Expanding space?

Time dilation is a side effect of this simple rule:

The speed of light is constant in all frames.

This statement appears to be true. If it is, then two objects (moving relative to each other) will have their time dilated and length contracted, relative to each other. Here: phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/ is an interesting site that should give people a good understanding in a relatively short period of time.

Now the thing about these effects (time dilation and length contraction) is that they are very small at low speeds. Until you are going at a significant percentage of the speed of light, the results of your measurements of these effects will be very small.

As I said, the effects we are talking about only become apparent at speeds close to the speed of light. If you are in your rest frame holding an object, that object is not moving relative to you... you can't get any slower than not moving. If you immerse it in liquid nitrogen or helium or whatever, that object is still in your rest frame. It is not moving any faster or slower compared to you. If it is a watch that you have immersed, then, chances are, it will stop, but only because you've destroyed it by deep freezing it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

losfomoT. What if atomic energy is proportional to light speed? To explain. At 0 mps, everything is normal. At 93,000 mps, the force in the direction of travel is now only half what it was since it is being slowed down to 93,000 mps by being crushed against the light barrier. An electron when it moves in the direction of travel now only has half it's energy but in any other direction has it's full energy. So, something is shortened in the direction of travel because it cannot travel as fast or as far.

You link time dilation solely to movement but nothing apart from something at absolute zero is stationary. I think you need to look at atomic motion, which is slowed by greater gravity, so gives the appearance of time dilation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read-Only. It requires that you envision a ball with a dot between you and the centre of the ball. That is the galaxy and the expanding ball is the universe. That dot will stay there in your line of sight as the ball expands (assuming it expands perfectly evenly and ignoring general galactic drifting in space).

If dots are throughout the interior of the volume, that would be a 3D expansion, with everything moving away from a central origin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My point is that there isn't "a dot" or "a galaxy" - there are billions of them. And they are distributed throughout the universe. And of course it (they) will stay in the line of sight but they are still moving away which means their location is changing - not staying the same as you said.

 

The universe did not originate at one point in space. No one says this. BB theory does not say this.

Why do we keep lying about what BB theory says and dosen't say?

 

There is no barrier, in the sense that you are using the word... If a ship accelerates away from Earth at 1/2 the speed of light (1/2 c) Nothing is crushed. People on the ship notice nothing different about themselves, the ship or the electrons on the ship. It is only if they look at something outside the ship that is moving relative to them, that they notice any effects. And they can go faster... say this ship extends an arm out and releases a marker. The marker and the ship are now moving side by side... in fact, they are not moving at all relative to each other. So now the ship continues it's journey and accelerates away from the marker at 1/2 c... no problem, and it took exactly the same energy as the initial 1/2 c away from Earth took. Drop another marker and do it again, there is nothing stopping you, no force holding you back, nothing has changed about your electrons. If you intuitively add up your velocities after the third acceleration, then you must now be speeding along at 1.5 times the speed of light relative to Earth... but your intuition would be wrong. You still are not traveling faster than light relative to Earth. How can this be? That's where time dilation and length contraction fit in. It all works out quite beautifully.

 

losfomoT. Did I miss it on the news where a ship left Earth at half light speed? That is the thing about these ideas. There is a seeming effect on particles so it must be true for people in a space ship? No one has actually proved these ideas but people take them as infallibly true.

Of course, travelling at c/2, everything seems normal to someone travelling at that speed. When I said "crushed" I meant with C being a maximum speed, if you are travelling at c/2 and shine a light beam in the direction of travel, though it moves at c, it is EFFECTIVELY moving at only c/2 because that is now it's maximum speed. It EFFECTIVELY only has half the energy it has in any other direction where the beam will move at 186,282 mps.

 

First site I checked. You wouldn't believe how many liars there are out there who think the big bang all started in one place :

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/inflation.html

 

They are not moving. The space between them is "expanding", giving the appearance of movement as when viewed from any point on the hypersphere.

 

Not true. Of course nobody has gone at 1/2 the speed of light... we haven't got the technology to do such a thing yet. But we have gone in a fast jet with atomic clocks that came back with the time difference predicted by the theory. We have gps satellites circling the Earth that have to be constantly corrected for time. The precession of mercury was successfully explained with the relativistic effects that you call unproven. We are talking proof from particles to entire planets.

I don't think relativity is infallible, in fact I know it's not. When you look at things close enough, on a small enough scale (really small!) relativity breaks down. But on the scale that you and I live in, and even astronomically, relativity works very well, and has been proven time and again.

Wrong. And I can't tell if your just mixing things up or are really disputing a theory that you don't even understand.

 

losfomoT. Lets see. An atomic clock works using a stream of heated cesium. So we put one in a car, take it through traffic to the airport. We then put it in a jet plane, roar down the runway at 200 mph and take off. We then get several miles high and fly accelerate to faster than sound and fly around for a few hours. We then decelerate and come down to ground level with lots of braking. Unload the atomic clock and put it in a car and through traffic with more stopping and starting we take it back to the lab.

Amazing! It now shows a different time to an atomic clock that has been peacefully sitting on a lab bench all this time. Are you related to Homer Simpson?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock3.htm

The same with GPS satellites which are hardly in a stable environment.

 

losfomoT. I got no problem with space deforming around massive objects like the sun. All those fools who laughed at the Victorians and said there was no such thing as the aether were shown as wrong. As I have pointed out many times here, space has structure.

It's just that you don't understand so instinctively think I am wrong. I get that a lot from people who are frightened of new things.

 

This is ridiculous! Keneda obviously has much more sense in his litttle pinky than what some of you ''idiots''' have in any of your bloated minds...]


I request it should be locked.

 

Reiku. I'm happy with being questioned. It helps me look at things different ways and so learn more about them. I admit to in the past even asking questions about what I believe in to accomplish this.

Unfortunately for those who believe science is infallibly right on all things, what more can they learn from any debate?

 

It's like talking to a brick wall with the words 'ignorance' and 'rebellion' written across it in bright colorful graffiti letters. Oh and a picture of a butt, that Reiku comes along and rubs his face on every once in a while... Damn that nose must be permanently stained by now. I understand why others get so frustrated.

Yeah, sure, lock the thread, whatever.

 

losfomoT. There is no need to be insulting because I did not immediately fall to my knees and recognise that your quoted knowledge is all infallibly true.

 

James R. Atomic clocks are very delicate instruments. I would like to see a "control clock" used in such an experiment where while one clock in taken to an aiport and flew around, the one on the ground also gets a good equivalent shaking around. It is bad science not to have a control in such an experiment.

 

Delicate? Oh, really????????? Shows what you know - NOT!

"Cesium-beam-tube resonators are used as the standard for atomic time because their absolute frequencies are relatively insensitive to environmental factors. For details, see the U.S. Naval Observatory's WWW Page on Cesium Atomic Clocks at http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html."

 

Read-Only. I couldn't find the words you claimed in the article. However I did find the opposite :

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html


So a waste of posturing by you.