug 2001 08:32:49 -0400, in article
> > <3b6d3dc2$0$93664$272e...@news.execpc.com>, "John stated..."
> > >
> > >Martin Gradwell wrote:
> >
> > [...snip...]
> > >> It seems to me that the second part of the Chambers definition is the
> > >> layman's usage, which arises because people generally prefer a single
> > >> word to a phrase such as "spherical surface", but this does result in
> > >> ambiguity and confusion, as here. In mathematical works, "sphere"
> > >> refers to the solid figure, not the surface.
> > [...snip...]
> >
> > (Piggybacking.)
> >
> > When last I took mathematics, the usage in the USA was, as I
> > recall: "sphere" referred to a surface, and "ball" referred to
> > the object bounded by a sphere.
>
> "Ball" for interior, and "sphere" as surface, appear to be usages
> restricted
> to topology. Again from my encyclopedia of mathematics:
> A 2-dimensional topological sphere "is any subset of E^3 that is
> homeomorphic
> to the SURFACE of a sphere, or intuitively speaking, a deformed sphere."
> (my caps)
Thanks, it's nice to know I wasn't completely mixed up. It does seem
decidedly odd to define a "topological sphere" in terms of a
non-topological sphere that the rest of mathematics use, though. Not
sure whether what we were discussing counts as topology or not, but with
this added info, I'd continue (or resume, I had my doubts there for a
while) to maintain that it would be proper to refer to it either as a
"sphere", as was originally done, or as a "surface of a sphere". But
the latter leaves no room for doubt, so is pretty clearly better for
mixed contexts like this.
> To use another source, for variety: In Britannica, references to the
> surface
> of a sphere are generally explicitly described as such.
>
> ".. a spherical triangle (a triangle formed by three arcs of great
> circles
> on the SURFACE of a sphere) .."
>
> "On the SURFACE of a sphere, such as a geographical globe or the Earth
> itself, the shortest distance between two points is an arc of a great
> circle"
>
> and so on. If a sphere *was* a surface, "surface of a sphere" would be
> an
> oxymoron.
>
> > This was, again as I recall,
> > irrespective of the dimension. So that a circle is a one-dimensional
> > sphere and a disk is a two-dimensional ball.
Circle is a two-dimensional sphere, perhaps?
> > My memory may be faulty, or USAn usage may be different.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Your memory is fine, afaik. Topology has a lot to answer for. In
> general,
> every branch of science or mathematics has its own terminology, designed
> to
> be incompatible with every other branch. The tower of Babel still
> exists,
> and more storeys are being added all the time.
In my branch, we call them "stories". Bloody "storeys", indeed! ;)
Martin Gradwell
>
> Martin Gradwell wrote:
..
> > Now, to return to the original point: a spherical surface is finite
> > but has no bounding edge. It is said to be like the universe in
> > this respect.
> >
> > This is a popular analogy, but there is no reason to suppose that
> > it gives any valid insight into the nature of the universe.
> >
> > There is no reason to believe that the universe is finite but
> > unbounded, except for the repeated unsupported assertions that
> > this is the case.
>
> If the universe had a boundary, this boundary itself would be a
> violation of the cosmological principle: that the universe everywhere
> is homogeneous and isotropic -- which means that you should be able to
> look in any direction and the universe looks the same.
Calling it a principle may sound impressive, but doesn't make it true.
The centre of a star is not the same as a patch of interstellar space.
The same laws of nature apply, but the conditions are different.
The centre of a galaxy is not the same as a patch of intergalactic
space. The centre of a quasar is at least slightly different from
the centre of one of those voids which are apparently many hundreds
of millions of light years across, big enough to swallow the local
supercluster with space to spare.
There is no evidence for homogeneity or isotropy, except at scales
which are close to the limit of observation for all but the very
largest telescopes. This very large scale evidence, such as it is,
requires careful interpretation and should not just be taken at
face value.
If the universe had a boundary, it would only be a manifestation
at the very largest scale of something which is known to be true
at every other measurable scale - that different conditions apply
at different locations, and that widely differing extremes are
the norm.
> An observer
> near the boundary, if there was one, would see something entirely
> different looking toward the boundary than he would see looking away
> from it.
An observer at Pluto would see something entirely different from
one located at the surface of the Sun. So?
> Additionally, there is nothing in the field equations of
> general relativity that could produce such a boundary.
Ever heard of event horizons? They are boundaries which result
from application of the field equations of general relativity.
>
> Presumably, then, such an observer near the putative boundary could
> then mark down on his/her/its star charts "Here be dragons," like the
> ancient mapmakers of yore did when they assumed that the earth was
> flat and had an edge over which ships could drop.
Given that the nature of what lies beyond the boundary, if anything,
would be unknown, an imaginative mapmaker might indeed feel free to
populate it with fabulous creatures. However, these creatures would
exist only in the mind of the mapmaker. I don't think that the idea
of a boundary is invalidated by the possibility that it might cause
overexcitement in the mind of an entirely hypothetical observer.
A more sensible observer would probably be inclined to invoke Occam's
razor. If nothing is ever observed to fall into known space from
beyond the boundary, and if nothing is ever known to have succeeded
in crossing the boundary in an outward direction, and everything
which attempts to do so eventually falls back under the influence
of gravity, then the overwhelming likelihood is that there are no
material objects beyond the boundary. And, in the absence of matter,
there would be no way of testing the applicability of physical
laws beyound the boundary. Any hypothesis about such applicability,
being untestable, would lie beyond the bounds of science.
>
> > These assertions could, with equal validity, be
> > replaced by assertions that the universe is like a Mobius strip,
> > or a Klein bottle, or a doughnut, or a badly poured beer (which
> > explains the expansion - we're in the foam at the top of the glass),
> > or a half-cooked pizza. Or all of the above, simultaneously, in
> > a state of quantum superposition.
> >
>
> Again, all violations of the cosmological principle,
I disagree. If. e.g. we were on the surface of a higher-dimensional
analogue of a torus (doughnut), and light was confined to that surface,
it would look to us exactly as if we were in a 'tiled' universe, with
a pattern that repeats at regular intervals in certain directions.
By going far enough in the right direction we could return eventually
to our starting point. Not all that much different from the hypersphere
which is usually postulated. The fact that the repetition is only in
certain directions might be seen as a violation of anisotropy, but
for a sufficiently large torus containing a random distribution of
matter this violation would be difficult to detect. It's analogous
to the way in which a tiled background image on a computer screen,
consisting of a random arrangement of dots, can look like a large
untiled image except on very close examination.
A mobius strip model could work similarly and, in addition, explain
the preponderance of matter over antimatter. Initially, matter and
antimatter are produced in equal quantities at one point of the strip.
They are blown apart by the force of their interactions. By the time
they come together again, at the other side of the strip, the particles
are all oriented the same way. They are all matter (or all antimatter,
depending on how you want to look at it) :-)
As for the "badly poured beer" model, if we are in the foam at the
top of the glass, and so is everything which is within range of our
telescopes, then that would explain the observed homogeneity at the
very largest scales. There would be an inhomogeneity at an even
larger scale, of course, but so what? A "principle" is only valid
to the extent that it accords with reality. If a principle contradicts
what is observed, it isn't reality which is wrong, and which needs
to be adjusted.
Note that I am not saying that any of these whimsical models is valid,
only that they are *as valid* as the assertions that are more commonly
made (i.e. probably not valid at all).
> plus a lot of of
> other astrophysical data as well. You're *not* free to assert
> anything you like.
I agree. However, in the interests of fairness, I think that
cosmologists, too, should not be free to assert anything they like.
Unfortunately, I have the distinct impression that most cosmologists
disagree with me on that point.
> Unless, of course, your objective is to write a
> whimsical book filled with pseudo-science which will sell well to the
> New Age set.
I did think of that, but the concept has already been done to death
by the mainstream. I'm not into the "me too" approach, and even if
I was, the bandwagon has long since moved on.
> Then you can assert anything at all, as long as it's
> cute and thought provoking.
Thanks for the idea, but I'll stick to my current approach for now,
even though it does admittedly appear to be having limited success :-(.
>
> --dk...@cris.com
Marty Fouts
dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> writes:
[snip]
> If the universe had a boundary, this boundary itself would be a
> violation of the cosmological principle: that the universe
> everywhere is homogeneous and isotropic -- which means that you
> should be able to look in any direction and the universe looks the
> same. An observer near the boundary, if there was one, would see
> something entirely different looking toward the boundary than he
> would see looking away from it. Additionally, there is nothing in
> the field equations of general relativity that could produce such a
> boundary.
This means that either the universe has no boundary *or* GR is
incomplete and the cosmological principle is at best local. There is
insufficient evidence available to tell. No one knows what goes on
outside the light sphere.
island
How about... the principle is as local as GR is... and the two are
directly connected. The inconsistency points this out, along with the
"why" and "how"... equally imcomplete that they both are, as a result???
Marty Fouts
island <isl...@sundial.net> writes:
That works as well. We have had a lot of luck with observations that
are consistent with a belief that physics isn't just local, but we
should always remember that we've always made those observations
locally.
Marty
dkomo
> And I still have no explanation of "dark energy"...
Here, try this:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast03apr_1.htm
I wouldn't say that it's an explanation, but at least it frames the
mystery.
island
>
> island <isl...@sundial.net> writes:
>
> > Marty Fouts wrote:
> > >
> > > dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> writes:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > If the universe had a boundary, this boundary itself would be a
> > > > violation of the cosmological principle: that the universe
> > > > everywhere is homogeneous and isotropic -- which means that you
> > > > should be able to look in any direction and the universe looks
> > > > the same. An observer near the boundary, if there was one,
> > > > would see something entirely different looking toward the
> > > > boundary than he would see looking away from it. Additionally,
> > > > there is nothing in the field equations of general relativity
> > > > that could produce such a boundary.
> >
> > > This means that either the universe has no boundary *or* GR is
> > > incomplete and the cosmological principle is at best local. There
> > > is insufficient evidence available to tell. No one knows what
> > > goes on outside the light sphere.
> >
> >
> > How about... the principle is as local as GR is... and the two are
> > directly connected. The inconsistency points this out, along with
> > result???
>
> That works as well. We have had a lot of luck with observations that
> are consistent with a belief that physics isn't just local, but we
> should always remember that we've always made those observations
> locally.
>
> Marty
Okay, some more of the same logic then...
GR and the principle are equally local and inconsistent in direct
proportion to Einstein's inability to incorporate Mach's law of inertia
into his theory, (try, try as he might, until he literally threw up his
hands choosing locality... This is a well known and documented fact!).
Einstein gave this equation for the velocity of light in a "local"
gravitational field...
....c(1+f^3/c^2)
The equation works non locally, and can be considered non locally too,
but per the theory is only used in local observations.
Pertinent factoid':
GR reduces to G at low relative speeds but G has no distance
limitations. That doesn't exclude whatever boundary conditions if the
total energy of the system is conserved via this level of nature.
What happens to the equation if " f " in the equation equals the total,
gravitationally connected mass of the "bound" universe?
Answering my own question... You'd get a grand level or universal
application of curvature, having much tado' over gravity as a higher
form expression for the law of conservation of momentum via the ultimate
path of least action...
....or mass aggregation via gravitational unification, making up one
"relatively" mass-less object that is moving uniformly in a vacuo... and
that DOES satisfy Mach's principle within the parameters of a higher
extension of relativity.
Covering my butt... but I'm only following the extended logic here ;)
GR and the principle are equally local and inconsistent, in direct
proportion to Einstein's inability to interpret Mach's law of inertia
into his theory, ... the "tendency" of gravity is to extend to this non
local , and that's regardless of whether universal expansion wins out
over binding forces, or not.
Martin Gradwell
>
> Martin Gradwell wrote:
>>
>> Tom wrote:
>>>
>>> This was, again as I recall,
>>> irrespective of the dimension. So that a circle is a one-dimensional
>>> sphere and a disk is a two-dimensional ball.
>
> Circle is a two-dimensional sphere, perhaps?
Circle is yet another ambiguous word. In common usage
it can refer either to a plane figure or to the line
which bounds it. In mathematics, I think the most usual
terminology is that the shape is a disc (or disk!),
and the bounding line is a circle.
Being a line, a circle is just 1-d, even though it can
only exist in a space of two or more dimensions. It is
1-d because position on it can be described as a function
of just one parameter.
If we generalise the concept of a ball to any number
of dimensions, then a disc is a 2-d ball; and a circle
is a 1-d sphere in the topological sense, but so is a
seriously deformed circle. in topology the exact shape
is not considered important, what is dealt with is the
connectedness and number of dimensions,so a topological
sphere might be deformed to such an extent that it
looks nothing like what we would normally call a sphere.
Intuitively, any deformation is allowed that doesn't
involve tearing or the pasting together of different
parts of a surface. A homeomorphism is a deformation
which has this property.
One distinguishing characteristic of a (n-1)
dimensional topological sphere is that it divides
an n-dimensional space into two parts, which we
might call the inside and the outside. The 3-d space
of our universe at any instant might be called a
topological sphere because it divides a 4-d space
(spacetime) into two parts, the past and the future.
However, this "sphere" is not like the usual intuitive
idea of a sphere.
If we think of the past as the interior and
the future as the exterior, then the sphere is
continually expanding in the sense that the amount
of past enclosed by it is always increasing. There
is more past today than there was yesterday, and so
on. But this does NOT mean that the sphere is
expanding in any spatial direction. We could
with equal validity think of the future as the
interior and the past as the exterior, in which case
the present is a topological sphere which encloses
less today than it did yesterday, but again this
does not imply shrinkage in any spatial dimension.
Attempts to explain redshift in terms of
expanding space are only valid to the extent that
they correspond to what is observed. I consider
them to be inadequate for a variety of reasons.
They do not explain why the process should be
accelerating, or why there should be local collapse
such as the approach of the Andromeda galaxy and
several others towards our own, or large scale
clumping into superclusters and voids with a
"great attractor" drawing in galaxies over a
region hundreds of millions of light years across.
When a theory is so lacking in predictive power
that it is practically overwhelmed by a continual
flow of new discoveries of which it gave no inkling,
that theory should be put out to grass.
..
> --John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Martin Gradwell, mtgra...@btinternet.com
http://www.btinternet.com/~mtgradwell/
dkomo
>
> dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message news:<3B6B81FC...@cris.com>...
> > Donald Hamilton wrote:
> > >
> > > Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
> > >
> > > Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
> > > boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
> > > to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
> > > gaining speed as they go. It is either this or Einstein's
> > > "antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
> > > that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
> > > outward.<p>
> > >
> >
> > Our universe, though it may be finite, has no boundary. Think of a
> > sphere. Finite. No boundary. Ok?
>
> It could be shaped like a sphere or it could be any other shape
I wasn't suggesting the universe has any kind of "shape." The surface
of the sphere is just a simple visualization of a two dimensional
space that is finite but unbounded. It's nothing but an analogy.
The shape of the universe is a meaningless concept. For there to be a
shape to the universe, that shape would have to exist within a higher
dimensional space. To my knowledge, the universe is not "embedded"
within a higher dimensional space. I'm not including the 10 or 11
dimensional space of superstring theory here. Superstring theory is
still pretty undeveloped.
> - the
> main point is our universe exists only where the 'Laws of Nature'
> exist (inertia, gravity, etc.) - where they no longer prevail the
> universe cannot exist.
There are cosmological theories that theorize about the existence, and
continuous creation of, an infinity of universes all with different
laws of nature.
> That is the boundary of the universe and that
> seems to be the area where a 'Super Atractive force' exists that
> causes the galaxies to fall toward it.
>
Getting back to the surface of the sphere analogy, let's say the "laws
of nature" exist only on this surface and don't exist elsewhere. For
example they cease to exist inside the sphere or outside and above the
surface. But a two dimensional astrophysicist can't observe anything
not on the surface of the sphere. So in this example, where is this
boundary where his universe ceases to exist? Remember, he can't leave
his 2-D world and go into the 3rd dimension. He can't even see into
the 3rd dimension.
> > The galaxies appear to be accelerating away from us simply from the
> > Hubble relation
> > v = Hd where the apparent speed of recession of an object is
> > proportional to the distance from our vantage point. Obviously, as
> > the distance continues to increase due to the expansion of space
> > between us and the object, the speed of recession of the object
> > appears to increase, which can be interpreted as an acceleration.
> > There is no "force" involved in any of this. It occurs solely due to
> > the properties of expanding space-time.
>
> Your expanding space-time also requires a constant expansion of the
> Laws of Nature - Inertia, Gravity, Biology, EME, etc. - space cannot
> exist without all the 'Laws' in place to guide matter and energy.
> These laws together with matter and energy create the universe. So
> from your perspective there must be a constant expansion of the 'Laws'
> (space)?
>
Well, the Laws of Nature are constantly expanding all right because
they are *our* models of reality and we're refining them and improving
on them all the time.
You speak as if these laws had some kind of independent existence.
They don't create the universe. Rather, the universe -- through us --
creates them!
> >However, from independent evidence, the speed of expansion of the
> >universe itself has been discovered to be accelerating. It is the
> >energy of the vacuum ("dark energy") that causes this acceleration.
> >No one has theorized about a "Super Attractive Force" that is
> >"pulling" the galaxies outward. This is a dumbass concoction of your
> >own.
>
> Is there any other proof of the existence of this 'dark energy' other
> then the accelerating galaxies?
Yes, one of the theories of dark energy is that it is produced by the
virtual particles that are winking in and out of existence in even the
most perfect vacuum. Virtual particles are a standard feature in
quantum mechanics and there is much experimental evidence that they
exist.
> As far as I know - you are right - its my own 'dumbass concoction' but
> to me it explains the evidence better then the expanding space-time
> theory.
>
Why does it explain the theory better?
What *observable* evidence do you have that:
1. the universe has a boundary
2. there is some sort of force pulling galaxies toward
this boundary?
If there is a boundary, where is it? I hope you're not refering to
the limit of our observability of the universe -- the Hubble sphere --
because this is not a boundary in the conventional sense.
> >You know, I'm really glad I didn't waste time on your book. From
> this
> >post and previous posts of yours, it's clear you don't understand
> >astronomy or cosmology very well, and that probably holds for other
> >areas of science.
>
> I just don't accept some of these contemporary 'Alice in Wonderland'
> theories if better explanations also are possible.
I don't agree that your theory of a boundary to the universe and a
"Super Attractive Force" has less of a contemporary Alice in
Wonderland quality.
> Wasn't the accepted theory - a few years ago - that the expansion of
> the universe will slow down and eventually regress? How about the
> theory that the Earth is the center of the universe - that one lasted
> for a couple of thousand years. The main lesson to be learned from
> this is scientists are still groping for answers on how the universe
> and all its laws operate. The scientific method has been able answer a
> lot of these questions but we still have a long way to go. What a
> boring world this would be if we knew all the answers!
>
We'll always be groping for answers. But I don't think that "armchair
science" is the way to find them.
John R. Owens
OK, apparently in this area, I've clung to non-topological usage; I've
always referred to the number of dimensions of a sphere by how many
dimensions the shape is expressed in, rather than how many dimensions
the surface had, i.e. circle is 2-d, sphere 3-d, hypersphere 4-d, etc.
<snip>
> When a theory is so lacking in predictive power
> that it is practically overwhelmed by a continual
> flow of new discoveries of which it gave no inkling,
> that theory should be put out to grass.
Your branch of the language again... we say "put out to pasture". ;)
--
Androcles
observer moving in the medium, m is the velocity of the signal, f is the
emitted frequency and f' is the perceived frequency.
Classical Doppler, for sound:
f' = f(m-v)/(m-u),
If the sound is coming in your direction, and you are at rest with the air,
you hear a sonic boom when u = m. If you are moving toward the source, and
the source is stationary in air, you'll hear the frequency double.
Assuming the observer to be at rest in space (we subtract any shift as a
result of our own motion in orbiting the sun)
Einstein's Doppler is given by:
f'=f. sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))
which takes time dilation into account.
Lorentz's Doppler (the aether model) gives
f'=f. c/(c+v)
Galileo's Doppler would be:
f'=f(c-v)/c
In each case v is assumed positive when the source is moving away, and each
gives 'red' (lower frequency) shift.
To find the velocity, we have to work backwards from the observed frequency
and the known frequency.
Einstein's computed velocity is:
v = c . ( (1-(f'/f)^2) / (1+(f'/f)^2) )
Lorentz's computed velocity is:
v = c. ( f/f' -1)
Galilean velocity is:
v - c.(1-f'/f)
Armed with these equations, we are now ready to estimate some real
velocities in numerical form:
This is most easily done using a spreadsheet, such as Excel.
The Galilean plot is a straight line, and isn't limited by velocity at all.
Einstein's plot allows an object to move away at c, but won't allow it to
approach at c until the observed frequency is infinite. For the same
frequency, Einstein computes a greater velocity that is computed from the
Galilean model when the object is moving away, and a lesser velocity when
the object is approaching. From this we might infer that there is an overall
movement of the object away from us (the universe is supposedly expanding)
and that galaxies rotate faster than they should, giving rise to the notion
of supposed dark matter.
For example, a velocity of 90,000 Km/Sec (Galilean) produces a frequency
shift of 0.7, and a velocity of -90,000 Km/sec (Galilean) produces a
frequency shift of 1.3 for a "stationary" galaxy using the Galilean model.
In using these figures as observed frequencies in the Einstein model,
velocities of 102885 Km/sec and -76952 Km/sec are found.
This gives a total velocity for the whole galaxy a difference of 25933
Km/sec divides by 2 = 12966.5 Km/sec , which we assume means it is moving
away.
That leaves the actual tangential velocity as 89918.5 Km/sec, close to the
90,000 Km/sec found by the Galilean model, but still leaves a velocity for
the overall galaxy that is high.
At f' = 0.6 and 1.5, the Galilean velocities are +/- 120,000, and
Einsteinian are 141176 and -92797, a difference of 21939.5. Once again the
Galilean galaxy isn't moving, but the Einsteinian one is going away faster.
Now the tangential velocity is 119236.5 Km/sec, more than the 120,000 Km/sec
found in the Galilean model. Here is where you start to think about Dark
Matter, which is supposed to account for the higher velocity "observed"
(actually interpreted according to the model you use, you can only observe
the shift), pulling gravitationally the rim stars in a faster orbit.
In the Galilean model there is no dark matter to be considered, and no
overall motion of the galaxy moving away from us. It's just a matter of
determining whether the velocity of light is independent of or dependent
upon the motion of its source whether you think dark matter exists.
For further argument on whether Einstein or Lorentz is correct over
Classical Physics, see
http://members.home.net/androcles/
Androcles
However, it does require
an acceptance of what you know to be true and not what you've been told is
true.
Androcles
>
>
> Androcles wrote:
> >
> > "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >
>
> > > Nope. The red shift (doppler effect) requires that the object be
moving
> > > away. It's velocity not distance or acceleration.
>
> > If the velocity is supposed to be increasing as a function of distance,
> > assumed
> > from distant objects having a greater redshif that those closer, then
> > it follows that the object is accelerating.
>
> Maybe I missed some earlier context but on this specific point, the
> velocity doesn't have to be increasing or decreasing. It doesn't matter
> if the object is accelerating or not, it is the velocity that matters to
> the red shift.
But if the red shift changes as a function of distance (Hubble constant)
then the assumption is that the same galaxy, moving away, will at
some time in the future arrive at the position of another galaxy, and
that further galaxy is showing a higher red shift. The conclusion must then
be that if red shift is indeed a function of distance (Hubble again),
then the galaxy is accelerating.
Personally, I don't believe it happens. See earlier posts, and
http://members.home.net/androcles/
Marty Fouts
FWIW guys, in mathematics, the word 'sphere' means either the surface
given by the appropriate equation, or it means the volume contained by
that surface depending entirely upon context.
John R. Owens
rounding c off to 300,000 km/s.
Androcles wrote:
>
<huge snip>
Bleck. I'll take a derivative to give slopes, and a nice scientific
calculator over THAT. :p
> The Galilean plot is a straight line, and isn't limited by velocity at all.
> Einstein's plot allows an object to move away at c, but won't allow it to
> approach at c until the observed frequency is infinite. For the same
> frequency, Einstein computes a greater velocity that is computed from the
> Galilean model when the object is moving away, and a lesser velocity when
> the object is approaching. From this we might infer that there is an overall
> movement of the object away from us (the universe is supposedly expanding)
> and that galaxies rotate faster than they should, giving rise to the notion
> of supposed dark matter.
> For example, a velocity of 90,000 Km/Sec (Galilean) produces a frequency
> shift of 0.7, and a velocity of -90,000 Km/sec (Galilean) produces a
> frequency shift of 1.3 for a "stationary" galaxy using the Galilean model.
> In using these figures as observed frequencies in the Einstein model,
> velocities of 102885 Km/sec and -76952 Km/sec are found.
102685
> This gives a total velocity for the whole galaxy a difference of 25933
25733
> Km/sec divides by 2 = 12966.5 Km/sec , which we assume means it is moving
12866.5
> away.
> That leaves the actual tangential velocity as 89918.5 Km/sec, close to the
89618.5
> 90,000 Km/sec found by the Galilean model, but still leaves a velocity for
> the overall galaxy that is high.
>
> At f' = 0.6 and 1.5, the Galilean velocities are +/- 120,000, and
> Einsteinian are 141176 and -92797, a difference of 21939.5. Once again the
-115384 24189.5 using
yours,
12896 using mine
> Galilean galaxy isn't moving, but the Einsteinian one is going away faster.
You've got the model all backwards here. You assumed that the actual
observed doppler was the one predicted by Galileo's in the first place!
Of course Einstein's will work out differently. If you'd taken the red
and blue shifts as what Einstein's would predict for +/- 90,000 km/s,
then Einstein's result would say that the galaxy was rotating at 90,000
km/s. And either way, it's quite meaningless in and of itself. It
would help if you clarify where you mean rotational, and where you mean
overall velocity. And of course, it would really help if you gave some
indication what bearing this has on reality. It's not at all clear if
you're trying to prove that the Galilean model is correct, or that there
is no dark matter, or that the galaxies aren't receding, or some
combination thereof. Either way, without observations of actual
dopplers, it's quite meaningless.
> Now the tangential velocity is 119236.5 Km/sec, more than the 120,000
116986.5 using yours
128280 using mine
119,236.5 < 120,000???
> Km/sec
> found in the Galilean model. Here is where you start to think about Dark
> Matter, which is supposed to account for the higher velocity "observed"
> (actually interpreted according to the model you use, you can only observe
> the shift), pulling gravitationally the rim stars in a faster orbit.
> In the Galilean model there is no dark matter to be considered, and no
> overall motion of the galaxy moving away from us. It's just a matter of
> determining whether the velocity of light is independent of or dependent
> upon the motion of its source whether you think dark matter exists.
>
> For further argument on whether Einstein or Lorentz is correct over
> Classical Physics, see
> http://members.home.net/androcles/
(I like that you have Jabberwocky there, by the way. But your "Dark
Matter" link is broken, it refers to a file on the C: drive, on your
Desktop, which I don't have, naturally. And the big picture in the
middle, which I'm guessing is supposed to be the plot of Galileo vs.
Einstein, just plain isn't there.)
Now, regardless of those nits I so love to pick (you can tell MY
ancestors were monkeys!), what are the actual values found in galaxies?
I don't think many galaxies REVOLVE at .3 c or more! And at the
observed rates, how much would Galileo vs. Einstein matter? Would they,
perhaps, approach each other as rotational velocity approaches zero? (I
could tell more easily if the picture on your page were there.)
Let's take a galaxy rotating at a still mighty fast .05 c, 15,000
km/s. Galilean redhshifts 0.95 and 1.05. Einstein velocities, 15375
km/s and -14625 km/s. Difference *from mean* 750 km/s, divide by 2, 375
km/s. So-called tangential, if I keep those extra decimals, is
14,999.9765. That's 0.00015625 percent difference. And it'll get
closer and closer as you keep getting to more reasonable rotational
velocities.
Do some serious proofreading, check your work, and get back to me.
Sure, the starting assumptions are meaningless to begin with, but you
could at least get the math right.
Androcles
> Since you're using round numbers like 120,000 km/s, I'll assume you're
> rounding c off to 300,000 km/s.
Of course. There is little difference between
300,000Km/sec and
299,792.458 Km/sec, a small matter of 207.542 Km/sec, or
0.06918066666667 %
which the relativist pretends to be able to measure exactly.
Fine, but does it draw graphs as well?
Of course. I've given a worst case scenario. Actually, it makes no
difference,
the Galilean velocity is less than the Einsteinian velocity from 0 to c,
then
increases linearly beyond that.
> Of course Einstein's will work out differently. If you'd taken the red
> and blue shifts as what Einstein's would predict for +/- 90,000 km/s,
> then Einstein's result would say that the galaxy was rotating at 90,000
> km/s. And either way, it's quite meaningless in and of itself. It
> would help if you clarify where you mean rotational, and where you mean
> overall velocity.
By velocity I mean tangential velocity, as we measure it from Doppler
and recessional velocity as we assume it to be..
Think of a wheel on a car. Where it meets the ground, its velocity is zero
with respect to the road surface. If it were otherwise, you'd be burning
rubber.
At the top of the wheel, it's velocity is twice that of the car. (Maybe
think
of a construction vehicle or a tank with tracks. The bottom of the track
is at rest with the ground, the top is moving twice as fast as the vehicle)
We see blue shift from rim stars of galaxies on the side approaching, and
red shift on the side receding. Half the difference is the velocity of the
motion
of the galaxy as a whole, as is the velocity of the vehicle half the
difference
of the the top of the track and the bottom of the track .
> And of course, it would really help if you gave some
> indication what bearing this has on reality.
Ah.. There's the rub. If you think reality is exploding stars that settle
down
to normal only to blow up again (recurrent novae), if you think reality is a
star that puffs itself up like a blowfish (cepheid), if you think reality is
a star with a tail http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981011.html,
if you think reality is "dark energy", if you think reality is an expanding
Universe, if you think reality is that the speed of light in independent of
the motion of the source because Einstein said so, then I suppose you
think reality is Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
> It's not at all clear if
> you're trying to prove that the Galilean model is correct, or that there
> is no dark matter, or that the galaxies aren't receding, or some
> combination thereof. Either way, without observations of actual
> dopplers, it's quite meaningless.
As meaningless as your idea of reality, sad to say. What you assume to
be is an illusion produced by the model you accept and the ideas you
accept. The empirical data is that we see redshift/bluesift. How we
interpret that is up to the model we use. As Copernicus showed the
retrograde motion of planets could be equally explained by a sun centred
universe over a geocentric model, I have found that the cepheid, the
recurrent novae, the "eclipsing variable", the smearing of Mira are
consistent with a star in ellliptical orbit obeying Kepler's laws, the
velocity of light being source dependent. No dark matter, no dark energy,
no relativity as Einstein asks, and no expanding Universe.
[snip]
> > http://members.home.net/androcles/
>
> (I like that you have Jabberwocky there, by the way. But your "Dark
> Matter" link is broken, it refers to a file on the C: drive, on your
> Desktop, which I don't have, naturally. And the big picture in the
> middle, which I'm guessing is supposed to be the plot of Galileo vs.
> Einstein, just plain isn't there.)
I know, I have to fix it as soon as I have time.
"Dark Matter" I reproduced for you.
>
> Now, regardless of those nits I so love to pick (you can tell MY
> ancestors were monkeys!), what are the actual values found in galaxies?
Recessional velocities are assumed (and measured according to the model)
to approach c at the limit of the observable Universe.
> I don't think many galaxies REVOLVE at .3 c or more!
Why not? But anyway, take a careful look at the empirical data.
All you have is the frequency shift you observe, and the model you
use to interpret velocity from it. Don't listen to what others tell you it
is,
decide what YOU think it is. Guessing from intuition isn't very scientific.
>And at the
> observed rates, how much would Galileo vs. Einstein matter? Would they,
> perhaps, approach each other as rotational velocity approaches zero?
Yes, of course.
> (I could tell more easily if the picture on your page were there.)
That's why a spreadsheet is more powerful than a calculator. :)
> Let's take a galaxy rotating at a still mighty fast .05 c, 15,000
> km/s. Galilean redhshifts 0.95 and 1.05. Einstein velocities, 15375
> km/s and -14625 km/s. Difference *from mean* 750 km/s, divide by 2, 375
> km/s. So-called tangential, if I keep those extra decimals, is
> 14,999.9765. That's 0.00015625 percent difference. And it'll get
> closer and closer as you keep getting to more reasonable rotational
> velocities.
You have the right idea, but you really should use a spread sheet and
a graph to see how the Einstein limit of c meets the Galilean line at c.
At both c and 0, they coincide. In between there is a divergence.
At negative velocities (galaxy approaching) the divergence widens.
>
> Do some serious proofreading, check your work, and get back to me.
> Sure, the starting assumptions are meaningless to begin with, but you
> could at least get the math right.
I do have the math right, it is time for you to do some proofreading.
I've given you the equations, plot a graph for zero to c in 10 increments.
John R. Owens
Heck yeah. And Excel just bites.
> > > The Galilean plot is a straight line, and isn't limited by velocity at
> all.
> > > Einstein's plot allows an object to move away at c, but won't allow it
> to
> > > approach at c until the observed frequency is infinite. For the same
> > > frequency, Einstein computes a greater velocity that is computed from
> the
> > > Galilean model when the object is moving away, and a lesser velocity
> when
> > > the object is approaching. From this we might infer that there is an
> overall
> > > movement of the object away from us (the universe is supposedly
> expanding)
> > > and that galaxies rotate faster than they should, giving rise to the
> notion
> > > of supposed dark matter.
> > > For example, a velocity of 90,000 Km/Sec (Galilean) produces a frequency
> > > shift of 0.7, and a velocity of -90,000 Km/sec (Galilean) produces a
> > > frequency shift of 1.3 for a "stationary" galaxy using the Galilean
> model.
> > > In using these figures as observed frequencies in the Einstein model,
> > > velocities of 102885 Km/sec and -76952 Km/sec are found.
> > 102685
This one's fairly forgiveable, just a mistranscription. But really
should have been caught if you'd bothered to check your work. Try
working out the redshift of 102885 km/s in the Einstein doppler, and see
if it comes out to .7 again. It doesn't. You get .69947, in keeping
with a mistake in the fourth digit.
> > > This gives a total velocity for the whole galaxy a difference of 25933
> > 25733
> > > Km/sec divides by 2 = 12966.5 Km/sec , which we assume means it is
> moving
> > 12866.5
> > > away.
> > > That leaves the actual tangential velocity as 89918.5 Km/sec, close to
> the
> > 89618.5
> > > 90,000 Km/sec found by the Galilean model, but still leaves a velocity
> for
> > > the overall galaxy that is high.
> > >
> > > At f' = 0.6 and 1.5, the Galilean velocities are +/- 120,000, and
> > > Einsteinian are 141176 and -92797, a difference of 21939.5. Once again
> the
> > -115384 24189.5 using
> > yours,
> > 12896 using mine
To restate:
> Einstein's computed velocity is:
> v = c . ( (1-(f'/f)^2) / (1+(f'/f)^2) )
c=300,000 km/s ; f'/f = 1.5
(f'/f)^2 = 2.25
1-(f'/f)^2 = -1.25
1+(f'/f)^2 = 3.25
-1.25 / 3.25 = -5/13 =~ -0.3846
-5/13 * 300,000 km/s = -115,385 km/s
Even using your own -92797 figure,
141176 km/s - 92797 km/s = 48379 km/s
48379 km/s / 2 = 24189.5 km/s
And you have the math right???
And you chopped out this bit:
> Now the tangential velocity is 119236.5 Km/sec, more than the 120,000
> Km/sec
And you still insist that you have the math right.
> > Of course Einstein's will work out differently. If you'd taken the red
> > and blue shifts as what Einstein's would predict for +/- 90,000 km/s,
> > then Einstein's result would say that the galaxy was rotating at 90,000
> > km/s. And either way, it's quite meaningless in and of itself. It
> > would help if you clarify where you mean rotational, and where you mean
> > overall velocity.
> By velocity I mean tangential velocity, as we measure it from Doppler
> and recessional velocity as we assume it to be..
I don't see anything here that relates to anything with recessional
velocity. Even allowing for examples with ridiculous rotational speeds,
you could give a hypothetical example with an overall average
recessional velocity of, say, 90,000 km/s, a rotational (or tangential,
if you want to call it that) velocity of 60,000 km/s, approaching side
has total of -30,000 km/s, receding side has total of 150,000 km/s, and
show how that works or doesn't work. That would be a lot more
meaningful, if that's what you're getting at.
> Think of a wheel on a car. Where it meets the ground, its velocity is zero
> with respect to the road surface. If it were otherwise, you'd be burning
> rubber.
> At the top of the wheel, it's velocity is twice that of the car. (Maybe
> think
> of a construction vehicle or a tank with tracks. The bottom of the track
> is at rest with the ground, the top is moving twice as fast as the vehicle)
> We see blue shift from rim stars of galaxies on the side approaching, and
> red shift on the side receding. Half the difference is the velocity of the
> motion
> of the galaxy as a whole, as is the velocity of the vehicle half the
> difference
> of the the top of the track and the bottom of the track .
You're presuming to teach me about rotational mechanics. Heh.
Half the difference is the rotational velocity of the galaxy. Unless
you've found some cosmic highway for the edge of the galaxy to push
against, it has no relation to the overall velocity of the galaxy. And
if you have found some such cosmic highway, then every galaxy should
have a piece of it that has exactly no shift. The overall velocity will
be the mean of the approaching and receding sides, or the velocity of
the approaching plus half the difference, or the velocity of the
receding minus half the difference (assuming an overall receding galaxy,
otherwise you may have to change signs).
If you assume that one side is held stationary with respect to the
frame of reference, as is the case with a physical car wheel, track,
whatever, then yes, half the difference is the velocity of motion, and
the "top" will move at twice the overall velocity. Without that
stationary object, anything goes. In other words, galaxies have no
problem at all "burning rubber".
> > Do some serious proofreading, check your work, and get back to me.
> > Sure, the starting assumptions are meaningless to begin with, but you
> > could at least get the math right.
> I do have the math right, it is time for you to do some proofreading.
> I've given you the equations, plot a graph for zero to c in 10 increments.
And as I've thought about it since then, I realize I keep
underestimating how wrong things can be. The only thing you've actually
shown with all this (even with the math corrected) is that, if you use
the Galilean way to convert velocity to frequency, then the Einstein way
to convert frequency back to velocity, GOSH! you don't get the same
result back! What a shock. (Using the calculus function notation, here
^-1 means inverse function, not "to the negative first power" or "the
reciprocal") f^-1(g(x)) != x. This is no surprise at all. Even if you
work out f^-1(f(x)) != x, that just means either you've got some kind of
discontinuity, or you screwed up figuring out f^-1(x). And saying
f^-1(g(x)) != x is no huge upset to the world.
And in case you hadn't noticed, I've even done almost all the
proofreading for you! It should'nt be too hard to take it from there,
if you think this notion is worth the trouble. Which it likely isn't,
given the starting assumptions.
Dunk
>Those interested in doing the arithmetic for themselves might find
>
>http://www.physics.csulb.edu/hubble.html
>
>amusing.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Again, to reiterate, the Hubble relation is easy to demonstrate
>> using a "expanding balloon" model of the expanding universe. V = H
>> * D follows from simple geometry. Check any introductory text on
>> astronomy.
>
>And then, for kicks and a very amusing definition of 'easy', try to
>derive the relativistic equations. (Start with Wheeler, et al,
>_Gravity_)
It's possible to suspect you of being sarcastic here, but this book of
Wheeler's :
Journey into Gravity and Spacetime
by John Archibald Wheeler
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716760347/
which I've looked at, not read, really is a fun book yet high quality
by an eminent (as you Marty know, but others may not) and recently
retired physicist. See the comments at amazon.
Another new fun book, not just on relativity, is Ian Stewart's
Flatterland: like Flatland, only more so.
It covers all sorts of topologies including strings. In stores now.
Dunk
Dunk
<snip>
>> Your expanding space-time also requires a constant expansion of the
>> Laws of Nature - Inertia, Gravity, Biology, EME, etc. - space cannot
>> exist without all the 'Laws' in place to guide matter and energy.
>> These laws together with matter and energy create the universe. So
>> from your perspective there must be a constant expansion of the 'Laws'
>> (space)?
>>
>
>Well, the Laws of Nature are constantly expanding all right because
>they are *our* models of reality and we're refining them and improving
>on them all the time.
>
>You speak as if these laws had some kind of independent existence.
>They don't create the universe. Rather, the universe -- through us --
>creates them!
There were no regularities before we came along?
<snip>
>> Is there any other proof of the existence of this 'dark energy' other
>> then the accelerating galaxies?
>
>Yes, one of the theories of dark energy is that it is produced by the
>virtual particles that are winking in and out of existence in even the
>most perfect vacuum. Virtual particles are a standard feature in
>quantum mechanics and there is much experimental evidence that they
>exist.
>
>Why does it explain the theory better?
>
>What *observable* evidence do you have that:
>
> 1. the universe has a boundary
> 2. there is some sort of force pulling galaxies toward
> this boundary?
>
>If there is a boundary, where is it? I hope you're not refering to
>the limit of our observability of the universe -- the Hubble sphere --
>because this is not a boundary in the conventional sense.
<Snip>
>> I just don't accept some of these contemporary 'Alice in Wonderland'
>> theories if better explanations also are possible.
>I don't agree that your theory of a boundary to the universe and a
>"Super Attractive Force" has less of a contemporary Alice in
>Wonderland quality.
I like Alice in Wonderland. Is the large scale structure of
space-time purely common sense?
>> Wasn't the accepted theory - a few years ago - that the expansion of
>> the universe will slow down and eventually regress? How about the
>> theory that the Earth is the center of the universe - that one lasted
>> for a couple of thousand years. The main lesson to be learned from
>> this is scientists are still groping for answers on how the universe
>> and all its laws operate. The scientific method has been able answer a
>> lot of these questions but we still have a long way to go. What a
>> boring world this would be if we knew all the answers!
>>
>
>We'll always be groping for answers. But I don't think that "armchair
>science" is the way to find them.
Not to worry - research continues. Check the _Science_ news focus for
22 June, especially the article on the microwave anisotropy probe:
Peering Backward to the Cosmo's Fiery Birth P 2236-2238
You may be interested in the opening metaphore:
"The universe has walls of fire. No matter where astronmers point
there telescopes, they see a distant sheet of light surrounding us."
By the way, for those who don't read Science & Nature:
Try it - you might like it. The research papers are hard to enjoy
except for specialists in each topic, of course. But there's much
more: news & views, discussion articles for several of the papers
each issue (and they both come out every week). Science & Nature are
what 'everybody' reads to have an idea of what's happening outside
there specialty. And most public libraries carry them.
And for technical people, here is a new article on general relativity:
_A test of general relativity from the three dimensional geometry of a
binary pulsar_ Nature 412 page 158 (July 12)
General relativity, unlike special relativity, has never been regarded
as quite such a sure thing. It keeps passing more tests, but it is
hard to test it to as exacting a standard as physicists would prefer.
Of course they keep trying.
Dunk
dkomo
Hate to disillusion you, but none of this has anything to do with the
measured red shifts of receding galaxies due to the expansion of the
universe. Expansion red shifts are caused by the *stretching* of the
wave lengths of the light emitted from these galaxies according to the
formula
z = (Rzero / R) - 1
where z is the measured red shift, R is the distance to the galaxy at
the time the light was emitted, and Rzero is that distance at the time
we measure the red shift. The ratio (Rzero / R) is therefore the ratio
by which the distance has expanded since the light was emitted.
Think of a sine wave drawn on a rubber sheet. Then grab the ends of
the sheet and stretch it out. The wavelength of the sine wave will be
increased in direct proportion to the amount by which the rubber sheet
is strectched. This is exactly what happens to light traveling from a
distant galaxy. Between the time the light is emitted and the time it
reaches earth, the space through which the light has been traveling
has expanded, thus increasing the light's wavelength.
Now, and let's be very clear about this, there is absolutely *no*
Doppler shift of the light when it is emitted! Why? Because the
galaxy isn't actually moving relative to us. It is standing dead
still. If you use the relativistic Doppler shift equation (what you
call Einstein's Doppler) to relate red shifts, distances and
velocities, you will in fact get the wrong results.
The use of the term "Doppler shifts" in conjugation with "red shifts"
is in fact a common misconception in elementary astronomy. Expansion
red shifts and *real* Doppler shifts between two sources in actual
motion relative to each other (know as "peculiar" motion in cosmology)
are two entirely separate phenomena.
You really should crack open a text on cosmology or astronomy one of
these days.
Androcles
You really should have caught it if you'd bothered to check instead of
nit-picking trivialities.
The function velocity = EinsteinShiftToVelocity(shift) has the inverse
function
shift = EinsteinDoppler(velocity).
Jeez....
Here are the spreadsheet results, rounded to integer:
Frequency Velocity
Measured Galileo Einstein Lorentz
0 300000 300000 #DIV/0!
0.1 270000 294059 2700000
0.2 240000 276923 1200000
0.3 210000 250459 700000
0.4 180000 217241 450000
0.5 150000 180000 300000
0.6 120000 141176 200000
0.7 90000 102685 128571
0.8 60000 65853 75000
0.9 30000 31491 33333
1 0 0 0
1.1 -30000 -28507 -27273
1.2 -60000 -54098 -50000
1.3 -90000 -76952 -69231
1.4 -120000 -97297 -85714
1.5 -150000 -115385 -100000
1.6 -180000 -131461 -112500
1.7 -210000 -145758 -123529
1.8 -240000 -158491 -133333
1.9 -270000 -169848 -142105
2 -300000 -180000 -150000
You want to nit-pick over the decimal places?.
Perhaps you can't see the forest for the nut the squirrel has in its paws.
Plot the curves.
>
> > > Of course Einstein's will work out differently. If you'd taken the
red
> > > and blue shifts as what Einstein's would predict for +/- 90,000 km/s,
> > > then Einstein's result would say that the galaxy was rotating at
90,000
> > > km/s. And either way, it's quite meaningless in and of itself. It
> > > would help if you clarify where you mean rotational, and where you
mean
> > > overall velocity.
> > By velocity I mean tangential velocity, as we measure it from Doppler
> > and recessional velocity as we assume it to be..
>
> I don't see anything here that relates to anything with recessional
> velocity. Even allowing for examples with ridiculous rotational speeds,
> you could give a hypothetical example with an overall average
> recessional velocity of, say, 90,000 km/s, a rotational (or tangential,
> if you want to call it that) velocity of 60,000 km/s, approaching side
> has total of -30,000 km/s, receding side has total of 150,000 km/s, and
> show how that works or doesn't work. That would be a lot more
> meaningful, if that's what you're getting at.
I call it tangential because that's what it is. Rotational velocity is
measured
in radians per unit time, and I fail to see how using a different set of
numbers conveys the point any clearer.
> > Think of a wheel on a car. Where it meets the ground, its velocity is
zero
> > with respect to the road surface. If it were otherwise, you'd be burning
> > rubber.
> > At the top of the wheel, it's velocity is twice that of the car. (Maybe
> > think
> > of a construction vehicle or a tank with tracks. The bottom of the track
> > is at rest with the ground, the top is moving twice as fast as the
vehicle)
> > We see blue shift from rim stars of galaxies on the side approaching,
and
> > red shift on the side receding. Half the difference is the velocity of
the
> > motion
> > of the galaxy as a whole, as is the velocity of the vehicle half the
> > difference
> > of the the top of the track and the bottom of the track .
>
> You're presuming to teach me about rotational mechanics. Heh.
> Half the difference is the rotational velocity of the galaxy. Unless
> you've found some cosmic highway for the edge of the galaxy to push
> against, it has no relation to the overall velocity of the galaxy.
It seems I need to teach you rotational mechanics, since you clearly don't
understand it. A railroad locomotive has a 'lip' on the wheel to keep if
from
sliding off the tracks. At the point where the wheel is in contact with the
rail,
the lip is moving backwards. To see why, simply imagine a greater diameter
lip. I follows a cycloid. Or play with a spirograph, that can teach you.
> And
> if you have found some such cosmic highway, then every galaxy should
> have a piece of it that has exactly no shift.
That is correct, up to the point where the part of the rim travelling toward
us is matched by the recessional velocity. For higher recessional velocities
the side travelling toward us will have red shift, but not as great as the
side
moving away.
BTW, Just how do you think astronomers measure the rotation of
distant galaxies? They are unable to use galaxies we see edge-on,
there is insufficient light reaching us at the rim. They are also unable
to use a galaxy face on, there is no rotation in our direction. The ideal
galaxy is inclined at 45 degrees, and they take an average shift from
each half.
> The overall velocity will
> be the mean of the approaching and receding sides, or the velocity of
> the approaching plus half the difference, or the velocity of the
> receding minus half the difference (assuming an overall receding galaxy,
> otherwise you may have to change signs).
> If you assume that one side is held stationary with respect to the
> frame of reference, as is the case with a physical car wheel, track,
> whatever, then yes, half the difference is the velocity of motion, and
> the "top" will move at twice the overall velocity. Without that
> stationary object, anything goes. In other words, galaxies have no
> problem at all "burning rubber".
Of course they don't. We see blue-shift from one side and red-shift from
the other for all nearby galaxies. Once the galaxy gets further away,
it gets harder to see and measure, doesn't it?
>
> > > Do some serious proofreading, check your work, and get back to me.
> > > Sure, the starting assumptions are meaningless to begin with, but you
> > > could at least get the math right.
> > I do have the math right, it is time for you to do some proofreading.
> > I've given you the equations, plot a graph for zero to c in 10
increments.
>
> And as I've thought about it since then, I realize I keep
> underestimating how wrong things can be. The only thing you've actually
> shown with all this (even with the math corrected)
Nit-picking decimal places is a correction? Give me a break.
> is that, if you use
> the Galilean way to convert velocity to frequency, then the Einstein way
> to convert frequency back to velocity, GOSH! you don't get the same
> result back! What a shock.
I would be a shock to me if I did that, too.
What I've demonstrated is that if you calculate the tangential velocity from
the
observed frequency using the Einstein model, you get a recession for the
galaxy
as a whole, and if you calculate the tangential velocity from the observed
frequency using the Galilean model, you don't.
> (Using the calculus function notation, here
> ^-1 means inverse function, not "to the negative first power" or "the
> reciprocal") f^-1(g(x)) != x. This is no surprise at all. Even if you
> work out f^-1(f(x)) != x, that just means either you've got some kind of
> discontinuity, or you screwed up figuring out f^-1(x). And saying
> f^-1(g(x)) != x is no huge upset to the world.
> And in case you hadn't noticed, I've even done almost all the
> proofreading for you! It should'nt be too hard to take it from there,
> if you think this notion is worth the trouble. Which it likely isn't,
> given the starting assumptions.
I think you are either confused, or deliberately being obtuse. I'm not sure
which yet.
1> Tangential velocity (Km/sec) is not the same as rotational velocity,
radians/sec
2> Of course f^-1(g(x)) != x, and nobody implied it did. You were expected
to understand that.
3> Using E(s) for the Einstein function velocity=E(shift) and F as the
inverse function shift = F(v), and using v=G(s) and s=H(v) for the Galilean,
then
E(red) + E(blue) > 0 when G(red)+G(blue) = 0, red and blue being the shifts
observed from opposite sides of the same galaxy.
The third function, Lorentz's v = L(s) is simply too far out to warrant
further
consideration.
dkomo
>
> On 5 Aug 2001 20:23:46 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, the Laws of Nature are constantly expanding all right because
> >they are *our* models of reality and we're refining them and improving
> >on them all the time.
> >
> >You speak as if these laws had some kind of independent existence.
> >They don't create the universe. Rather, the universe -- through us --
> >creates them!
>
> There were no regularities before we came along?
>
I don't know. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. We *assume*
that the "laws of the universe" -- more accurately, our models of how
the universe works -- have been the same since the Big Bang, and this
gives our models a pleasing consistency. But this is nothing but an
inference we make in conformity with our current paradigms regarding
reality.
My point of view on all this is Kantian.
> Not to worry - research continues. Check the _Science_ news focus for
> 22 June, especially the article on the microwave anisotropy probe:
> Peering Backward to the Cosmo's Fiery Birth P 2236-2238
> You may be interested in the opening metaphore:
> "The universe has walls of fire. No matter where astronmers point
> there telescopes, they see a distant sheet of light surrounding us."
>
Yeah, right -- walls of fire burning at a temperature near absolute
zero. I prefer the metaphor "walls of ice-cold fire." "Sheet of
light" is misleading since this is microwave radiation we're talking
about, not radiation in the visible region.
Ken Cox
> If the velocity is supposed to be increasing as a function of distance, assumed
> from distant objects having a greater redshif that those closer, then
> it follows that the object is accelerating.
What object? A galaxy we see five billion light years
away is not the same galaxy as one we see ten billion
light years away.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> "dkomo" <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
> > Our universe, though it may be finite, has no boundary. Think of a
> > sphere. Finite. No boundary. Ok?
> No, it's not ok. A sphere has a radial boundary. That's what makes it
> finite.
He was sloppy with the analogy. The usual comparison is
with the *surface* of the sphere. You can move about the
surface as much as you want, never finding a boundary,
but the surface is nonetheless finite.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> But if the red shift changes as a function of distance (Hubble constant)
> then the assumption is that the same galaxy, moving away, will at
> some time in the future arrive at the position of another galaxy, and
> that further galaxy is showing a higher red shift. The conclusion must then
> be that if red shift is indeed a function of distance (Hubble again),
> then the galaxy is accelerating.
This does not follow, without the further assumption that
the Hubble constant is constant in time. IIRC, it isn't;
that is, though there will be an approximately-linear
relationship between distance and recession velocity, the
slope of that line is not constant.
Now, I don't know if the change in H is such that the
velocities of galaxies are actually constant -- I seem to
recall that in fact it is not. However, you do need to
know this before you can be sure that there is acceleration.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Of course. There is little difference between 300,000Km/sec and
> 299,792.458 Km/sec, a small matter of 207.542 Km/sec, or
> 0.06918066666667 %
> which the relativist pretends to be able to measure exactly.
Pretends? It really isn't difficult to measure c, with
modern electronics.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Donald Hamilton
> Donald Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message news:<3B6B81FC...@cris.com>...
> > > Donald Hamilton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
> > > >
> > > > Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
> > > > boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
> > > > to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
> > > > gaining speed as they go. It is either this or Einstein's
> > > > "antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
> > > > that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
> > > > outward.<p>
> > > >
>Getting back to the surface of the sphere analogy, let's say the
"laws
>of nature" exist only on this surface and don't exist elsewhere. For
>example they cease to exist inside the sphere or outside and above
the
>surface.
That don't make sense! If you insist on a sphere anology - perhaps
the sun could be used in a very limited sense. The laws would exist
only within the sphere of the sun - nothing would exist beyond it -
there would be all sorts of energy and matter within the sphere but
nothing could exist (unlike the sun) beyond it.
>> These laws together with matter and energy create the universe. So
>> from your perspective there must be a constant expansion of the
'Laws'
>> (space)?
> Well, the Laws of Nature are constantly expanding all right because
> they are *our* models of reality and we're refining them and improving
> on them all the time.
> You speak as if these laws had some kind of independent existence.
> They don't create the universe. Rather, the universe -- through us --
> creates them!
The 'Laws of Nature' are independent of us and they do - along with
matter and energy create the universe. They are phenomena (inertia,
gravity, etc.) that we can only discover and try to explain - they
give the universe its personality. For example - Galileo discovered
the Inertia phenomena and Newton tried to explain it mathematically.
For the phenomena of Gravity - Newton tried to explain why apples fall
down rather then up, and so did Einstein with a very different
explanation.
> If there is a boundary, where is it? I hope you're not refering to
> the limit of our observability of the universe -- the Hubble sphere --
> because this is not a boundary in the conventional sense.
No I am not - The universe we observe is probably just a very small
portion of it. As larger and larger telescopes come on line we can
see further & further out into space but there seems to be no limit so
far. It wasn't to long ago that we couldn't even make out galaxies
clearly! If the universe is finite and the laws cease to exist at
some distance - that would be the boundary of the universe beyond
which nothing can exist - this is the area where the galaxies seem to
be falling toward - guided by some sort of an attractive force at the
boundary.
Don Hamilton
http://novan.com
John R. Owens
>
> "John R. Owens" <j.o...@core.com> wrote in message
> news:3b6e51a9$0$42871$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> > Androcles wrote:
> > >
> > > "John R. Owens" <j.o...@core.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3b6e2495$0$86159$272e...@news.execpc.com...
> > > > Since you're using round numbers like 120,000 km/s, I'll assume you're
> > > > rounding c off to 300,000 km/s.
> > >
> > > Of course. There is little difference between
> > > 300,000Km/sec and
> > > 299,792.458 Km/sec, a small matter of 207.542 Km/sec, or
> > > 0.06918066666667 %
> > > which the relativist pretends to be able to measure exactly.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply that I disapproved of rounding it
off here at all. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't making any unfounded
assumptions.
> > > > Androcles wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > <huge snip>
<snip equations, this is getting rather long ;)>
> > > > >
> > > > > Armed with these equations, we are now ready to estimate some real
> > > > > velocities in numerical form:
> > > > > This is most easily done using a spreadsheet, such as Excel.
> > > >
> > > > Bleck. I'll take a derivative to give slopes, and a nice scientific
> > > > calculator over THAT. :p
> > > Fine, but does it draw graphs as well?
> >
> > Heck yeah. And Excel just bites.
And it helps if you can read your own spreadsheet correctly.
The only rounding that would do that would be in converting from the
velocity back to the frequency to double check your work, which you
plainly haven't bothered to do. Your own Excel spreadsheet seems to
have it right; the error seems to have been introduced somewhere between
keyboard and chair, so to speak.
You know, I wouldn't be at all hard on you if you'd just simply got
this wrong. But you got it wrong, and then clung to it regardless,
without even bothering to look at *your own* spreadsheet. THAT'S
sloppy, and indicative of someone who refuses to question his own
conclusions.
> You really should have caught it if you'd bothered to check instead of
> nit-picking trivialities.
> The function velocity = EinsteinShiftToVelocity(shift) has the inverse
> function
> shift = EinsteinDoppler(velocity).
>
> > > > > This gives a total velocity for the whole galaxy a difference of
> 25933
> > > >
> 25733
> > > > > Km/sec divides by 2 = 12966.5 Km/sec , which we assume means it is
> > > moving
> > > > 12866.5
> > > > > away.
> > > > > That leaves the actual tangential velocity as 89918.5 Km/sec, close
> to
> > > the
> > > > 89618.5
> > > > > 90,000 Km/sec found by the Galilean model, but still leaves a
> velocity
> > > for
> > > > > the overall galaxy that is high.
> > > > >
> > > > > At f' = 0.6 and 1.5, the Galilean velocities are +/- 120,000, and
1.4, as I expand on below
Not 102885 for Einstein, as you've insisted three times now you were
correct about before.
> 0.8 60000 65853 75000
> 0.9 30000 31491 33333
> 1 0 0 0
> 1.1 -30000 -28507 -27273
> 1.2 -60000 -54098 -50000
> 1.3 -90000 -76952 -69231
> 1.4 -120000 -97297 -85714
> 1.5 -150000 -115385 -100000
Looks like you used the number from frequency 1.4 for the 1.5
calculation in your work. Actually, in hindsight, it looks like you
said 1.5 frequency, when you meant 1.4, since you were also referring to
120,000 km/s. I assumed that you would at least get the Galilean side
of things right. My mistake.
Granted, you had the rotational vs. tangential velocity right. And as
I explain below, I see now that you're demonstrating that galaxies may
not be receding if the Galilean model is correct. I had the impression
that you were trying to prove the Galilean model, instead.
Haven't been able to find my Spirograph for about two decades now. I
miss it. ;)
> > And
> > if you have found some such cosmic highway, then every galaxy should
> > have a piece of it that has exactly no shift.
(I should have said, that has zero velocity, including the normal
vectors that can't be measured with shift.)
> That is correct, up to the point where the part of the rim travelling toward
> us is matched by the recessional velocity. For higher recessional velocities
> the side travelling toward us will have red shift, but not as great as the
> side
> moving away.
> BTW, Just how do you think astronomers measure the rotation of
> distant galaxies? They are unable to use galaxies we see edge-on,
> there is insufficient light reaching us at the rim. They are also unable
> to use a galaxy face on, there is no rotation in our direction. The ideal
> galaxy is inclined at 45 degrees, and they take an average shift from
> each half.
<snip>
> >
> > And as I've thought about it since then, I realize I keep
> > underestimating how wrong things can be. The only thing you've actually
> > shown with all this (even with the math corrected)
> Nit-picking decimal places is a correction? Give me a break.
>
> > is that, if you use
> > the Galilean way to convert velocity to frequency, then the Einstein way
> > to convert frequency back to velocity, GOSH! you don't get the same
> > result back! What a shock.
> I would be a shock to me if I did that, too.
Umm, I think you've got your language backwards, too. You have done
that, and that's a big part of your point. Check your antecedent.
> What I've demonstrated is that if you calculate the tangential velocity from
> the
> observed frequency using the Einstein model, you get a recession for the
But these "observed frequencies" that you used aren't anything from
actual observation, but calculated from a velocity using the Galilean
method. That's why I raise the f^-1(g(s)) != x point.
OK, now that I've finally figured out what you're getting at, I see the
point here. But it would have been helpful if you'd specified that you
were trying to show that galaxies might not be receding, in conjunction
with the Galileo vs. Einstein matter.
> galaxy
> as a whole, and if you calculate the tangential velocity from the observed
> frequency using the Galilean model, you don't.
>
> > (Using the calculus function notation, here
> > ^-1 means inverse function, not "to the negative first power" or "the
> > reciprocal") f^-1(g(x)) != x. This is no surprise at all. Even if you
> > work out f^-1(f(x)) != x, that just means either you've got some kind of
> > discontinuity, or you screwed up figuring out f^-1(x). And saying
> > f^-1(g(x)) != x is no huge upset to the world.
> > And in case you hadn't noticed, I've even done almost all the
> > proofreading for you! It should'nt be too hard to take it from there,
> > if you think this notion is worth the trouble. Which it likely isn't,
> > given the starting assumptions.
> I think you are either confused, or deliberately being obtuse. I'm not sure
> which yet.
> 1> Tangential velocity (Km/sec) is not the same as rotational velocity,
> radians/sec
OK, you got me there.
> 2> Of course f^-1(g(x)) != x, and nobody implied it did. You were expected
> to understand that.
But that's all you seem to prove.
> 3> Using E(s) for the Einstein function velocity=E(shift) and F as the
> inverse function shift = F(v), and using v=G(s) and s=H(v) for the Galilean,
> then
> E(red) + E(blue) > 0 when G(red)+G(blue) = 0, red and blue being the shifts
> observed from opposite sides of the same galaxy.
Ah ha! I think I finally see your point now. Are you trying to say
that stationary galaxies shifted in the Galilean model will appear to be
moving away from us if you calculate apparent average velocity using the
Einstein model? We may finally be getting somewhere. :) You could have
stated that more clearly somewhere within your page, though.
> The third function, Lorentz's v = L(s) is simply too far out to warrant
> further
> consideration.
By the way, I've noticed, from dkomo's post in a different branch of
this same thread, that I've been mixing the terms doppler shift and
redshift. I didn't pay much attention to when I used which. I'll try
to keep them more consistent henceforth. Of course, now that I realize
you're proposing a nonexpanding universe model, in addition to the
Galilean model, the distinction becomes rather meaningless.
John R. Owens
>
> dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message news:<3B6DE5C6...@cris.com>...
> > Donald Hamilton wrote:
> > >
> > > dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message news:<3B6B81FC...@cris.com>...
> > > > Donald Hamilton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
> > > > >
> > > > > Evidence that a gravity-like "Super Attractive Force" exists at the
> > > > > boundary of a finite universe is indicated by the galaxies that seem
> > > > > to be accelerating outward (falling) toward deeper and deeper space,
> > > > > gaining speed as they go. It is either this or Einstein's
> > > > > "antigravity" (that he rejected at the time) of a "cosmological term"
> > > > > that says the 'dark energy' of space is pushing the galaxies
> > > > > outward.<p>
> > > > >
>
> >Getting back to the surface of the sphere analogy, let's say the
> "laws
> >of nature" exist only on this surface and don't exist elsewhere. For
> >example they cease to exist inside the sphere or outside and above
> the
> >surface.
>
> That don't make sense! If you insist on a sphere anology - perhaps
> the sun could be used in a very limited sense. The laws would exist
> only within the sphere of the sun - nothing would exist beyond it -
> there would be all sorts of energy and matter within the sphere but
> nothing could exist (unlike the sun) beyond it.
If you need the analogy spelled out for you, it's the 3-dimensional
surface of a hypersphere. As if we were 2-dimensional beings living on
the surface of a conventional sphere. The "laws of nature" that the
2-dimensional beings observe don't hold on the inside of the sphere, or
the outside. To take a very basic example, energy spreading out in a
conventional spherical manner obeys an inverse square law in the
3-dimensional world, k/r^2. But for energy on the surface (assuming the
term "energy" even means anything for them), it would spread in a
circle, obeying a simple inverse relationship, k/r. That would play
merry hob with many things we consider "laws of nature".
Similarly, assuming this is the surface of a hypersphere we live in,
the inside and outside of the hypersphere will follow k/r^3 instead.
dkomo
>
> dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message news:<3B6DE5C6...@cris.com>...
> > Donald Hamilton wrote:
> > >
> >> These laws together with matter and energy create the universe. So
> >> from your perspective there must be a constant expansion of the
> 'Laws'
> >> (space)?
>
> > Well, the Laws of Nature are constantly expanding all right because
> > they are *our* models of reality and we're refining them and improving
> > on them all the time.
> > You speak as if these laws had some kind of independent existence.
> > They don't create the universe. Rather, the universe -- through us --
> > creates them!
>
> The 'Laws of Nature' are independent of us and they do - along with
> matter and energy create the universe. They are phenomena (inertia,
> gravity, etc.) that we can only discover and try to explain - they
> give the universe its personality. For example - Galileo discovered
> the Inertia phenomena and Newton tried to explain it mathematically.
> For the phenomena of Gravity - Newton tried to explain why apples fall
> down rather then up, and so did Einstein with a very different
> explanation.
>
Ah, a Platonist. So out there among the stars somewhere is the
complete set of Laws which have the power to create our universe?
Obviously these are not the just pathethic subset which we have
discovered so far, because the Laws of Nature humans know wouldn't be
able to create an outhouse from scratch let alone the whole universe.
I mean, our Laws couldn't even take the first step toward a Big Bang
since we have no workable theory of quantum gravity as yet. But it's
good to know that the Law of Quantum Gravity is OUT THERE and all we
need to do is keep groping and we will FIND IT!
Also out there must be the Theory of Everything, which not only
encapsulates all the myriad laws of physics in a single small equation
of incredible power using a form of advanced mathematics we haven't
even dreamed of yet, but also derives all the different forces of
nature, and all the subatomic particles with all their masses and
other properties, and all the constants of nature as well. And once
we understand this equation, everything will make perfect sense and it
will all SEEM SO SIMPLE! And this TOE will also completely explain
why complex systems are able to self-organize, and once we understand
this, we'll finally understand how life came about on this planet.
And finally, on top of everything else, like the cherry on top of the
cosmic sunday, out there somewhere must be a totally workable,
completely consistent Superstring Theory which will not only be able
to explain why our universe came into existence with all the laws that
it has, including the TOE just described, but this Superstring Theory
will be able to explain the nature of God. And then, in a incredible
feat of ultimate explanation, the Superstring Theory will be able to
explain ITSELF.
Damn, are these exciting prospects, or what? It's all out there just
waiting for us!
> > If there is a boundary, where is it? I hope you're not refering to
> > the limit of our observability of the universe -- the Hubble sphere --
> > because this is not a boundary in the conventional sense.
>
> No I am not - The universe we observe is probably just a very small
> portion of it. As larger and larger telescopes come on line we can
> see further & further out into space but there seems to be no limit so
> far. It wasn't to long ago that we couldn't even make out galaxies
> clearly! If the universe is finite and the laws cease to exist at
> some distance - that would be the boundary of the universe beyond
> which nothing can exist - this is the area where the galaxies seem to
> be falling toward - guided by some sort of an attractive force at the
> boundary.
>
Sadly, inside the Hubble sphere is everything we'll ever be able to
observe because according to the Hubble relation v = H * r galaxies at
the Hubble radius are receding away from us *at* the speed of light,
and that means their redshifts are infinite, so we can't even detect
them. And all galaxies outside the Hubble sphere are receding at
greater than the speed of light.
So it really is a pretty finite universe -- for us. If your magic
boundary exists, it better be inside the Hubble sphere, otherwise
we'll never be able to detect it. Likewise, those Laws Of Nature
better be inside as well, or we won't find all of them, and that would
be a shame.
Androcles
[snip]
> Granted, you had the rotational vs. tangential velocity right. And as
> I explain below, I see now that you're demonstrating that galaxies may
> not be receding if the Galilean model is correct. I had the impression
> that you were trying to prove the Galilean model, instead.
Proof, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and is a matter of
perception.
Copernicus never proved the heliocentric model of the universe over the
Ptolemaic geocentric model, simply because he was not believed.
As Asimov wrote, "If a scientific heresy is ignored or denounced by the
general public, there is a chance it may be right. If a scientific heresy
is emotionally supported by the general public, it is almost certainly
wrong".
Einstein's assertion that the velocity of light is independent of the motion
of the source is nothing but that, an assertion, without any astronomical
evidence to support it. The fact that he then extracts from it the same
emotional response as H.G. Well's "Time Machine" by the general public,
or deduces his famous E= mc^2 which the public adore, doesn't make his
model of the universe correct. Assertion should always be suspect, and
always
will be by the few, even if accepted by the majority. I cannot prove the
Galilean
model, with light source dependent just like everything else, is correct.
I just don't see any sound reason to single it out as an exception.
All I can say is that it does not conflict with empirical evidence and is a
simpler model, much as the geocentric model is simpler than the heliocentric
model. The Einstein model requires
1) Some stars to pulsate regularly, puffing up and down like blowfish,
2) Some stars to explode, settle back to normal and explode again and again,
3) Stars like Mira to have tails like a cat or dog,
4) Galaxies to be accelerating away in a finite unbounded Universe,
and further conjectures:
5) Men to have Alpha Centauri come to them (there being no universal frame),
a distance of 4 light-years in 3 years at less than the speed of light,
while we figure they'll take 5 years at 0.8c to go to Alpha Centauri.
In the Galilean model, these exotic concepts vanish.
1) The pulsation of the star is an illusion, caused by it's light reaching
us
at a velocity that varies as a function of the orbit, making the star appear
to vary in intensity,
2) The recurrent novae is the same thing at a greater distance with longer
period,
3) the smearing of Mira is caused by seeing the star in multiple positions
at
the same time as its velocity changed in its orbit and taking spin into
consideration,
4) Galaxies are not accelerating,
5) The Twin Paradox cannot be logically overcome, We can go to Alpha
Centauri
with a constant and comfortable acceleration of 1g, flip at the midpoint and
decelerate with the same comfort, (assuming we had the technology of
course)
and exceed c along the way.
6) I can reverse time dilation to time contaction simply be changing the
angle
of the beam. See
http://members.home.net/androcles/GARDNER.EXE
for a demonstration,
http://members.home.net/androcles/Gardner.htm
for an explanation,
http://members.home.net/androcles/fumble.htm
the same explanation, written in Einstein's own math.
Yet none of it 'proves' the Galilean model correct, it's merely a matter
of what you find plausible. I can't prove there is no Santa Claus, either.
[snip]
> Haven't been able to find my Spirograph for about two decades now. I
> miss it. ;)
LOL, me too :)
Yes.
> We may finally be getting somewhere. :) You could have
> stated that more clearly somewhere within your page, though.
It isn't easy finding the words the reader would choose as acceptable. I
don't
claim to be a professional writer. I see that simple mathematical
terminology
got the point over here, but for many lurkers math is simply too mysterious.
> > The third function, Lorentz's v = L(s) is simply too far out to warrant
> > further
> > consideration.
>
> By the way, I've noticed, from dkomo's post in a different branch of
> this same thread, that I've been mixing the terms doppler shift and
> redshift. I didn't pay much attention to when I used which. I'll try
> to keep them more consistent henceforth. Of course, now that I realize
> you're proposing a nonexpanding universe model, in addition to the
> Galilean model, the distinction becomes rather meaningless.
There are many problems with the expanding universe model,
not the least of which are its age, the "Big Bang" which the emotional
Churches haven't been unkind toward (since it implies creationism),
whether there has been sufficient time for galaxies to form in just
15-20 billion years, the Earth itself being 4 billion years old, what lies
beyond the surface of the sphere of the "universe" as we observe it,
whether there are other "universes" just like ours in an infinite nothing,
whether there any galaxies from that "other" universe that are already
moving among the galaxies of our own universe ( or do they meet like
the plane surface adjoining two bubbles?), does each universe have its
own god, or is god restricted to the heaven and the earth as we see it,
how many angels dance can dance on the head of a pin.... and so on.
All we can do is observe Nature and try to figure it out. What Nature
will not do is obey Einstein's command or anyone else's, and we have
to figure it out for ourselves, not as someone else tells us. As I said,
it just depends on the model you adopt to interpret the observations
you make, as to how you think Nature really behaves. I'm just offering
a different model, one that fits with the empirical data and is simpler.
That's how we got from the Ptolemaic model to the Copernican, and
how we'll get to the next model. That's the way Occam's Razor works.
Androcles
"Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3B6ECE73...@research.bell-labs.com...
> Androcles wrote:
> > Of course. There is little difference between 300,000Km/sec and
> > 299,792.458 Km/sec, a small matter of 207.542 Km/sec, or
> > 0.06918066666667 %
> > which the relativist pretends to be able to measure exactly.
>
> Pretends? It really isn't difficult to measure c, with
> modern electronics.
It is if both the source and the light it emits is moving in a vacuum.
The point here is that Einstein has asserted the velocity of light in empty
space
is independent of the motion of the source. Nobody is going to doubt that
you can measure the speed of a bullet from a gun when the gun is stationary
with respect to your detectors, and if fired from a fast moving plane you
would expect to find a different speed.
However, it is a different matter for light. I've heard it claimed that
electrons
passing though a magnetic field emit light, and the speed of the light isn't
affected by the speed of the electrons, thus "proving" Einstein.
It doesn't. The speed of sound isn't affected by how fast you spin
a vynil record with a needle in its groove, either. It is the point of
interaction that is at rest.
To test Einstein's claim, you need a source of light that is moving in a
vacuum,
with a velocity sufficiently high as to render the result beyond
experimental
error, and you cannot use doppler shift either, because that would be
indicative of either the Galilean model or the Einsteinian model being
correct.
So yes, the relativist pretends to be able to measure the speed of light,
but has
never actually done so from a moving source in vacuum.
Marty Fouts
"Androcles" <andr...@home.com> writes:
> "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:3B6ECE73...@research.bell-labs.com...
> > Androcles wrote:
> > > Of course. There is little difference between 300,000Km/sec and
> > > 299,792.458 Km/sec, a small matter of 207.542 Km/sec, or
> > > 0.06918066666667 %
> > > which the relativist pretends to be able to measure exactly.
> >
> > Pretends? It really isn't difficult to measure c, with
> > modern electronics.
>
> It is if both the source and the light it emits is moving in a
> vacuum.
Not particularly. Such measurements, involving lasers and space craft
are routinely done.
> The point here is that Einstein has asserted the velocity of light
> in empty space is independent of the motion of the source. Nobody is
> going to doubt that you can measure the speed of a bullet from a gun
> when the gun is stationary with respect to your detectors, and if
> fired from a fast moving plane you would expect to find a different
> speed. However, it is a different matter for light. I've heard it
> claimed that electrons passing though a magnetic field emit light,
> and the speed of the light isn't affected by the speed of the
> electrons, thus "proving" Einstein.
<sigh> I don't know what you've heard, but what experiments like that
support is the observation that velocity is not vector-additive.
> It doesn't. The speed of sound isn't affected by how fast you spin a
> vynil record with a needle in its groove, either. It is the point of
> interaction that is at rest.
Bad example. The influence that you deny in your example is referred
to by audiophiles as wow and flutter.
> To test Einstein's claim, you need a source of light that is moving
> in a vacuum, with a velocity sufficiently high as to render the
> result beyond experimental error, and you cannot use doppler shift
> either, because that would be indicative of either the Galilean
> model or the Einsteinian model being correct.
That's one test. It is difficult, but it has been done. There's an
equivalent formulation that verifies whether time dilation occurs or
not. The effect is sufficiently pronounced that it needs to be
accounted for in the GPS system.
> So yes, the relativist pretends to be able to measure the speed of
> light, but has never actually done so from a moving source in
> vacuum.
The speed of light in a vacuum was first measured by Michelson. I
think you mean by a source moving at a significant fraction of the
speed of light. Experiments that demonstrate that velocity near light
speed is not vector additive have been done in particle accelerators.
But even that is not necessary. To quote from one web site
The Earth moves around the sun at a speed of about 30 km/sec so
if velocities added vectorially as Newtonian mechanics requires,
the last 5 digits in the value of the speed of light now used in
the SI definition of the metre would be meaningless. Today high
energy physicists at CERN and Fermilab routinely accelerate
particles to within a whisper of the speed of light. A dependence
of the speed of light on reference frames would have shown up
long ago unless it is very slight indeed.
If you are going to make a Galilean-relativistic argument against
general relativity, it is going to have to be based on assertions of
absolute time, something for which the evidence is strongly
against.
Marty
John R. Owens
>
> "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:3B6ECE73...@research.bell-labs.com...
> > Androcles wrote:
> > > Of course. There is little difference between 300,000Km/sec and
> > > 299,792.458 Km/sec, a small matter of 207.542 Km/sec, or
> > > 0.06918066666667 %
> > > which the relativist pretends to be able to measure exactly.
> >
> > Pretends? It really isn't difficult to measure c, with
> > modern electronics.
>
> So yes, the relativist pretends to be able to measure the speed of light,
> but has
> never actually done so from a moving source in vacuum.
Actually, since the meter is defined as the distance travelled by light
in 1/299792458 s, there's no doubt about that. What you want to do is
measure the meter. ;)
Stanley Friesen
>
>Now, I don't know if the change in H is such that the
>velocities of galaxies are actually constant -- I seem to
>recall that in fact it is not. However, you do need to
>know this before you can be sure that there is acceleration.
This is where the accelerating expansion comes in.
If the dominant force at large scales were attractive, like gravity,
then the change in H over time would be such that the velocities
individual galaxies are *decreasing*. That is, the old standard model
was one in which other galaxies were *decelerating* relative to the
Milky Way.
Recent results show this is likely not the case.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Donald Hamilton
> Donald Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote in message news:<3B6DE5C6...@cris.com>...
> > > Donald Hamilton wrote:
> > > >
> > >> These laws together with matter and energy create the universe. So
> > >> from your perspective there must be a constant expansion of the
> 'Laws'
> > >> (space)?
>
> > > Well, the Laws of Nature are constantly expanding all right because
> > > they are *our* models of reality and we're refining them and improving
> > > on them all the time.
> > > You speak as if these laws had some kind of independent existence.
> > > They don't create the universe. Rather, the universe -- through us --
> > > creates them!
> >
> > The 'Laws of Nature' are independent of us and they do - along with
> > matter and energy create the universe. They are phenomena (inertia,
> > gravity, etc.) that we can only discover and try to explain - they
> > give the universe its personality. For example - Galileo discovered
> > the Inertia phenomena and Newton tried to explain it mathematically.
> > For the phenomena of Gravity - Newton tried to explain why apples fall
> > down rather then up, and so did Einstein with a very different
> > explanation.
> >
>
> Ah, a Platonist. So out there among the stars somewhere is the
> complete set of Laws which have the power to create our universe?
No - the laws are not "out there". They are everywhere in the universe
- they create the universe - like I said they are the phenomena that
we and everything else in the universe operates under.
> I mean, our Laws couldn't even take the first step toward a Big Bang
> since we have no workable theory of quantum gravity as yet. But it's
> good to know that the Law of Quantum Gravity is OUT THERE and all we
> need to do is keep groping and we will FIND IT!
Not necessarily! Maybe today's scientists are on the wrong track and
the phenomena of quantum gravity or the super string theory does not
exist or possibly the Big Bang did not even occur. They are not laws -
just possible theories! Scientists may go down many wrong paths
before they find the right one. Also I doubt if all the phenomena
(laws) can be encapsulated in a single small equation - although they
are all interlaced to make our universe work.
Don Hamilton
Ref. "The Mind of Mankind"
http://novan.com/articles.htm
Androcles
at standard frequency, it would still be travelling at c because my desk
is 'measured' to be 299,792.458 Km wide!
Now that is the ultimate circular argument.
http://www.cofc.edu/~chem/deavor/221/si_units.html
SI base units
length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of
1/299 792 458 second.
I think I'll keep the good ol' wooden stick around for a while if you
don't mind..
Who are these French clowns anyway?
All relativists?
Is there no sanity anymore?
I suppose this is the evidence of the conspiracy that I've heard others
complain of. To make relativity right, redefine the unit of measure
in terms of the wavelength of light, then no matter how much Lorentz
contraction there is, there never can be any.
I suppose its a two-edged sword...
Ken Cox
> LOL! If light crawled across my desk taking one second to do so,
> at standard frequency, it would still be travelling at c because my desk
> is 'measured' to be 299,792.458 Km wide!
Well, yes, assuming that there's a vacuum above your desk.
Are you saying that you've observed light taking that long
to cross your desk?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Gregory L. Hansen
Androcles <andr...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"John R. Owens" <j.o...@core.com> wrote in message
>news:3b6fa568$0$18889$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>> > So yes, the relativist pretends to be able to measure the speed of
>light,
>> > but has
>> > never actually done so from a moving source in vacuum.
It's been done, the source was pions moving nearly the speed of light.
>>
>> Actually, since the meter is defined as the distance travelled by light
>> in 1/299792458 s, there's no doubt about that. What you want to do is
>> measure the meter. ;)
>LOL! If light crawled across my desk taking one second to do so,
>at standard frequency, it would still be travelling at c because my desk
>is 'measured' to be 299,792.458 Km wide!
>Now that is the ultimate circular argument.
And if "big G" changed randomly, we couldn't determine the mass of an
object from its weight. But it doesn't.
Definitions of units change again and again as technology and techniques
improve and we can measure one quantity more precisely than another.
>Is there no sanity anymore?
>I suppose this is the evidence of the conspiracy that I've heard others
>complain of. To make relativity right, redefine the unit of measure
>in terms of the wavelength of light, then no matter how much Lorentz
>contraction there is, there never can be any.
>I suppose its a two-edged sword...
Go to NIST's web site and read about standards of measure. They're not
chosen randomly, you know.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Androcles
"Marty Fouts" <usene...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:uy9ow5...@usa.net...
>
> "Androcles" <andr...@home.com> writes:
>
> > "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B6ECE73...@research.bell-labs.com...
> > > Androcles wrote:
> > > > Of course. There is little difference between 300,000Km/sec and
> > > > 299,792.458 Km/sec, a small matter of 207.542 Km/sec, or
> > > > 0.06918066666667 %
> > > > which the relativist pretends to be able to measure exactly.
> > >
> > > Pretends? It really isn't difficult to measure c, with
> > > modern electronics.
> >
> > It is if both the source and the light it emits is moving in a
> > vacuum.
>
> Not particularly. Such measurements, involving lasers and space craft
> are routinely done.
measuring the height of a building every day to routinely check if it's
changed. You measure it once, and that's it.
When Armstrong placed a reflector on the moon, he didn't aim a laser
at it on the homeward trip to measure the speed of recession of the moon,
saying "let's begin routine measurements with a laser and a spacecraft".
There is no 'routinely' about it.
If an Earthbased laser then routinely measures the Earth-Moon distance,
it isn't to measure the velocity of light from a moving Moon, because
that is assumed. It is to time the flight of the laser and compute the
distance.
>
> > The point here is that Einstein has asserted the velocity of light
> > in empty space is independent of the motion of the source. Nobody is
> > going to doubt that you can measure the speed of a bullet from a gun
> > when the gun is stationary with respect to your detectors, and if
> > fired from a fast moving plane you would expect to find a different
> > speed. However, it is a different matter for light. I've heard it
> > claimed that electrons passing though a magnetic field emit light,
> > and the speed of the light isn't affected by the speed of the
> > electrons, thus "proving" Einstein.
>
> <sigh> I don't know what you've heard, but what experiments like that
> support is the observation that velocity is not vector-additive.
but I don't know of ANY that have measured the speed of light from
a moving source in a vacuum. I really don't care how many times or in
what way you measure the speed of light when the source and the
detector are at rest, you'll always get the right answer. However, that
neither supports nor denies vector addition of velocities, and those who
claim it does are merely demonstrating their own prejudice as bias.
> > It doesn't. The speed of sound isn't affected by how fast you spin a
> > vynil record with a needle in its groove, either. It is the point of
> > interaction that is at rest.
>
> Bad example. The influence that you deny in your example is referred
> to by audiophiles as wow and flutter.
Nonsense. I'm talking about playing a 33rpm record at 78 rpm, and that
isn't call "wow and flutter", that is called "The Chipmunks", for those old
enough to remember them. In comparison to the ring of electrons,
it is a good example.
> > To test Einstein's claim, you need a source of light that is moving
> > in a vacuum, with a velocity sufficiently high as to render the
> > result beyond experimental error, and you cannot use doppler shift
> > either, because that would be indicative of either the Galilean
> > model or the Einsteinian model being correct.
>
> That's one test. It is difficult, but it has been done.
Then name the experiment!
> There's an
> equivalent formulation that verifies whether time dilation occurs or
> not. The effect is sufficiently pronounced that it needs to be
> accounted for in the GPS system.
More nonsense. The GPS is routinely uploaded with data to compensate
for any perturbation in the orbits of the satellites, and its clocks remains
in synch with Earth time. It wouldn't work if it didn't. No clock is
perfect,
engineers recognize that fact, and if one of them ticks faster or slower
than
standard it is simply set to the right time, as you would do with your
wristwatch.
>
> > So yes, the relativist pretends to be able to measure the speed of
> > light, but has never actually done so from a moving source in
> > vacuum.
>
> The speed of light in a vacuum was first measured by Michelson.
No it wasn't. It was first measured by Roemer in 1675.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/scienceqa/archive/960312.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Light/speedoflight.html
Where DO you get this misinformation from?
> I
> think you mean by a source moving at a significant fraction of the
> speed of light. Experiments that demonstrate that velocity near light
> speed is not vector additive have been done in particle accelerators.
Goofy experiments that assume the result in the first place.
> But even that is not necessary. To quote from one web site
>
> The Earth moves around the sun at a speed of about 30 km/sec so
> if velocities added vectorially as Newtonian mechanics requires,
> the last 5 digits in the value of the speed of light now used in
> the SI definition of the metre would be meaningless.
And it IS meaningless. If light crawled across my desk taking a second to do
so, I'd have to say my desk was 300,000 Km wide. I'll stick to the
wooden ruler, thanks, its more reliable.
> Today high
> energy physicists at CERN and Fermilab routinely accelerate
> particles to within a whisper of the speed of light. A dependence
> of the speed of light on reference frames would have shown up
> long ago unless it is very slight indeed.
Of course it wouldn't. Nobody accelerated the frame of reference.
>
> If you are going to make a Galilean-relativistic argument against
> general relativity, it is going to have to be based on assertions of
> absolute time, something for which the evidence is strongly
> against.
If you are going to make assertions that the speed of light is independent
of the motion of the source then perform an experiment to test it,
because the evidence from astronomy (and logic) is strongly against it.
See
http://members.home.net/androcles/
Ken Cox
> "Marty Fouts" <usene...@usa.net> wrote:
> > Not particularly. Such measurements, involving lasers and space craft
> > are routinely done.
> No they are not! You don't go around with a theodolite in your hand
> measuring the height of a building every day to routinely check if it's
> changed. You measure it once, and that's it.
Unless, of course, the height of the building is changing
because it's sinking on its foundations, or -- to pick a
moderately famous example -- tilting. Then you might go
as far as to install a system of monitors to continuously
measure the height or angle.
> When Armstrong placed a reflector on the moon, he didn't aim a laser
> at it on the homeward trip to measure the speed of recession of the moon,
> saying "let's begin routine measurements with a laser and a spacecraft".
Right. The lasers are aimed from the Earth. As with the
tower in Pisa, this is because the distance is changing,
so you can't make just one measurement.
> > <sigh> I don't know what you've heard, but what experiments like that
> > support is the observation that velocity is not vector-additive.
> Bigger sigh. What experiments? I don't know what you've heard,
> but I don't know of ANY that have measured the speed of light from
> a moving source in a vacuum.
Are you familiar with the term "argument from ignorance"?
Generally, if person A says "these experiments have shown
effect X", and person B says "I've never heard of those
experiments", B's statement is *not* considered evidence
against effect X. It's not even considered to have any
bearing on the reality of effect X.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Jack Martinelli
> Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
>
> Either the galaxies are being pushed by 'dark energy' or they are
> simply falling toward the boundary of a finite universe attracted by a
> gravity-like super force located at the boundary.
We can't say in an absolute sense that the universe is expanding.
I.e., Its perfectly ok to say that with respect to our measuring tools
that the universe is expanding OR with respect to the universe matter
is shrinking (the universe isn't expanding and the galaxies are at
rest). These are just two different ways of saying the same thing.
That is, force is not required to explain the receeding galaxies.
Regards
Jack Martinelli
Richard Uhrich
Jack, this seems like deja vu; perhaps we discussed this before. In any
case, keep in mind that our "measuring tools" aren't putatively
shrinking yardsticks, but the frequency of light.
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
> > "Marty Fouts" <usene...@usa.net> wrote:
> > > Not particularly. Such measurements, involving lasers and space craft
> > > are routinely done.
>
> > No they are not! You don't go around with a theodolite in your hand
> > measuring the height of a building every day to routinely check if it's
> > changed. You measure it once, and that's it.
>
> Unless, of course, the height of the building is changing
> because it's sinking on its foundations, or -- to pick a
> moderately famous example -- tilting. Then you might go
> as far as to install a system of monitors to continuously
> measure the height or angle.
of the building. It would not be a matter of routine to measure the speed of
light.
> > When Armstrong placed a reflector on the moon, he didn't aim a laser
> > at it on the homeward trip to measure the speed of recession of the
moon,
> > saying "let's begin routine measurements with a laser and a spacecraft".
>
> Right. The lasers are aimed from the Earth. As with the
> tower in Pisa, this is because the distance is changing,
> so you can't make just one measurement.
And you assume the distance you measure a correct, because you rely upon the
speed of light being constant, which, for all puposes in this case, it is.
Earth and Moon will not change distance dramatically in 2*230,000/180,000
seconds.
>
>
> > > <sigh> I don't know what you've heard, but what experiments like that
> > > support is the observation that velocity is not vector-additive.
>
> > Bigger sigh. What experiments? I don't know what you've heard,
> > but I don't know of ANY that have measured the speed of light from
> > a moving source in a vacuum.
>
> Are you familiar with the term "argument from ignorance"?
Yes.
> Generally, if person A says "these experiments have shown
> effect X", and person B says "I've never heard of those
> experiments", B's statement is *not* considered evidence
> against effect X. It's not even considered to have any
> bearing on the reality of effect X.
Correct, but which is more ignorant? A that claims the experiment but cannot
name it, or B that says prove the claim?
A is making outlandish claims he cannot support. The claim that the
experiment has been done is the excrement of the male bovine, A argues from
lies as well as ignorance.
A is a liar attempting to win scientific argument by bluff and arrogance,
and I'm calling A on it.
island
>
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> >
> >Now, I don't know if the change in H is such that the
> >velocities of galaxies are actually constant -- I seem to
> >recall that in fact it is not. However, you do need to
> >know this before you can be sure that there is acceleration.
>
> This is where the accelerating expansion comes in.
>
> If the dominant force at large scales were attractive, like gravity,
> then the change in H over time would be such that the velocities
> individual galaxies are *decreasing*.
Not necessarily...
Objects that free-FALL... further away from the "central", mass will
accelerate as their geodesic trajectories become more similar to
light's. The more similar that the geodesics become, the greater the
probability that all objects will ultimately aggregate together over the
common path.
Dunk
>Dunk wrote:
>>
>> On 5 Aug 2001 20:23:46 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, the Laws of Nature are constantly expanding all right because
>> >they are *our* models of reality and we're refining them and improving
>> >on them all the time.
>> >
>> >You speak as if these laws had some kind of independent existence.
>> >They don't create the universe. Rather, the universe -- through us --
>> >creates them!
>>
>> There were no regularities before we came along?
>>
>
>I don't know.
Sure you do. Have you considered the implications of NO regularities?
You know from geology that physics, chemistry, and more have been
regular for billions of years.
Your whole argument about astronomy - the expanding universe,
inflation, and all that, depends on past regularities. Of course you
agree that looking at light from distant onjects involves looking back
in time. Atomic spectra were the same as now, etc.
>...Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. We *assume*
>that the "laws of the universe" -- more accurately, our models of how
>the universe works -- have been the same since the Big Bang, and this
>gives our models a pleasing consistency.
"assume" is quite misleading. The inference comes from tons of
observation.
>...But this is nothing but an
>inference we make in conformity with our current paradigms regarding
>reality.
Or do the 'current paradigms' come from the aforementioned
observations? If not, where from then?
Relax.
>My point of view on all this is Kantian.
I don't recall Kant addressing this point. AFAIK he had no idea of
the universe existing for billions of years without people in it.
Beware solipsism!
>> Not to worry - research continues. Check the _Science_ news focus for
>> 22 June, especially the article on the microwave anisotropy probe:
>> Peering Backward to the Cosmo's Fiery Birth P 2236-2238
>> You may be interested in the opening metaphore:
>> "The universe has walls of fire. No matter where astronmers point
>> there telescopes, they see a distant sheet of light surrounding us."
>>
>
>Yeah, right -- walls of fire burning at a temperature near absolute
>zero. I prefer the metaphor "walls of ice-cold fire." "Sheet of
>light" is misleading since this is microwave radiation we're talking
>about, not radiation in the visible region.
Rats! The hope was to provoke you & DH to read it.
Anyway you understand that due to regularities over billions of years,
the very hot signal of the Big Bang has shifted to the microwave
range.
Dunk
> --dk...@cris.com
dkomo
>
> On 6 Aug 2001 11:44:00 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> >Dunk wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5 Aug 2001 20:23:46 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Well, the Laws of Nature are constantly expanding all right because
> >> >they are *our* models of reality and we're refining them and improving
> >> >on them all the time.
> >> >
> >> >You speak as if these laws had some kind of independent existence.
> >> >They don't create the universe. Rather, the universe -- through us --
> >> >creates them!
> >>
> >> There were no regularities before we came along?
> >>
> >
> >I don't know.
>
> Sure you do. Have you considered the implications of NO regularities?
> You know from geology that physics, chemistry, and more have been
> regular for billions of years.
> Your whole argument about astronomy - the expanding universe,
> inflation, and all that, depends on past regularities. Of course you
> agree that looking at light from distant onjects involves looking back
> in time. Atomic spectra were the same as now, etc.
>
Sure I do. On the conventional level -- the level of naive realism.
That is: hey, there's definitely an independent world out there, no
question about it and it is pretty much the way we perceive it, and it
operates on mechanisms that we can figure out with a little bit of
work -- that's science after all. Observe a lot, theorize some,
observe some more, revise the theories, and so on, yada, yada.
This is the level of convenience I use when talking about science.
It's quick and it's easy, and almost everyone will agree with me,
except for creationists, but they're morons, so they don't count.
But I'm also into the postmodern thing to some extent, so I don't
really attach all that much importance to naive realism, or
naturalism, or materialism. They're good for some things but can only
take you so far. They're just big extended metaphors.
When I said "I don't know" I was speaking from another viewpoint.
This one recognizes that the world we see is an active, participatory
construction of ours. Science is a large collection of working models
which are useful for the time being, but which will probably change
substantially in the next 100 years, just as they did in the last 100
years. That independent world out there which we think we're
investigating exists only in the interface between our minds and the
world as it really is, and which we can never see without passing it
through our numerous conceptual and perceptual filters.
>
> >...But this is nothing but an
> >inference we make in conformity with our current paradigms regarding
> >reality.
>
> Or do the 'current paradigms' come from the aforementioned
> observations? If not, where from then?
> Relax.
>
Alfred North Whitehead calls it the "fallacy of misplaced
concreteness." What happens is that we perceive a large number of
"thing-events", construct a comprehensive picture from these in our
minds, then commit the fallacy: we then project this picture outward
and think that it's "out there" with an independent existence all of
its own. It's "the real world", by God.
> >My point of view on all this is Kantian.
>
> I don't recall Kant addressing this point. AFAIK he had no idea of
> the universe existing for billions of years without people in it.
> Beware solipsism!
>
No, I meant that Kant first brought up the issue of categories of the
mind which constrain us to slice and dice the world into conveniently
understood but arbitrary pieces. We can never truly know
"things-in-themselves" because these things are processed beyond
recognition by the machinery of our minds and our senses.
This isn't solipism. It's true realism, and today's cognitive science
is starting to discover that Kant was right. As far as I'm concerned,
Kant was the first cognitive scientist.
> >> Not to worry - research continues. Check the _Science_ news focus for
> >> 22 June, especially the article on the microwave anisotropy probe:
> >> Peering Backward to the Cosmo's Fiery Birth P 2236-2238
> >> You may be interested in the opening metaphore:
> >> "The universe has walls of fire. No matter where astronmers point
> >> there telescopes, they see a distant sheet of light surrounding us."
> >>
> >
> >Yeah, right -- walls of fire burning at a temperature near absolute
> >zero. I prefer the metaphor "walls of ice-cold fire." "Sheet of
> >light" is misleading since this is microwave radiation we're talking
> >about, not radiation in the visible region.
>
> Rats! The hope was to provoke you & DH to read it.
> Anyway you understand that due to regularities over billions of years,
> the very hot signal of the Big Bang has shifted to the microwave
> range.
>
On the conventional level (back to it again), sure, I agree. What was
so interesting about yet another article on the CMBR? This topic has
been discussed to death.
dkomo
My short answer to this is I don't believe the laws are out there, nor
are they everywhere, nor do they create the universe, nor are they the
rules under which we and everything else operates. These laws, these
theories, are *our* explanations for how things work. They are
abstractions.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this. I have one
religion and you have another.
Marty Fouts
"Androcles" <andr...@home.com> writes:
> "Marty Fouts" <usene...@usa.net> wrote in message
[snip]
> > > It is if both the source and the light it emits is moving in a
> > > vacuum.
> >
> > Not particularly. Such measurements, involving lasers and space craft
> > are routinely done.
> No they are not! You don't go around with a theodolite in your hand
> measuring the height of a building every day to routinely check if
> it's changed. You measure it once, and that's it.
You do if you're doing structural engineering research on the
building. For instance, the engineers in Pisa routinely measure the
height of their tower, having, in fact, stuck a lot of measuring gear
in it just for that purpose.
[snip]
> If an Earthbased laser then routinely measures the Earth-Moon distance,
> it isn't to measure the velocity of light from a moving Moon, because
> that is assumed. It is to time the flight of the laser and compute the
> distance.
I don't recall mentioning the Apollo program, or the Earth-Moon laser
measurements. You do understand that demonstrating that such
measurements weren't made in one instance is not the same thing as
demonstrating that they are not made at all, I assume.
> >
> > > The point here is that Einstein has asserted the velocity of light
> > > in empty space is independent of the motion of the source. Nobody is
> > > going to doubt that you can measure the speed of a bullet from a gun
> > > when the gun is stationary with respect to your detectors, and if
> > > fired from a fast moving plane you would expect to find a different
> > > speed. However, it is a different matter for light. I've heard it
> > > claimed that electrons passing though a magnetic field emit light,
> > > and the speed of the light isn't affected by the speed of the
> > > electrons, thus "proving" Einstein.
> >
> > <sigh> I don't know what you've heard, but what experiments like that
> > support is the observation that velocity is not vector-additive.
> Bigger sigh. What experiments? I don't know what you've heard,
> but I don't know of ANY that have measured the speed of light from
> a moving source in a vacuum.
Really? You do realize that an argument from ignorance is a logical
fallacy, don't you?
> I really don't care how many times or in what way you measure the
> speed of light when the source and the detector are at rest, you'll
> always get the right answer.
At rest with respect to what? None of the times that I measured the
speed of light were any of the sources or detectors at absolute
rest. On a few occasions I've done it when the source and the
detectors weren't even at rest relative to each other.
> However, that neither supports nor denies vector addition of
> velocities, and those who claim it does are merely demonstrating
> their own prejudice as bias.
That's an amusing assertion. Would you care to explain how showing
that the velocity of the source of a photon with respect to the
detector has no impact on the velocity of the photon does not
demonstrate that there is no vector additive relationship at near
relativistic velocities?
[snip]
> > > To test Einstein's claim, you need a source of light that is
> > > moving in a vacuum, with a velocity sufficiently high as to
> > > render the result beyond experimental error, and you cannot use
> > > doppler shift either, because that would be indicative of either
> > > the Galilean model or the Einsteinian model being correct.
> >
> > That's one test. It is difficult, but it has been done.
> Then name the experiment!
I did. You do understand that Michelson's experiment has a velocity
component due to the relative motion of the earth, which changes over
the course of the experiment, don't you?
>
> > There's an equivalent formulation that verifies whether time
> > dilation occurs or not. The effect is sufficiently pronounced that
> > it needs to be accounted for in the GPS system.
> More nonsense. The GPS is routinely uploaded with data to compensate
> for any perturbation in the orbits of the satellites, and its clocks
> remains in synch with Earth time. It wouldn't work if it didn't. No
> clock is perfect, engineers recognize that fact, and if one of them
> ticks faster or slower than standard it is simply set to the right
> time, as you would do with your wristwatch.
You are confusing two things. Perhaps you are unaware of the time
dilation experiments? You might want to search the web for them,
they're described in many places.
>
> >
> > > So yes, the relativist pretends to be able to measure the speed
> > > of light, but has never actually done so from a moving source in
> > > vacuum.
> >
> > The speed of light in a vacuum was first measured by Michelson.
> No it wasn't. It was first measured by Roemer in 1675.
Fair enough.
[snip]
> > I think you mean by a source moving at a significant fraction of
> > the speed of light. Experiments that demonstrate that velocity
> > near light speed is not vector additive have been done in particle
> > accelerators.
> Goofy experiments that assume the result in the first place.
If the method is valid it doesn't matter whether the researcher set
out with an intent to prove a point or not.
[snip]
> And it IS meaningless. If light crawled across my desk taking a
> second to do so, I'd have to say my desk was 300,000 Km wide. I'll
> stick to the wooden ruler, thanks, its more reliable.
Only if you kept your desk in a vacuum. But you're making a domain of
discourse error. The interesting point isn't what we claim the value
to be in arbitrary units, the interesting point is that, in fact,
velocity is not vector additive at near light speed.
>
> > Today high energy physicists at CERN and Fermilab routinely
> > accelerate particles to within a whisper of the speed of
> > light. A dependence of the speed of light on reference frames
> > would have shown up long ago unless it is very slight indeed.
> Of course it wouldn't. Nobody accelerated the frame of reference.
Again not true. Comparisons in accelerating frames of reference have
been made.
> > If you are going to make a Galilean-relativistic argument against
> > general relativity, it is going to have to be based on assertions
> > of absolute time, something for which the evidence is strongly
> > against.
> If you are going to make assertions that the speed of light is
> independent of the motion of the source then perform an experiment
> to test it, because the evidence from astronomy (and logic) is
> strongly against it.
The relevant experiment has been done. You might want to look at
Alvager F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters
12, 260 (1964)
Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, p. 147
(1964)
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135, 1071 B (1964)
K. Brecher, Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of
the Source? Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977)
or for time dilation, see
Muons: Rossi and Hoag, Physical Review 57, p. 461 (1940)
Rossi and Hall, Physical Review 59, p. 223 (1941)
Lifetime measured at rest : Rasetti, Physical Review 60, p. 198
(1941)
(first historical experiments)
Pions: Durbin, Loar and Havens, Physical Review 88, p. 179 (1952)
D. Frisch and J. Smith, Measurement of the Relativistic Time
Dilation Using Mesons Am. J. Phys. 31 (1963) 342.
> See
> http://members.home.net/androcles/
I did. You've got a broken link, a handful of unsupported assertions,
a confused discussion of one of Martin Gardner's confused examples,
and some badly done math. What was I supposed to find there?
Marty Fouts
"Androcles" <andr...@home.com> writes:
[snip]
> Correct, but which is more ignorant? A that claims the experiment
> but cannot name it, or B that says prove the claim? A is making
> outlandish claims he cannot support. The claim that the experiment
> has been done is the excrement of the male bovine, A argues from
> lies as well as ignorance. A is a liar attempting to win scientific
> argument by bluff and arrogance, and I'm calling A on it.
Ad hominem is no more better logic than argument from ignornance, but
clearer recommendation that it's source be ignored. I have posted
elsewhere in the thread references to a half dozen published peer
reviewed articles that support the assertion made, and have no more
inclination to spend time with a troll.
*plonk*
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 7 Aug 2001 02:51:52 -0400, "Androcles" <andr...@home.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I just don't see any sound reason to single it out as an exception.
>All I can say is that it does not conflict with empirical evidence and is a
>simpler model, much as the geocentric model is simpler than the heliocentric
>model.
The geocentric model is simpler than the heliocentric model? Did you
_really_ mean to say this (yes, I know about the extra epicycles in a
heliocentric model with circular rather than elliptical orbits, this
makes the heliocentric -with-ciruclar-orbits model only approximately
as complex as the geocentric model, if you ignore the phases of Venus
and Mercury, focaults pendulums and stellar parallax)
>The Einstein model requires
>1) Some stars to pulsate regularly, puffing up and down like blowfish,
This is not a requirement of any Einsteinian model, it is an
_observation_ (now directly conferred with speckle interferometry) of
stellar behavior, which is adequately explained by atomic physics
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v31n3/aas194/959.htm
http://huey.jpl.nasa.gov/~gerard/postscript/van_belle+_1996_aj_112_2147.pdf
(WARNING 1.2 meg file)
>2) Some stars to explode, settle back to normal and explode again and again,
Again, this is an _observation_ of the behavior of close binaries
where one star is a white dwarf or neutron star. (mostly white dwarfs
though). Again, there is nothing particularly Einsteinian about it, it
involves more or less standard hydrodynamics and fusion physics).
http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_4a.html
http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_4a2.html
http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_astro/gal/cv_beginners.html
http://sunkl.asu.cas.cz/~kubat/AIB/AIB.html
>3) Stars like Mira to have tails like a cat or dog,
Mira is a fairly standard pulsating star. I think you have the
accretion disk around it's white dwarf companion mixed up with Mira
itself (Mira, is a pulsating variable, not an eclipsing variable, the
companion doesn't cross our line of sight)
http://www.skypub.com/news/010608.html
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/26/a.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970813.html (this may be the "tail"
you are referring to, which may be part of the accretion disk, or
uneven illumination of the atmosphere)
This is a feature of Mira as a close binary, rather than Mira style
variables. It is not any way Einsteinian.
>4) Galaxies to be accelerating away in a finite unbounded Universe,
>and further conjectures:
>5) Men to have Alpha Centauri come to them (there being no universal frame),
>a distance of 4 light-years in 3 years at less than the speed of light,
>while we figure they'll take 5 years at 0.8c to go to Alpha Centauri.
Since Alpha Centarui isn't moving in our direction, this won't happen.
>In the Galilean model, these exotic concepts vanish.
>1) The pulsation of the star is an illusion, caused by it's light reaching
>us at a velocity that varies as a function of the orbit, making the star appear
>to vary in intensity,
Except that we have a very good observational base for these stars,
and the spectra of the pulsations doesn't agree with your
interpretation (and most of these stars aren't "orbiting" anything for
their line of sight velocity to vary), not to mention the fact we have
directly measured the diameter of some of these stars, and guess what,
their diameter varies!
>2) The recurrent novae is the same thing at a greater distance with longer
>period,
Again, everything we know about the periodicity and spectra of these
recurrent novae is completely incompatible with your explanation (for
example, the period of the novae is irregular, and tens of times
longer than the orbital period of the binary system that generates the
nova.
>3) the smearing of Mira is caused by seeing the star in multiple positions
>at the same time as its velocity changed in its orbit and taking spin into
>consideration,
Won't explain the Hubble image at all, its a fairly discrete spot
rather than the kind of "smear" that you talk about, and is very small
in relation to its orbit.
[snip rest]
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Donald Hamilton
The laws (phenomena) are not abstractions - We live our lives totally
under the control of all of the laws. How could we operate without
gravity that keeps us 'gluded' to the Earth or sunlight that helps
make life possible, etc. The abstractions you are talking about are
only the mathematical explanations that help us understand why things
happen in our worlds. Absolutely every part of our life and everything
else is controlled by the 'Laws (phenomena) of Nature'.
Don Hamilton
http://novan.com
Jack Martinelli
"Richard Uhrich" <uhr...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B7083EA...@san.rr.com...
>
>
> Jack Martinelli wrote:
> >
> > dl...@prodigy.net (Donald Hamilton) wrote in message
news:<6f995fdf.01080...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?
> > >
> > [..]
> > > Either the galaxies are being pushed by 'dark energy' or they are
> > > simply falling toward the boundary of a finite universe attracted by a
> > > gravity-like super force located at the boundary.
> >
> > We can't say in an absolute sense that the universe is expanding.
>
> Jack, this seems like deja vu; perhaps we discussed this before. In any
> case, keep in mind that our "measuring tools" aren't putatively
> shrinking yardsticks, but the frequency of light.
Anything that is line-like may be used as a "ruler". E.g., two electrons,
or
two galaxies. No rules here. Any definitions that do not depend on what
we think, believe or feel can serve us. Any other choice makes your
definition parasitic on the meaning in your head. And what goes on
in your head (or mine) is not easily reproducible.
Light is only one ruler. For generality we need to consider all possible
rulers.
dkomo
I don't understand how you can say they're not abstractions. Newton
conceived of gravity as a force between lumps of matter. Einstein
came along and did away with the idea of gravity as a force. Instead,
lumps of matter create a curvature in space-time which forces other
lumps of matter to move in certain trajectories through this
curvature. In a hundred years (or possibly quite a bit sooner), we'll
view gravity in an entirely different way, possibly as an exchange of
gravitons, or as a mode of vibration of tiny superstrings in
11-dimensional hyperspaces. We're not just talking mathematical
models here. These are very basically different ways of *picturing*
(in our minds) "gravity."
Do you think a Yamamoto Indian has a concept of gravity? I think if
it were such an objective phenomenon as you claim, even this Amazon
dwelling resident would recognize it. Instead, the Indian has a large
collection of rules about *his* world. For example, he knows that if
he throws a spear in a certain way, it will follow a certain path and
strike the desired target. He knows that if he slips off a tall tree
he will hit the ground hard. He never thinks "ah, obviously gravity
is causing these things to happen in the ways that they do."
Androcles
>
> "Androcles" <andr...@home.com> writes:
>
> > "Marty Fouts" <usene...@usa.net> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > It is if both the source and the light it emits is moving in a
> > > > vacuum.
> > >
> > > Not particularly. Such measurements, involving lasers and space craft
> > > are routinely done.
>
> > No they are not! You don't go around with a theodolite in your hand
> > measuring the height of a building every day to routinely check if
> > it's changed. You measure it once, and that's it.
>
> You do if you're doing structural engineering research on the
> building. For instance, the engineers in Pisa routinely measure the
> height of their tower, having, in fact, stuck a lot of measuring gear
> in it just for that purpose.
":Such measurements, involving lasers and space craft are routinely done."
Your claim is false.
> [snip]
>
> > If an Earthbased laser then routinely measures the Earth-Moon distance,
> > it isn't to measure the velocity of light from a moving Moon, because
> > that is assumed. It is to time the flight of the laser and compute the
> > distance.
>
> I don't recall mentioning the Apollo program, or the Earth-Moon laser
> measurements. You do understand that demonstrating that such
> measurements weren't made in one instance is not the same thing as
> demonstrating that they are not made at all, I assume.
You claim is
":Such measurements, involving lasers and space craft are routinely done."
Your claim is false.
> > > >
> > > > The point here is that Einstein has asserted the velocity of light
> > > > in empty space is independent of the motion of the source. Nobody is
> > > > going to doubt that you can measure the speed of a bullet from a gun
> > > > when the gun is stationary with respect to your detectors, and if
> > > > fired from a fast moving plane you would expect to find a different
> > > > speed. However, it is a different matter for light. I've heard it
> > > > claimed that electrons passing though a magnetic field emit light,
> > > > and the speed of the light isn't affected by the speed of the
> > > > electrons, thus "proving" Einstein.
> > >
> > > <sigh> I don't know what you've heard, but what experiments like that
> > > support is the observation that velocity is not vector-additive.
>
> > Bigger sigh. What experiments? I don't know what you've heard,
> > but I don't know of ANY that have measured the speed of light from
> > a moving source in a vacuum.
>
> Really? You do realize that an argument from ignorance is a logical
> fallacy, don't you?
You do realize that arguing from lies shows a complete lack of integrity,
don't you?
> > I really don't care how many times or in what way you measure the
> > speed of light when the source and the detector are at rest, you'll
> > always get the right answer.
>
> At rest with respect to what?
Each other, dingbat! What else did I mention besides source and detector?
> None of the times that I measured the
> speed of light were any of the sources or detectors at absolute
> rest.
If you attempted it without the source being at rest with respect to the
detector, you would have found an incorrect result.
> On a few occasions I've done it when the source and the
> detectors weren't even at rest relative to each other.
Then the result you obtained was "within the limits of experimental error",
and not the true speed of light.
> > However, that neither supports nor denies vector addition of
> > velocities, and those who claim it does are merely demonstrating
> > their own prejudice as bias.
>
> That's an amusing assertion. Would you care to explain how showing
> that the velocity of the source of a photon with respect to the
> detector has no impact on the velocity of the photon does not
> demonstrate that there is no vector additive relationship at near
> relativistic velocities?
Sure. In very simple language. A experiment with source and detector
relatively at rest cannot show the result of an experiment with source and
detector in relative motion.
> [snip]
>
> > > > To test Einstein's claim, you need a source of light that is
> > > > moving in a vacuum, with a velocity sufficiently high as to
> > > > render the result beyond experimental error, and you cannot use
> > > > doppler shift either, because that would be indicative of either
> > > > the Galilean model or the Einsteinian model being correct.
> > >
> > > That's one test. It is difficult, but it has been done.
> > Then name the experiment!
>
> I did. You do understand that Michelson's experiment has a velocity
> component due to the relative motion of the earth, which changes over
> the course of the experiment, don't you?
LOL!!!
The source and the detector are relatively at rest in all of Michelson's
experiments! What does the motion of the earth have to do with anything?
You really don't understand the principle of relativity, do you? I said "To
test Einstein's claim, you need a source of light that is moving in a
vacuum..."
By 'moving' I implied moving with respect to the observer. Obviously it has
nothing to do with the motion of the Earth, with observer at rest with
respect to the source, because that isn't 'moving'. I think you are a troll.
> >
> > > There's an equivalent formulation that verifies whether time
> > > dilation occurs or not. The effect is sufficiently pronounced that
> > > it needs to be accounted for in the GPS system.
>
> > More nonsense. The GPS is routinely uploaded with data to compensate
> > for any perturbation in the orbits of the satellites, and its clocks
> > remains in synch with Earth time. It wouldn't work if it didn't. No
> > clock is perfect, engineers recognize that fact, and if one of them
> > ticks faster or slower than standard it is simply set to the right
> > time, as you would do with your wristwatch.
>
> You are confusing two things. Perhaps you are unaware of the time
> dilation experiments? You might want to search the web for them,
> they're described in many places.
I'm aware that I can derive time contraction from Einstein's paper just as
easily as he can derive time dilation.
Wanna see? Just look in the right place.
http://members.home.com/androcles/fumble.html
> >
> > >
> > > > So yes, the relativist pretends to be able to measure the speed
> > > > of light, but has never actually done so from a moving source in
> > > > vacuum.
> > >
> > > The speed of light in a vacuum was first measured by Michelson.
> > No it wasn't. It was first measured by Roemer in 1675.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I think you mean by a source moving at a significant fraction of
> > > the speed of light. Experiments that demonstrate that velocity
> > > near light speed is not vector additive have been done in particle
> > > accelerators.
>
> > Goofy experiments that assume the result in the first place.
>
> If the method is valid it doesn't matter whether the researcher set
> out with an intent to prove a point or not.
And if the method isn't valid?
> [snip]
>
> > And it IS meaningless. If light crawled across my desk taking a
> > second to do so, I'd have to say my desk was 300,000 Km wide. I'll
> > stick to the wooden ruler, thanks, its more reliable.
>
> Only if you kept your desk in a vacuum. But you're making a domain of
> discourse error. The interesting point isn't what we claim the value
> to be in arbitrary units, the interesting point is that, in fact,
> velocity is not vector additive at near light speed.
Can you prove that without using a circular argument?
>
> >
> > > Today high energy physicists at CERN and Fermilab routinely
> > > accelerate particles to within a whisper of the speed of
> > > light. A dependence of the speed of light on reference frames
> > > would have shown up long ago unless it is very slight indeed.
>
> > Of course it wouldn't. Nobody accelerated the frame of reference.
>
> Again not true. Comparisons in accelerating frames of reference have
> been made.
Name the experiment.
Granted the site needs some repairs, but it is Einstein that has the
unsupported assertion. Just what assertions have I made that are
unsupported? "You are a troll" is clearly supported by your attitude. As to
the math, in what way is it "badly done"? You don't like the result, so that
makes it bad?
Donald Hamilton
> > under the control of all of the laws. How could we operate without
> > gravity that keeps us 'gluded' to the Earth or sunlight that helps
> > make life possible, etc. The abstractions you are talking about are
> > only the mathematical explanations that help us understand why things
> > happen in our worlds. Absolutely every part of our life and everything
> > else is controlled by the 'Laws (phenomena) of Nature'.
> >
>
> I don't understand how you can say they're not abstractions. Newton
> conceived of gravity as a force between lumps of matter. Einstein
> came along and did away with the idea of gravity as a force. Instead,
> lumps of matter create a curvature in space-time which forces other
> lumps of matter to move in certain trajectories through this
> curvature. In a hundred years (or possibly quite a bit sooner), we'll
> view gravity in an entirely different way, possibly as an exchange of
> gravitons, or as a mode of vibration of tiny superstrings in
> 11-dimensional hyperspaces. We're not just talking mathematical
> models here. These are very basically different ways of *picturing*
> (in our minds) "gravity."
But we still exist under the complete control of the of phenomena
(law) of gravity. No matter what we call it or how we explain it - we
can't ignore its effects on us. The formulas and theories Newton and
Einstein are just mathematical abstractions created by the human mind
to help us understand and predict the effects of this phenomena.
>
> Do you think a Yamamoto Indian has a concept of gravity? I think if
> it were such an objective phenomenon as you claim, even this Amazon
> dwelling resident would recognize it. Instead, the Indian has a large
> collection of rules about *his* world. For example, he knows that if
> he throws a spear in a certain way, it will follow a certain path and
> strike the desired target. He knows that if he slips off a tall tree
> he will hit the ground hard. He never thinks "ah, obviously gravity
> is causing these things to happen in the ways that they do."
He knows that he lives under a phenomena that will cause his spear's
trajectory to follow a certain path or if he slips out of a tree he
will fall to earth - he may or may not have a name for that phenomena
BUT he sure can't ignore it.
Don Hamilton
http://novan.com/articles.htm
Ken Cox
> > because it's sinking on its foundations, or -- to pick a
> > moderately famous example -- tilting. Then you might go
> > as far as to install a system of monitors to continuously
> > measure the height or angle.
> Of course. That would be a matter of routine to measure the height
> of the building. It would not be a matter of routine to measure the speed of
> light.
But it *is* routine to measure the speed of light. The National
Bureau of Standards does it all the time. This is not because
they think the speed is changing, but to calibrate their measuring
devices.
Similarly, physicists measure the speed of light frequently; not
as a direct measurement, but as a consequence of their experiments.
Particle accelerators are *designed* with the speed of light, and
the way that distances and times change near light speed, in mind.
If the speed of light were not the same in all reference frames,
or if the relativistic equations were wrong, the equipment would
not work. But it does.
> And you assume the distance you measure a correct, because you rely upon the
> speed of light being constant, which, for all puposes in this case, it is.
> Earth and Moon will not change distance dramatically in 2*230,000/180,000
> seconds.
I'm not following. Why would a change in the distance between the
Earth and Moon have anything to do with a change in the speed of
light? By the way, you do know that you can measure relative
velocities using electromagnetic radiation, don't you? It's most
commonly used in police speed radars, but there are also versions
that work with visible light.
> > Generally, if person A says "these experiments have shown
> > effect X", and person B says "I've never heard of those
> > experiments", B's statement is *not* considered evidence
> > against effect X. It's not even considered to have any
> > bearing on the reality of effect X.
>
> Correct, but which is more ignorant? A that claims the experiment but cannot
> name it, or B that says prove the claim?
You didn't say "prove the claim". You said "I don't know what
you've heard, but I don't know of ANY [experiments] that have
measured the speed of light from a moving source in a vacuum."
That's classic argument from ignorance -- you are setting forth
what you know as if it were the sum total of human knowledge.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> On 6 Aug 2001 11:44:00 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
> >Dunk wrote:
> >> There were no regularities before we came along?
> >I don't know.
> Sure you do. Have you considered the implications of NO regularities?
> You know from geology that physics, chemistry, and more have been
> regular for billions of years.
Along these lines, you might enjoy Greg Egan's science-fiction
novel _Distress_.
Rot-13 spoilers:
Rtna'f abiry vf nobhg gur qrirybczrag bs n GBR, be Gurbel
bs Rirelguvat. (Vg'f nyfb nobhg n ybg bs bgure guvatf, ohg
gung'f gur cneg gung'f eryrinag gb guvf guernq.) Guvf vf n
*erny* GBR -- abg bayl qbrf vg rkcynva nyy bs culfvpf, ohg
vg rkcynvaf vgfrys nf n ybtvpny naq arprffnel bhgpbzr bs
gur culfvpf gung vg qrfpevorf. Va ghea, gur GBR fubjf gung
gur rkvfgrapr bs gur GBR -- vgf sbezhyngvba naq haqrefgnaqvat
ol fbzrbar -- vf arprffnel sbe gur havirefr gb rkvfg. Vs
gurer jrer ab crefba jub haqrefgbbq gur GBR, ab "xrlfgbar",
gurer jbhyq or ab havirefr.
Va guvf Rtna pbfzbybtl, rirelguvat orsber gur zbzrag jura
gur GBR jnf haqrefgbbq rkvfgf orpnhfr vg vf arprffnel sbe
gung zbzrag. Gur GBR erdhverf n xrlfgbar, juvpu vzcyvrf n
zvaq bs n pregnva pbzcyrkvgl naq xabjyrqtr, juvpu vzcyvrf
nyy fbegf bs guvatf nobhg arheny fgehpgherf naq pvivyvmngvba,
juvpu vzcyvrf rira zber guvatf nobhg betnavfzf naq pryyf naq
uvfgbel naq rzoelbavp qrirybczrag naq frys-ercyvpngvba naq
gur ribyhgvba bs fcrpvrf naq gur cebcregvrf bs cebgrvaf naq
gur purzvfgel bs pneoba naq gur rkvfgrapr bs fhcreabinr naq
gur culfvpf bs fhongbzvp cnegvpyrf naq fcnpr-gvzr -- naq gur
ynfg bs gubfr ner jung vf qrfpevorq ol gur GBR.
Guvf nyfb nafjref na byq dhrfgvba -- jul vf gur havirefr
haqrefgnaqnoyr? Jul ner gurer ynjf, naq jul ner gurl fvzcyr
rabhtu gung uhznaf pna tenfc gurz? Orpnhfr, vs gurl jrer
zber pbzcyrk, uhznaf pbhyq abg tenfc gurz, naq pbhyq abg
sbezhyngr n GBR. Gur ynjf ner nf fvzcyr nf gurl pna or,
naq ab fvzcyre, gb rkcynva gur rkvfgrapr bs gur xrlfgbar.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
> > "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > > Unless, of course, the height of the building is changing
> > > because it's sinking on its foundations, or -- to pick a
> > > moderately famous example -- tilting. Then you might go
> > > as far as to install a system of monitors to continuously
> > > measure the height or angle.
>
> > Of course. That would be a matter of routine to measure the height
> > of the building. It would not be a matter of routine to measure the
speed of
> > light.
>
> But it *is* routine to measure the speed of light. The National
> Bureau of Standards does it all the time. This is not because
> they think the speed is changing, but to calibrate their measuring
> devices.
OBSERVER IT HASN"T! Sheesh! That has NEVER been done, let alone routinely
done! Why don't you just snip out what I said in the first place and then
change the subject?
I'll repeat what I said:
"The point here is that Einstein has asserted the velocity of light in
empty space is independent of the motion of the source."
In answer to that, see
http://members.home.net/androcles/dark2
where it is quite apparent that the incorrect doppler shift Einstein has
thrust upon Astronomers actually causes them to believe in such idiocies as
dark matter, an expanding Universe, stars with tails, stars that puff up
like blowfish, stars that blow up then settle back to normal and blow up
again, and a host of other mysterious phenomena that nobody will ever be
able to explain while they retain his absurd model. I mean really, how much
intelligence does it actually take to see through the clown and his
ridiculous assertion?
Remainder snipped as off topic.
dkomo
>
> Androcles wrote:
> > "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > > Unless, of course, the height of the building is changing
> > > because it's sinking on its foundations, or -- to pick a
> > > moderately famous example -- tilting. Then you might go
> > > as far as to install a system of monitors to continuously
> > > measure the height or angle.
>
> > Of course. That would be a matter of routine to measure the height
> > of the building. It would not be a matter of routine to measure the speed of
> > light.
>
> But it *is* routine to measure the speed of light. The National
> Bureau of Standards does it all the time. This is not because
> they think the speed is changing, but to calibrate their measuring
> devices.
>
> Similarly, physicists measure the speed of light frequently; not
> as a direct measurement, but as a consequence of their experiments.
> Particle accelerators are *designed* with the speed of light, and
> the way that distances and times change near light speed, in mind.
> If the speed of light were not the same in all reference frames,
> or if the relativistic equations were wrong, the equipment would
> not work. But it does.
>
Even more basic, the invariance of the speed of light is one of the
two fundamental postulates of special relativity. If it weren't true,
*all* the predictions of special relativity would be wrong. For
example, the prediction of time dilation would be wrong, but time
dilation is routinely seen in the large increase of lifetimes of
subatomic particles moving close to the speed of light.
Ken Cox
> "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > But it *is* routine to measure the speed of light. The National
> > Bureau of Standards does it all the time. This is not because
> > they think the speed is changing, but to calibrate their measuring
> > devices.
> NOT FROM A SOURCE IN A VACUUM IN RELATIVE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
> OBSERVER IT HASN"T!
YES IT HAS. The accelerator tunnels are in vacuum. The
particles in the tunnels are moving with respect to the
observer. The masses and decay rates of these particles
change as predicted by relativity.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Alan Morgan
Androcles <andr...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>news:3B72A0D6...@research.bell-labs.com...
>> Androcles wrote:
>> > "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>> > > Unless, of course, the height of the building is changing
>> > > because it's sinking on its foundations, or -- to pick a
>> > > moderately famous example -- tilting. Then you might go
>> > > as far as to install a system of monitors to continuously
>> > > measure the height or angle.
>>
>> > Of course. That would be a matter of routine to measure the height
>> > of the building. It would not be a matter of routine to measure the
>speed of
>> > light.
>>
>> But it *is* routine to measure the speed of light. The National
>> Bureau of Standards does it all the time. This is not because
>> they think the speed is changing, but to calibrate their measuring
>> devices.
>NOT FROM A SOURCE IN A VACUUM IN RELATIVE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
>OBSERVER IT HASN"T! Sheesh! That has NEVER been done, let alone routinely
>done! Why don't you just snip out what I said in the first place and then
>change the subject?
I thought I'd already posted this, but I guess not. The speed of
photons emitted by pions moving at a substantial fraction of the speed
of light was measured in an experiment in 1964. To the surprise of
no one, the photons moved at 'c' relative to the observers.
Here's the reference that I found:
http://www.phys.uidaho.edu/~pbickers/Courses/310/Notes/book/node51.html
T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, ``Test of
the Second Postulate of Relativity in the GeV Region'' Phys. Lett.
12 260-262 (1964);
I await your response with interest.
Alan
Tom Roberts
> NOT FROM A SOURCE IN A VACUUM IN RELATIVE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
> OBSERVER IT HASN"T!
You continually repeat this falsehood. Look up these experiments in the FAQ:
Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources
If the light emitted from a source moving with velocity v toward the observer
has a speed c+kv in the observer's frame, then these experiments place a
limit on k.
Experiments Using Cosmological Sources
Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), p267.
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, p.1297-1298
(1913);
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, p.395 - 396
(1913).
Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), p1.
Observations of binary stars. k < 10-6.
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?",
Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-
velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2*10-9.
Heckmann, Ann. D'. Astrophys. 23 (1960), p410.
Differential aberration, galaxies vs stars.
These experiments are all subject to criticism due to extinction effects in
the interstellar gas; see for instance J.G. Fox Am. J. Phys. 30, p297 (1962);
AJP 33, 1 (1964). The standard reference for optical extinction is Born and
Wolf, Principles of Optics.
Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources
Beckmann and Mandies, Radio. Sci. 69D (1965), p623.
A moving mirror experiment.
Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (
1964).
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0
(~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million.
Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), p271.
Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e- annihilation (with
center-of-mass v/c ~ 0.5) to be c within 10%.
Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, p. 147 (1964).
-
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), p B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.2 c)
in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects.
Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v,
and are consistent with SR.
Because of the high energies of the gammas in Alvaeger, extinction is not a
problem for it; Filipas and Fox specifically designed their experiment to
avoid extinction.
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 9 Aug 2001 11:44:12 -0400, "Androcles" <andr...@home.com> wrote:
>"Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>news:3B72A0D6...@research.bell-labs.com...
>> Androcles wrote:
>> > "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>> > > Unless, of course, the height of the building is changing
>> > > because it's sinking on its foundations, or -- to pick a
>> > > moderately famous example -- tilting. Then you might go
>> > > as far as to install a system of monitors to continuously
>> > > measure the height or angle.
>>
>> > Of course. That would be a matter of routine to measure the height
>> > of the building. It would not be a matter of routine to measure the speed of
>> > light.
>>
>> But it *is* routine to measure the speed of light. The National
>> Bureau of Standards does it all the time. This is not because
>> they think the speed is changing, but to calibrate their measuring
>> devices.
>NOT FROM A SOURCE IN A VACUUM IN RELATIVE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
>OBSERVER IT HASN"T! Sheesh! That has NEVER been done,
Well, by now people have posted several refernces to the primary
literature where it has
>let alone routinely
>done! Why don't you just snip out what I said in the first place and then
>change the subject?
>I'll repeat what I said:
>"The point here is that Einstein has asserted the velocity of light in
>empty space is independent of the motion of the source."
>The title of this thread is: "Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?".
>In answer to that, see
>http://members.home.net/androcles/dark2
>where it is quite apparent that the incorrect doppler shift Einstein has
>thrust upon Astronomers actually causes them to believe in such idiocies as
>dark matter, an expanding Universe,
Uhh, Doppler shift has been observed, and correlated with expectations
from theory, they even use doppler corrections in spacecraft radio
transmissions (it's something they have to account for in Mars probes
_as_ _well_ _as_ the transmission time delay, because the doppler
effect shifts the transmission out of the frequency that the narrow
band recievers can hear, if the orbit isn't set up correctly).
>stars with tails,
This may be the tail you refere to
http://www.skypub.com/news/010608.html
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/26/a.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970813.html
which may be part of the accretion disk in this bibary system, or
uneven illumination of the atmosphere of the red giant by the white
dwarf, it's not accounted for by dopple phenomena, and not
Particularly Einsteinien.
>stars that puff up like blowfish,
Directly measured. This is not a requirement of any Einsteinian model,
it is an _observation_ of stellar behavior, which is adequately
explained by atomic physics
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v31n3/aas194/959.htm
http://huey.jpl.nasa.gov/~gerard/postscript/van_belle+_1996_aj_112_2147.pdf
(WARNING 1.2 meg file)
>stars that blow up then settle back to normal and blow up
>again,
Again, this is an _observation_ of the behavior of close binaries
where one star is a white dwarf or neutron star. (mostly white dwarfs
though). Again, there is nothing particularly Einsteinian about it, it
involves more or less standard hydrodynamics and fusion physics, where
gas fro the "normal" star falls on the surface of the white dwarf.
http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_4a.html
http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_4a2.html
http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_astro/gal/cv_beginners.html
http://sunkl.asu.cas.cz/~kubat/AIB/AIB.html
Everything we know about the periodicity and spectra of these
recurrent novae is completely incompatible with your explanation (for
example, the period of the novae is irregular, and tens of times
longer than the orbital period of the binary system that generates the
nova.
>and a host of other mysterious phenomena that nobody will ever be
>able to explain while they retain his absurd model. I mean really, how much
>intelligence does it actually take to see through the clown and his
>ridiculous assertion?
What have you got against the actual experimental evidence?
Cheers! Ian
Androcles
> Androcles wrote:
> > "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > > But it *is* routine to measure the speed of light. The National
> > > Bureau of Standards does it all the time. This is not because
> > > they think the speed is changing, but to calibrate their measuring
> > > devices.
>
> > NOT FROM A SOURCE IN A VACUUM IN RELATIVE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
> > OBSERVER IT HASN"T!
>
> YES IT HAS. The accelerator tunnels are in vacuum. The
> particles in the tunnels are moving with respect to the
> observer.
light is emitted from the point of interaction with the apparatus, at rest
with respect to the observer. Should a particle decay while in motion to
emit a photon which by sheer luck just happens to be travelling in the same
direction as the particle (figure the probability that it would be emitted
backwards, sideways, up, down), then you still have no idea where or when
the spontaneous emission took place and cannot measure the time it would
take for the photon to travel the remaining distance to the detector. I
repeat. You have never once measured the speed of light from a moving source
in a vacuum. Not once. Not ever.
> The masses and decay rates of these particles change as predicted by
relativity.
have proven. What you are practicing isn't science, but assumption and faith
in a faulty theory. Relativity can 'predict' just about any result you find,
and you'd claim it valid. I can say the masses and decay rates you find are
consistent with Santa Claus, for all the worth it is.
Androcles
http://www.phys.uidaho.edu/~pbickers/Courses/310/Notes/book/node51.html
says:
"In fact there is good evidence, particularly from astronomical observations
of distant sources, that all forms of light travel at the same rate in
vacuum."
_In fact_ there is no evidence at all from astronomical observations that
all forms of light travel at the same rate in a vacuum. There is evidence to
the contrary. Some radio galaxies appear to be slightly displaced from their
optical counterpart, as a result of proper motion. This has never been
satisfactorily explained. Also, the neutrino shower from the supernova of
1987 arrived before the optical information.
As to the T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin experiment,
what was the velocity of the photons emitted in the opposite direction, and
how was it measured?
What method of measurement was used to determine time of flight?
What was the spread (mean and standard deviation) of the observed
velocities?
What were the frequencies of the photon pair emitted by each pion?
The backward going one should have been zero (or close too it),
by the conservation of momentum, and therefore not in the gamma range.
In short, what assumptions have been made and how has the empirical data
been reduced, because all I can see is an abstract which asserts the result
the experimenters expected to find.
The next page, binary stars, claims:
"Consequently, light could be seen from a star in one position before light
was received from the same star in an earlier position! Thus all sorts of
strange effects could be observed, including ghost images and highly unusual
orbital eccentricities. ". The page goes on to claim: "No such effects are
seen."
Look at the Hubble Space Telescope image of Mira,
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981011.html
and tell me stars have tails.
Such effects ARE seen, but we need a good telescope to do so.
For a further analysis of astronomical sources, we can suppose a point
source of light in an elliptical orbit that obeys the laws of Kepler, and
experiment with a computer as to what the effects supposed would be.
http://members.home.net/androcles/Copernicus.exe
is such a program.
You can enter any data you like, it makes no attempt to follow Kepler's 3rd
law, so if you choose an orbit that circles the sun in 1 day, it will let
you. The results will be garbage if the data is garbage.
Preprogrammed are some sets of data you can use as a starting point.
There is a help page,
http://members.home.net/androcles/help.htm
There is a index page that can steer you around, and there is an analysis on
Dark Matter and its cause.
http://members.home.net/androcles/
and
http://members.home.net/androcles/dark2
Androcles.
"Alan Morgan" <amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:9kuukb$far$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
Androcles
claims relativity to be correct. Once is all that is necessary and
sufficient. Why are you even citing experiments that Fox has already
declared invalid anyway? Certainly deSitter didn't have a clue what he was
talking about, and I won't be burdened with assumptions.
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3B730EBF...@lucent.com...
Androcles
"Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote
in message news:Zy5zO6q5DvkMwq...@4ax.com...
> G'Day All
> Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
> On 9 Aug 2001 11:44:12 -0400, "Androcles" <andr...@home.com> wrote:
> >"Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> >news:3B72A0D6...@research.bell-labs.com...
> >> Androcles wrote:
> >> > "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> >> > > Unless, of course, the height of the building is changing
> >> > > because it's sinking on its foundations, or -- to pick a
> >> > > moderately famous example -- tilting. Then you might go
> >> > > as far as to install a system of monitors to continuously
> >> > > measure the height or angle.
> >>
> >> > Of course. That would be a matter of routine to measure the height
> >> > of the building. It would not be a matter of routine to measure the
speed of
> >> > light.
> >>
> >> But it *is* routine to measure the speed of light. The National
> >> Bureau of Standards does it all the time. This is not because
> >> they think the speed is changing, but to calibrate their measuring
> >> devices.
> >NOT FROM A SOURCE IN A VACUUM IN RELATIVE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
> >OBSERVER IT HASN"T! Sheesh! That has NEVER been done,
>
> Well, by now people have posted several refernces to the primary
> literature where it has
>
> >let alone routinely
> >done! Why don't you just snip out what I said in the first place and then
> >change the subject?
> >I'll repeat what I said:
> >"The point here is that Einstein has asserted the velocity of light in
> >empty space is independent of the motion of the source."
> >The title of this thread is: "Falling Galaxies or Dark Energy?".
> >In answer to that, see
> >http://members.home.net/androcles/dark2
> >where it is quite apparent that the incorrect doppler shift Einstein has
> >thrust upon Astronomers actually causes them to believe in such idiocies
as
> >dark matter, an expanding Universe,
>
> Uhh, Doppler shift has been observed,
.... and correlated with expectations from theory,....
Whose theory?
Did you even bother to check the website I mentioned above?
they even use doppler corrections in spacecraft radio
> transmissions (it's something they have to account for in Mars probes
> _as_ _well_ _as_ the transmission time delay, because the doppler
> effect shifts the transmission out of the frequency that the narrow
> band recievers can hear, if the orbit isn't set up correctly).
Of course, but you are dealing with low velocities that give approximately
the same shift for a Galilean model, an Einsteinian model and a Lorentzian
model.
a (red) shift of 0.9999 gives a velocity of:
30.00000000 Galilean
30.00150000 Einsteinian
30.00300030 Lorentzian
and a blue shift of 1.0001 gives
-30.00000 Galilean
-29.99850 Einteinian
-29.99700 Lorentzian
All KM/sec, roughly the tangential speed of the Earth and any spacecraft we
send.
I'm afraid that argument is irrelevant.
> >stars with tails,
>
> This may be the tail you refere to
> http://www.skypub.com/news/010608.html
> http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/26/a.html
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970813.html
> which may be part of the accretion disk in this bibary system, or
> uneven illumination of the atmosphere of the red giant by the white
> dwarf, it's not accounted for by dopple phenomena, and not
> Particularly Einsteinien.
Nope. This one.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981011.html
>
> >stars that puff up like blowfish,
>
> Directly measured. This is not a requirement of any Einsteinian model,
> it is an _observation_ of stellar behavior, which is adequately
> explained by atomic physics
I am afraid the explanation given is based on false assumption, much as I
can explain to a child the existence of presents each year comes from
Santa, with the local news to back me up.
It is a requirement of the Einstein model, because the Einstein model
requires us to see exactly what we do, and fails to account for any
illusion. The Galilean model accepts the speed of light is source dependent,
and therefore produces illusion.
> http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v31n3/aas194/959.htm
>
http://huey.jpl.nasa.gov/~gerard/postscript/van_belle+_1996_aj_112_2147.pdf
> (WARNING 1.2 meg file)
>
> >stars that blow up then settle back to normal and blow up
> >again,
>
> Again, this is an _observation_ of the behavior of close binaries
> where one star is a white dwarf or neutron star. (mostly white dwarfs
> though). Again, there is nothing particularly Einsteinian about it,
It is Einsteinian for the same reason I've given above.
> it
> involves more or less standard hydrodynamics and fusion physics, where
> gas fro the "normal" star falls on the surface of the white dwarf.
>
> http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_4a.html
> http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/space/stellardeath/stellardeath_4a2.html
> http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_astro/gal/cv_beginners.html
> http://sunkl.asu.cas.cz/~kubat/AIB/AIB.html
>
> Everything we know about the periodicity and spectra of these
> recurrent novae is completely incompatible with your explanation (for
> example, the period of the novae is irregular, and tens of times
> longer than the orbital period of the binary system that generates the
> nova.
You haven't taken into account illusion caused by source dependency of the
speed of light.
You are falling back on intuition, that what you see is really there. I am
falling back on the intuition that the velocity of light is constant with
respect to the source. These two intuitions conflict. One of them is wrong.
The one that is wrong is the one that produces illogical results. The one
that produces illogical results is the one that computes time dilation and
time contraction for the same experiment performed in two different ways.
Mirror moves away from source 0 (origin)
-x--------------0-------M->------+x
-x----<--M----0------------------+x
gives time dilation
Mirror moves toward source
-x--------------0-----<--M-------+x
-x------M-->--0------------------+x
gives time contraction. see
http://members.hom.net/androcles/fumble
> >and a host of other mysterious phenomena that nobody will ever be
> >able to explain while they retain his absurd model. I mean really, how
much
> >intelligence does it actually take to see through the clown and his
> >ridiculous assertion?
>
> What have you got against the actual experimental evidence?
Nothing at all. I love experimental evidence. I just hate poor
interpretation of it.
Androcles
> Even more basic, the invariance of the speed of light is one of the
> two fundamental postulates of special relativity. If it weren't true,
> *all* the predictions of special relativity would be wrong. For
> example, the prediction of time dilation would be wrong, but time
> dilation is routinely seen in the large increase of lifetimes of
> subatomic particles moving close to the speed of light.
Relativity predicts time contraction as well as time dilation. See
http://members.home.net/androcles/fumble
and
http://members.home.net/androcles/GARDNER.EXE
Hence all predictions of special relativity *are* wrong.
Ken Cox
> "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > YES IT HAS. The accelerator tunnels are in vacuum. The
> > particles in the tunnels are moving with respect to the
> > observer.
> The particles do not emit light as they are moving.
Some do, for example by decaying and emitting gammas or
other EM. I really encourage you to look at the long
lists of references to the primary literature that have
been posted in this thread.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Alan Morgan
Androcles <andr...@home.com> wrote:
>Here is the first prejudice. This is where the thinking becomes biased.
>http://www.phys.uidaho.edu/~pbickers/Courses/310/Notes/book/node51.html
>says:
>"In fact there is good evidence, particularly from astronomical observations
>of distant sources, that all forms of light travel at the same rate in
>vacuum."
>_In fact_ there is no evidence at all from astronomical observations that
>all forms of light travel at the same rate in a vacuum. There is evidence to
>the contrary. Some radio galaxies appear to be slightly displaced from their
>optical counterpart, as a result of proper motion. This has never been
>satisfactorily explained. Also, the neutrino shower from the supernova of
>1987 arrived before the optical information.
Nothing wrong with that (if they are going close to the speed of light
and generated before the visible light photons).
>As to the T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin experiment,
>what was the velocity of the photons emitted in the opposite direction, and
>how was it measured?
Read the paper.
>What method of measurement was used to determine time of flight?
Read the paper.
>What was the spread (mean and standard deviation) of the observed
>velocities?
Read the paper.
>What were the frequencies of the photon pair emitted by each pion?
Why don't you look up the paper and find out?
It's pretty clear that you are almost completely ignorant on the
subject. You have gone from claiming (loudly) that the experiement
was never, never, never, EVER done to claiming (equally loudly) that
it is flawed. Since you had never heard of the experiment until a
couple of days ago, why should I beleive you when you think it is
flawed?
>The backward going one should have been zero (or close too it),
And, according to your theory, the forward one should have been going
at nearly twice the speed of light. They don't. Bummer for your
theory. An honest man would admit that he was very likely mistaken.
Look, the experiment was done and you said it has never been done.
Find the paper, read up on it and, if you have the background, critique
the paper on its merits.
>by the conservation of momentum, and therefore not in the gamma range.
>In short, what assumptions have been made and how has the empirical data
>been reduced, because all I can see is an abstract which asserts the result
>the experimenters expected to find.
Go to library. Find microfiche. Read paper.
Nah, to hell with it. Why not dismiss the paper, written by men more
intelligent and knowledgable on the subject than you, and continue
arguing from complete and total ignorance of the subject? That's much
easier.
Alan