looking at the start of the universe

Repeating yourself over and over doesn't make your pet theory correct.

CMB-emitter?

:roflmao:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If all these theories are based on assumptions of laws, how does anyone know any is right or wrong, in any case?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's another thread, if you wish to start it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay I just cannot see what is the difference between one set of assumptions and another, except a greater belief in one set.

 

Like I said, that is another thread. Thanks.

 

Obviously Q is no longer interested in an honest discussion, and only makes derisive comments instead of thoughtful analysis. More importantly, he now continuously sidesteps the issue he raised in which he claims that the galaxies we see receding from us do not have kinetic energy associated with their recession. I referenced that in a query, and his response thereto, italicized below:

“Oh well, all those who believe that that makes sense, please raise your hand, or otherwise post your comments here.”

Attempting to get support for your pet theory?

No, Q, I was attempting to get support for your pet theory. Finding none, I move on.

However, I will give you a second chance. Would you mind explaining to everyone how, if we were to send a rocket ship to a distant, receding galaxy, and let it drift along, embedded within the galaxy, the rocket ship would have kinetic energy associated with its recession from Earth, but the galaxy would not? Or are you now going to change your story, and claim that such galaxies do have a kinetic energy associated with their recession from Earth, in Earth's reference frame? Please answer this question first, in your next post. Otherwise, I'm going to place you in the same category as IAC [uh-oh!], who continuously dodged every effort to have him answer pertinet questions pertaining to his posts.

As to your query "CMB-Emitter?", it appears obvious that you have not been reading what I've been posting, as I've made reference to the CMB-emitter several times. However, it is nice to see you finally asking questions.

The CMB-emitter is that matter, in Earth's reference frame, that is receding at near relativistic speed. It is a very hot plasma of mostly electrons, protons, and deuterons that emits white-hot black-body radiation of about 2,700 degrees K. Because it has a redshift of about 1,000 [due to its high recessional velocity of about 0.9999991 c], we perceive those photons detected here on Earth as being the same as those that would be emitted by a stationary, very-cold black-body of 2.7 degrees K, i.e. microwave frequency, but with a distinct black-body spectrum. In our reference frame, we see it as a spherical shell of matter some 14 billion light years away. Of course, that is the same view from anywhere else in the universe, which would see a CMB-emitter in its own reference frame, even if that reference frame were embedded in the CMB-emitter that we see.

The CMB-emitter is matter that is separate and distinct from all of the other matter of the universe that we see in our reference frame. It is not the same matter as the galaxies we see, but we can infer that it has, within its own reference frame, evolved into galaxies, etc. We can only see that matter the way it used to be [in our reference frame] due to its great distance from Earth, and the finite speed of light.

 

Funny how accepted cosmological theory is somehow my pet theory? However, I would welcome links to peruse regarding your pet theory? Anything at all?

Again, you set up a fallacious argument. If the ship is "embedded within the galaxy" it has little if any kinetic energy relative to the galaxy. Hence, has little or no kinetic energy relative to us.

What that has to do with anything is still beyond me?

Thanks, it helps when you define terms you make up.

 

I see. But have you considered the rearranging of the universe in the aftermath. If this were a crime scene investigation we would have to take in account forces that materialize after the rapid expansion era's immediately after the explosion. Gravity and Electromagnetic force converging to the levels we know today...an the rapid production of virutal particles.

We're talking about a cocktail of Forces...Forces known to day to shape the universe. Then, those same forces may have been applified by billions of times in the nanoseconds after the explosion. Variables in the formation of all the Four Forces would not be uniform over the explosion. We're talking about a complicated detetonation not a random expulsion.

 

Saquist,

No, I've never read any thing of that sort. I am neither cosmologist or physicist. My views are from what I've read while trying to understand what science currently says about what the universe is like. Speculation about such things doesn't change what is observed today.

In post #38 I mentioned that recession of some galaxies are faster than light. This was ignored, like everything that else that contradicts the view that the expansion is like an explosion. Walter says the CMB is receding at near relativistic speeds. If objects recede faster the the farther away they are, then he must believe that there is nothing receding faster than the speed of light. This is not the mainstream view. In the LCDM model(this model is the one most widely accepted by cosmologist, due to it most closely fitting the observations and calculations.)not only is there faster than light recession, the rate of expansion is increasing. If the expansion was like an explosion, the expansion would be slowing down with the decrease in kinetic energy due to increased area the explosion was expanding into. The only way to explain the faster than light recession is the expansion of space. Otherwise it violates the speed of light.

I will again post links to a couple of websites than cover the current interpretation of General Relativity and the mainstream view in cosmology.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/

These helped me with my understanding of the current science and what it says about the universe. I encourage anyone, that wishes to know where we are, in our attempt to unravel the mysteries of the universe, to visit these websites.

There's nothing I can say that isn't covered on these sites, so this is my last post in this thread.

Wilgory

 

Diverging, not converging.

 

"Again, you set up a fallacious argument. If the ship is "embedded within the galaxy" it has little if any kinetic energy relative to the galaxy. Hence, has little or no kinetic energy relative to us.

What that has to do with anything is still beyond me?"

The above quote from your prior post, dear Q, sums up the error of your logic.

So, the ship has little if any kinetic energy relative to us [here on Earth], now that it has become safely embedded within the receding galaxy. Where, pray tell, did the kinetic energy that we emparted to it, to accelerate from Earth and reach the recessional velocity of the receding galaxy, disappear to, now that it supposedly no longer has kinetic energy relative to us?

 

Walter - wtf are you on about? The ship accelerated to the galaxy and then decelerated. The ship, "embedded within the galaxy" as you put it, is now following along with the galaxy, hence the expansion of space.

Now that we've cleared that up, please explain what kinetic energy has to do with anything here? If you can't please stop bringing it up because it is complete nonsense.

 

Q:

No wonder you don't get it.

The ship accelerated FROM ZERO [at rest in Earth's reference frame] then decelerated TO THE RECESSIONAL SPEED OF THE GALAXY, NOT BACK TO ZERO. It would then be moving away from Earth at high speed. IT HAS KINETIC ENERGY relative to Earth, because it has recessional speed relative to Earth. You need to go back to Physics 1A where these topics are first covered.

 

No, this is where YOU don't get it. There is no kinetic energy when the galaxies are moving away from each other due to expansion.

Clearly, you haven't moved beyond Physics 1A.

However, I'm still giving you the opportunity to provide links to back up your pet theory. Will you be doing that any time soon?

 

OK, third time's the charm.

I've twice asked you what happens to the kinetic energy imparted to a rocket ship accelerated from earth, and then embedded in a receding galaxy at that same speed. You have repeatedly claimed it has no kinetic energy, relative to Earth, if at rest in the frame of reference of the receding galaxy.

This is your response, quoted below:

"No, this is where YOU don't get it. There is no kinetic energy when the galaxies are moving away from each other due to expansion."

Now, for the third time, how would such a rocket ship, accelerated from Earth and moving away from Earth at high speed [and embedded in a receding galaxy], not have any kinetic energy relative to Earth? If you refuse to answer, you will be in the same category as IAC. No kidding.

And please don't give me any hokum-pokum about it magically losing its kinetic energy because it accelerated through "expanding space"; or because it initially accelerated to a speed faster than the galaxy so as to catch up, then decelerated some to the speed of the galaxy's recession.

---

Why don't you choose a simpler analogy to figure this out. Imagine your friends leave a train station on a fast moving train. They are moving away from you at 70 mph. You decide to party with them, but were left behind. You get in your BMW, and accelerate to 150 mph [on a good, straight freeway] and catch up to the train. But now you are moving too fast. So you brake, but don't slow back down to Zero, but you slow to 70 mph. Then you jump on board the train. Relative to the train, you are "at rest", just hanging around. Relative to the train station you left behind, you are moving at 70 mph. Both you and your car have kinetic energy [energy of motion] relative to the train station you left behind.

---

If anyone else wants to weigh-in and help out Q, I'm sure he'd appreciate the effort.

---

 

Now, I dont know weather 2 galaxies receding from each other, soley due too expansion, have kinetic energy or not, but...
If two objects are receding based on expansion alone do not have any kinetic energy, and if the galaxy in question is one of this type, then:
Lets assume the rate of recession between the galaxy and the earth is
10m/s
now lets say the rocket sets out at 100m/s doing with 100J of Ek. It fires its engines only 1nce at earth and never again (lest to decellerate upon reaching the galexie)
What an observer on earth would see as the rocket moved was that it was accelerating. This is due to the expansion of space between the earth and the rocket. Thus even though the rocket had 100J of Ek for 100m/s by the time it reaches the galaxy, it will be doing 110m/s because of the expansion of space.
Thus upon arrival, the rocket deccelerates 100m/s, doing -ve work of 100J, equal to the amount of Ek it started with making it's Ek 0J. It's final velocity will be, relative to earth, 10m/s, the same as the galaxys.

-Andrew

 

Andrew:

You wrote:

"now lets say the rocket sets out at 100m/s doing with 100J of Ek. It fires its engines only 1nce at earth and never again (lest to decellerate upon reaching the galexie)
What an observer on earth would see as the rocket moved was that it was accelerating."

We have satellites we've sent away from Earth, which are now receding at high velocity. They have no propulsion engines on them, and are drifting as in your proposal [and they are relatively free from gravitational accelerations from planetary bodies].

Are you saying that we see them accelerating away from Earth due to the supposed "expansion of space"? Does this supposed acceleration occur while still in the Solar System? Or does it kick in later, after crossing some imaginary threshold? Would we not be able to detect that acceleration, by a red-shift in their radio-transmissions or by a greater distance farther away than anticipated otherwise? How much would that acceleration be, and would it remain constant, or does it increase with increasing distance away from Earth? Does that not make Earth a preferred reference frame?

We have no evidence for such acceleration of man made objects, and I see no good reason to believe that such occurs.

Best regards,


Walter

-

 

So, you create a pet theory, based on your ignorance of the subject matter, and expect me to give you an answer that has nothing to do with anything?

Right.

There's no magic here, only your ignorance.

Creating more strawmen arguments doesn't help your position whatsoever.

It is you who needs the help. And again, I welcome you to provide ANY links to support your position. Anything at all.

Of course, you'll present nothing other than strawmen arguments.

 

You see no reason to believe because you have created your own pet theory, which has nothing to do with what is observed.

You need to leap past Science 1A and start learning the what is beyond your tentative grasp.

 

Well, to see this acceleration is easier said than done, obviously my rocket travelling at 100m/s will never reach the galaxy in any appreciable time.

The trouble is, the recession is extremly small, Hubbles constant puts it at 71 ± 4 (km/s)/Mpc
so if 2 objects were a mega parsect apart they would be receding at a mere 71km/s
as they receded they would gain more distance and thus more space would expand between them and thus they would slowly accelerate (however the amount of acceleration would be undetectable, at least untill a long time has past.)
Furthurmore, gravity will effect these observations, especialy of any man made object in our solar system.

But, to show you, lets get rid of gravity for the moment:
I doubt our farthest man-made object has not even travelled a light year yet, but let's say it has:
1 megaparsect=~3,262,000 ly
thus our 1ly object away is going have accelerated an additional velocity of 1/3,262,000*71km/s=0.000021765787860208461066830165542612Km/s
or about
0.078 kilometers per hour. I dare say impossible to notice by redshift observations (or any other means which I know of).

The acceleration should remain constant for any single object, but it would depend on the objects own velocity I think, I don't have time right now to calculate it though.

No such an effect would be observed in any location (all distances are increasing due to the expansion of space.)

However, thankfully, everything within our galaxy is gravitationaly bound, so the expansion of space has a very little(if any) effect on it: that is, the force of gravity overcomes the expansion of space.

-Andrew