Man, the curious animal, has always sought the answers to the "what" and the "why" of existence. Not finding them, he is inclined to invent them. Religion has always provided the easiest route. The unknown and unanswerable could always be concealed in mysteries, the inexplicable described as miracles. But the more we learn about ourselves and the universe around us, the less satisfactory religion becomes. Religion is on the verge of becoming irrelevant. Real answers are needed so here comes physics, cosmology, astrophysics, and a host of related synods. But, in the process, physical science has also found it necessary to "fill in the blanks" with it's own saints, bishops, mysteries, and even a creation theory. In the end, this only serves to close the mind to real exploration and discovery.

When St. Einstein says that all views of one physical event are valid, or when St. Schrödinger says that a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time we stop looking for reality. St. Oppenheimer once spoke of a disciple, Julian Schwinger, that, "When ordinary people give a talk, it is to tell you that you can do it, but when Julian gives a talk, it is to tell you that only he can do it." This is the arrogance which has accrued to the physical sciences.

Science has successfully assailed the notion that there was a "first man". Science has not been so successful in describing the creation of the universe. Absent a reasonable explanation where one was needed, a myth was created using questionable evidence. St. Einstein's cosmic constant posed a persistent and unsolvable problem until St. Hubble discovered a red shift among the galaxies. The universe was expanding. But from where? And from what? Furthermore, St. Hubble's discovery was not a complete solution. But nevermind, it was close enough to satisfy the faithful because little flaws can be ignored. And the question, "...from where..." must be the creation so sought after. Thus, the creation - the "Big Bang" - was eventually found; or should I say theorized. Again, nevermind that blue shifted galaxies have been found even further away than St. Hubble's red shifted galaxies. The truly faithful will not let this embarrassing detail interfere with their belief system.

The faithful marched on attempting to determine the time of the origin of the universe. By including such things as St. Hubble's red shift, St. Einstein's fixed speed of light, and other elements into the calculus, they fixed the origin of the universe, the "Big Bang", anywhere from twelve to twenty billion years ago. Nevermind the enormous margin of error, the faithful will accept it.

Now everyone knows that galaxies are not built overnight. They do take time. The clergy have calculated the various lengths of time required to make a galaxy depending on the nature of the galaxy in question. Generally, this is in the area of billions of years. But as our skills at building ever improved telescopes, we discover more and more galaxies as far as the lens can see. No matter that we keep saying that we've seen the earliest days of the universe, those days become ever more early. And heresy! Even some of those galaxies are blue shifted.

Perhaps there is something wrong with the religion of physics. Perhaps it's time we sit down and re-think how we go about seeking answers to very fundamental questions. Man has this insatiable appetite to complicate the simple and to create puzzles where the solutions are beyond the obvious.

"Perhaps there is something wrong with the religion of physics. Perhaps it's time we sit down and re-think how we go about seeking answers to very fundamental questions. Man has this insatiable appetite to complicate the simple and to create puzzles where the solutions are beyond the obvious."


I agree with you, but how do we go about answering these questions?



Fred

This is stupid. The difference between science and religion can be summed up in a nice two-word phrase: "empirical evidence". We do not simply take the ideas of Einstein, Hubble, Heisenberg, etc. as articles of faith - we believe their ideas because they conform well to our observations about the universe. Scientific ideas aren't dogma; scientists are perfectly willing to re-evaluate ideas or throw them out completely if new ideas come along that conform better to our observations.

We do not simply take the ideas of Einstein, Hubble, Heisenberg, etc. as articles of faith - we believe their ideas because they conform well to our observations about the universe.Then you must believe that the cat in Heisenberg's box is both alive and dead at the same time. Now that requires faith!...scientists are perfectly willing to re-evaluate ideas or throw them out completely if new ideas come along that conform better to our observations.Many physicists "knew" well into the 1940's that speed faster than sound in an atmosphere was impossible because the molecules making up the atmosphere would simply stack up in front of the object. This was in spite of the fact that the sound barrier had been broken four centuries earlier by balls fired from early shoulder arms!

Then you must believe that the cat in Heisenberg's box is both alive and dead at the same time. Now that requires faith!Although there is now a good bit of evidence, the exact nature of quantum indeterminacy is still something of an open question.Many physicists "knew" well into the 1940's that speed faster than sound in an atmosphere was impossible because the molecules making up the atmosphere would simply stack up in front of the object. This was in spite of the fact that the sound barrier had been broken four centuries earlier by balls fired from early shoulder arms!The idea that physicists thought that nothing could move faster than sound until Chuck Yeager's 1947 flight is an urban myth. Scientists and engineers all knew that it was possible to accelerate an object faster than sound; however, many engineers did not believe that it was possible to create an aircraft structurally capable of withstanding the shockwaves that are produced during supersonic flight. Obviously this is not the same as believing that traveling faster than sound is impossible. Indeed, aviation engineers had been studying the shockwaves produced by supersonic objects as far back as the 1920s and 30s.

I admire your "Heisenberg's cat" answer; it's the textbook way of saying, "I don't know." The underlying question is, "Must something be only 'A', or must it be only 'B', or can it be both 'A' and 'B' simultaneously?"

As to the "faster than sound" statement, it was the aeronautical engineers who had doubts about structural integrity. Nevertheless, some scientists of stature did have doubts about supersonic speeds for the reason stated. It was not urban myth.

Earlier, you mentioned "empirical evidence" as giving credence to current observations about the universe. I've yet to see any empirical evidence proving the occurrence of a Big Bang or a Black Hole. At best, these theories are based on indirect observations and the calculations of physicists. Without direct observation, these simply remain as theories. But so long as they are presented as fact, they serve as blinders to other investigations.

The Big Bang in particular requires a sequential series of theories for support.

As to the "faster than sound" statement, it was the aeronautical engineers who had doubts about structural integrity. Nevertheless, some scientists of stature did have doubts about supersonic speeds for the reason stated. It was not urban myth.Nope. The fact that bullets travel faster than sound was first conclusively demonstrated by Ernst Mach in 1887 (we use 'Mach numbers' as measurments of supersonic speed in his honor). There hasn't been any controversy over objects being able to travel faster than sound since the 19th century. The origin of the 'sound barrier myth' is explained on this NASA historical web page http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html: The myth of the sound barrier had its beginning in 1935, when the British aerodynamicist W. F. Hilton was explaining to a newsman about some of the high-speed experiments he was conducting at the National Physical Laboratory. Pointing to a plot of airfoil drag, Hilton said: "See how the resistance of a wing shoots up like a barrier against higher speed as we approach the speed of sound." The next morning, the leading British newspapers were misrepresenting Hilton's comment by referring to "the sound barrier." The idea of a physical barrier to flight —that airplanes could never fly faster than the speed of sound— became widespread among the public.

Thanks, Nasor, I stand corrected since your information appears more accurate than mine.

However, a reproduction of a British sixteenth century musket using powder of sixteenth formulation fired a ball at a little over 1000fps, something over mach 1 at sea level by my calculation. Also missed were the propeller tips of WWI aircraft. It's nice to know that the American media isn't alone in screwing things up.

Again, thanks.

I admire your "Heisenberg's cat" answer; it's the textbook way of saying, "I don't know." The underlying question is, "Must something be only 'A', or must it be only 'B', or can it be both 'A' and 'B' simultaneously?"

it was schrodinger's cat btw. and it can be both alive and dead until you make the observation.

Hum,
I’m in two minds wither it was Schrödinger’s, Heisenberg's, cat...perhaps both??



@marv
"The Big Bang in particular requires a sequential series of theories for support."

(just a quick note/continuation on the inflation thread)

Hum,
the big bang theory is <b>built upon</b> other theories, like the theory of gravity, or atomic theory, or the theory that the earth is round….most theories are like that…
The big bang theory may be `incomplete`, in so much as we cant deal with the infinites with our current physics, but there is no reason why that theory has anything `particular` about it.

>>>>I’m in two minds wither it was Schrödinger’s, Heisenberg's, cat...perhaps both??

schodinger didn't know whether his cat was alive or dead and heisenberg either knew how fast his cat was going but not where it was or vice versa. neither should have owned pets imho.

;-)

[Perhaps there is something wrong with the religion of physics. Perhaps it's time we sit down and re-think how we go about seeking answers to very fundamental questions. Man has this insatiable appetite to complicate the simple and to create puzzles where the solutions are beyond the obvious.[/QUOTE]



Mary it sounds like you have been abused by a Religious Scientist. Many others have different theories that are hard to prove. I have a few questions.

1. Why do solar systems resemble Atoms?

2. Why do Galaxies resemble Molecules?

3. Why do the arangment of Super Clusters resemble strands of the double helix of DNA?

4. If the String Theory and the Membrane Theory are now comming together with their 11 demensions dose anyone else see how this resembles cell division?

If anyone has some answers to my questions it would be greatly appreciated.

Mary it sounds like you have been abused by a Religious Scientist. Many others have different theories that are hard to prove. I have a few questions.

1. Why do solar systems resemble Atoms?I'm guessing that you're referring to the long-outdated model of the atom in which the electrons 'orbit' the nucleus like planets around the sun. Unfortunately that model is not at all correct.2. Why do Galaxies resemble Molecules?In what way to galaxies resemble molecules? I'm a chemist, so I know a few things about molecules, but it's not clear to me how they resemble galaxies.

(just a quick note/continuation on the inflation thread)

Hum,
the big bang theory is <b>built upon</b> other theories, like the theory of gravity, or atomic theory, or the theory that the earth is round….most theories are like that…
The big bang theory may be `incomplete`, in so much as we cant deal with the infinites with our current physics, but there is no reason why that theory has anything `particular` about it.

Redshifts and all that may be fine for supporting the big bang theory but the inflationary epoch model is built on squat - no evidence, no corroboration, zilch. Therefore: the big bang theory is still flawed.

I'm guessing that you're referring to the long-outdated model of the atom in which the electrons 'orbit' the nucleus like planets around the sun. Unfortunately that model is not at all correct.In what way to galaxies resemble molecules? I'm a chemist, so I know a few things about molecules, but it's not clear to me how they resemble galaxies.

Molecules are made up of atoms held together by the Strong force or The Gravity A wave. Atoms have a nucleus with variable amount of electrons or orbitals. Even though Solar systems do not resemble Atoms as we understand them it is an example of a system within a system all held together by Gravity.

>>>> Gravity A wave.

what is this?

Perhaps there is something wrong with the religion of physics. Perhaps it's time we sit down and re-think how we go about seeking answers to very fundamental questions. Man has this insatiable appetite to complicate the simple and to create puzzles where the solutions are beyond the obvious.



Mary it sounds like you have been abused by a Religious Scientist. Many others have different theories that are hard to prove. I have a few questions.

1. Why do solar systems resemble Atoms? They don't!

2. Why do Galaxies resemble Molecules? They don't!

3. Why do the arangment of Super Clusters resemble strands of the double helix of DNA? They don't!

4. If the String Theory and the Membrane Theory are now comming together with their 11 demensions dose anyone else see how this resembles cell division? The String & Membrane theories belong on the science fiction shelf!

If anyone has some answers to my questions it would be greatly appreciated....my name is marv, as in Marvin! And no, I haven't been "abused" by anyone. Actually, I dropped out of school.

Science never claimed to explain everything. It only strives to understand it as much as possible.
The examples given to claim the failures of science mostly demontrate the failure to understand them. An example is Schrödinger's cat. He used it as thought experiment demonstrate the problems of applying the principles quantum mechanics to macroscopic objects. He was, in fact not proposing that the cat is moving in quantum states.

I understand that many details of various science branches are incomprehnsible to the layman (which in turn explains why one has to study to even understand them). However, they are far less dogmatich than you might want to believe (as e.g. religion is). More specifically, while I am no physiscist I understand that many of the modern theories are completely inituitive, which does not make them wrong.

Einstein "fudged" his description of space to fit his GR by adding his now infamous "cosmological constant". Only later, with the help of Friedman and Hubble, was he able to at least partially reconcile his theory with observation. See Appendix IV of his Relativity, the Special and General Theory.

But today, Hubble's support of Einstein's expanding universe theory is coming apart as blue shifted galaxies are discovered further and further in the distance. Nevertheless, in spite of the growing evidence of contradiction, Einstein's GR and SR are considered most holy. Anyone refusing to accept them is considered a heritic. This is dogma.

>>>> Gravity A wave.

what is this?

There is a little known theory by Robert Lazar and here is a quote.
...And there are two specific different types of Gravity: Gravity A and Gravity B. Gravity A works on a smaller, micro scale while Gravity B works on a larger, macro scale.

We are familiar with Gravity B. It is the big gravity wave that holds the Earth, as well as the rest of the planets, in orbit around the Sun and holds the moon, as well as man-made satellites, in orbit around the Earth. We are not familiar with Gravity A. It is the small gravity wave which is the major contributory force that holds together the mass that makes up all protons and neutrons. Gravity A is what is currently being labeled as the Strong Nuclear Force in mainstream physics, and Gravity A is the wave that you need to access and amplify to enable you to cause space-time distortion for interstellar travel..

To keep them straight, just remember that Gravity A works on an atomic scale, and Gravity B is the big gravity wave that works on a stellar or planetary level. However, don't mistake the size of these waves for their strength, because Gravity A is a much stronger force than Gravity B. You can momentarily break the Gravity B field of the Earth simply by jumping in the air, so this is not an intense gravitational field.

Locating Gravity A is no problem because it is found in the nucleus of every atom of all matter here on Earth, and all matter everywhere else in our universe. However accessing Gravity A with the naturally occurring elements found on Earth is a big problem. Actually, I'm not aware of any way of accessing the Gravity A wave using any Earth element, whether naturally occurring or synthesized, and here's why.

We've already learned that Gravity A is the major force that holds together the mass that makes up protons and neutrons. This means the Gravity A wave we are trying to access is virtually inaccessible as it is located within matter, or at least the matter we have here on Earth.

The most important attribute of these heavier stable elements is that the Gravity A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their own Gravity A field around them in addition to the Gravity B field that is native to all elements.

No naturally occurring atoms on Earth have enough protons and neutrons for the cumulative Gravity A wave to extend past the perimeter of the atom so you can access it. Even though the distance the Gravity A wave extends is infinitesimal, it IS accessible and has amplitude, wavelength and frequency just like any other wave in the electromagnetic spectrum. Once you can access the Gravity A wave, you can amplify it just like we amplify any other electromagnetic wave.

So, back to our power source. Inside the reactor, element 115 is bombarded with a proton which plugs into the nucleus of the 115 atom and becomes element 116 which immediately decays and releases or radiates small amounts of antimatter. The antimatter is released in a vacuum into a tuned tube which keeps it from reacting with the matter that surrounds it. It is then directed toward the gaseous matter target at the end of the tube. The matter and antimatter collide and annihilate, totally converting to energy. The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near 100% efficient thermoelectric generator. This is a device that converts heat directly into electrical energy. Many of our satellites and space probes use thermoelectric generators, but their efficiency is very, very low.

All of these actions and reactions inside of the reactor are orchestrated perfectly like a tiny little ballet, and in this manner the reactor provides an enormous amount of power.

So, back to our original question: What is the power source that provides the power required for this type of travel? The power source is a reactor which uses element 115 as a fuel, and uses a total annihilation reaction to provide the heat which it converts to energy, making it a compact, lightweight, efficient, onboard power source.

I've got a couple of quick comments on element 115 for those of you that are interested. By virtue of the way it's used in the reactor, it depletes very slowly, and only 223 grams of 115, which is just under 1/2 a pound, can be utilized for a period of twenty to thirty years.

Element 115's melting point is 1740 C.

I need to state here that even though I had hands-on experience with element 115, I didn't melt any of it down and I didn't use any of it for twenty to thirty years to see if it depleted.



I hope this answers your question.

@marv
While I appreciate you are not a scientist, it would be helpful to read the article about the Hubble constant.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/wwwlabs/hdfSize/hdfSize_top.html

Blue shifted galaxies have not been discovered further and further in the distance, you have to provide a link for such an over-generalization. If you had meant red shifted galaxies then that does not contradict an expanding universe.

i would consider these types of theories to be quite conventional, in that, that experiments / observation can disprove or confirm aspects of them. (They are after all decades old now)

The real forefront of science nowadays does deal with esoteric terms such as beauty or simplicity; these are new tools that are at the very boundary of conventional science.
Wither string theory is correct or false, it’s still too early to say.
Moreover, new mathematical theories may have to be discovered before we can progress further, but the rewards if it proves to be correct just out weigh the lack of constructible experiments that can be used today to verify it.

...my name is marv, as in Marvin! And no, I haven't been "abused" by anyone. Actually, I dropped out of school.

Sorry Marv about getting your name wrong. My questions are based upon simularities and not exact identical reproductions on a larger scale.

blobrana, one correction I should make is that instead of "galaxies", I should have simply said "objects".

Also, the "surface of an expanding balloon" model of an expanding universe becomes questionable when blue shifted objects are seen at distances further than red shifted objects.

A new point could be mentioned here. That is the difference between "old" stars and first generation stars (formed immediately after the Big Bang); their spectra being different. The further we see, i.e., into the past, the ratio of first generation stars should increase. No one seems to have addressed this point. Why?

Additionally, the frequency of light will change over distance as does the frequency of sound. Light waves eminating from a source have been described both as compression waves and circular waves. Unfortunately, the two-dimensional chalkboard in the classroom is a poor tool for describing light waves.Light waves
Although light is classified as a transverse wave, the motion of the electrical and magnetic fields may be circular instead. It is hard to tell....was the best I could GOOGLE up on short notice at http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/waves.htm. Their page on light waves only discusses the effects and describes almost nothing of the nature of the wave form. And that's the point I'm getting to if you bear with me.

If a circular waveform, as when a pebble is dropped into a still pond, were translated into three dimensions in space in the form of light, the peaks represent the greatest concentration of photons while the troughs represent the least concentration. But instead of circles on water, there would be spheres in space.

As the waves on water spread out, the amplitude decreases and the wavelength increases because energy is being spread in ever widening circles. The same would be true with light waves except the energy is being spread in ever larger "spheres" of lesser density. To me, this means that the farther a fixed light source is, the more red and more dim the object would appear.

In other words, recession is not the only cause of red shift. I think I've described the "tired wave" theory. The one thing to consider is that the effect on frequency is miniscule compared to the effect on signal strength.

Hum,
A bit off topic, but,
It seems to me that, given that light was affected <i>were</i>true, the red shift would just appear as a linear as before…
(but an intresting link though)
But,
The tired light hypothesis can be <b>discarded</b> because there is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum. The distant object would appear `blurred`, and that is not observed. The Compton shift in particular wouldn`t work.
In addition, high red shift supernova light curves would be different from what is observed.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0208117
You must remember that most scientists <i>believe</i> that it’s space that is expanding, so it’s not just a simple Doppler affect that determines the red shift.

As for the first generation stars, well they were probably massive, and would evolve into supernova in much less than 1 million years. I believe the Hubble space telescope showed that the early universe did contain heavy elements that you probably already know, could only have been produced within supernova. i could also mention the ionisation etc.

So the simple answer is that they blew up...

A better explanation than explaining how heavy elements could survive past/through the intense radiation era beyond the surface of last scattering.

As for the number count, i don’t know. Is there a discrepancy?

And again, I will state, I am unaware of <b>any</b> distant blue shifted objects.

Yah, it's off topic, but it's serendipity, and that's always fun. As to the PDF file, I've downloaded it but I'll have to wait 'til later to print and study it. (PDF files are a real pain in the ass.) Okay....... there is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum.The photons don't travel a straight line from the source to your eye or the telescope lens. If they did, the dispersion would be so great that....well you can see where that goes. And distant objects wouldn't be just blurred, we simply couldn't detect them. I see the photons behaving like gas molecules in a compression waveform similar to the production of sound waves.

As to the Compton Shift and Doppler effect, I found an interesting thread on the Bad Astronomy (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=166608) site. But again, it'll take me time to go through it. But in the meantime, I'll share this bookmark (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html).

Now I don't think it can be said that the Hubble telescope showed heavy elements in the early universe since we really don't know how "early" the Hubble was looking back. IOW, we can't say how early something is until we can say we've seen the beginning. So "early" is a relative term.

And, according to the conventional BB theory, it stands to reason that until we see a high proportion of first generation objects, we're not close to the BB. I would go so far to say that it would take a galaxy of predominately first generation stars to begin a demonstration of the BB.

One disturbing thing for BB enthusiasts should be the existence of galaxies at a distance calculated to be close to or at the age of the laboratory calculated age of BB's universe.

I've seen and read little blurbs on TV and in magazines about distant blue shifted object, so I'll try to see if I can GOOGLE up something reliable.

Hm m. Very interesting thread. Especially Marv's opening post.I'l wait for some more post, before deciding whether to comment or add anything to the discussion.

Regards APOLO

Nasor wrote:
The myth of the sound barrier had its beginning in 1935, when the British aerodynamicist W. F. Hilton was explaining to a newsman about some of the high-speed experiments he was conducting at the National Physical Laboratory. Pointing to a plot of airfoil drag, Hilton said: "See how the resistance of a wing shoots up like a barrier against higher speed as we approach the speed of sound." The next morning, the leading British newspapers were misrepresenting Hilton's comment by referring to "the sound barrier." The idea of a physical barrier to flight —that airplanes could never fly faster than the speed of sound— became widespread among the public.



I'm a visitor from another board and wanted to add my 2 cents.
My Dad was born in 1914, went to college in the 30's and he told me that they taught him in college that no man-made vehicle would ever be able to go faster than the speed of sound. Where I come from when something is taught in college it has gone beyond urban myth. He was in pre-law so his science class was a 101 Intro to PhySci type course at the University of Pittsburgh (PA). I don't know what the serious students were being taught.

My observation is that this would not be the first time the professionals were embarrassed by their lack of understanding, or dissemination of false information, and spent a long time doing damage control to contain the embarrassment.

I realize that NASA should have better credentials than Nova, but here is my reference (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2412barrier.html).

I welcome any comments about my admittedly anecdotal evidence.

Once I sign up on a board I stay around a few months or longer. I like this board and will return. One of my favorite boards is Debating Christianity and Religion (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/index.php). Some of you may find it interesting.

Um, may I point out that that says nothing about the reason for this impossiblity.

Does he mention the reason being a physical impossiblity: ie. the laws of physics prevent the surpassing of the speed of sound.

Or is the impossiblity merely from an engineering standpoint: ie. nothing could withstand the stresses that the plane etc would sustain?

This was some years ago, but as I remember, no particular law of physics stood in the way. A "brick wall" stood in the way. Dad did not use that term, but he said ANY vehicle would just fly apart as sood as it surpassed the sped of sound. Not that there was inadequate engineering ability.

Fred Hoyle was right.

Muskets had been firing ball and bullet faster than the requisite 1114.7fps (at sea level) as early as the 1500's. Yet the projectiles didn't break apart. The solution lay in aeronautical design and engineering, something serious scientists believed impossible even into the forties. The scientists were looking at the wrong cause when concluding that there was no solution.

As an aside, my mother, born in 1910, was convinced that man would never walk on the moon. After all, she would say, "If man was meant to be on the moon, God would have put him there." She lived to witness all of the manned Lunar missions.