Expanding Universe?

Hi ISDAMan,

What it does do, in 3D, is account for the perception of greater expansion speed as you observe at greater distances from our point in space.

I understand what you mean, but the comparison with a wave is not sufficient to explain why distant galaxies are receding from us faster than closer ones. If you are on that supersonic wave (to call it that way), then you're moving at a constant speed (there is no reason why the "cause" of the waves would accelerate). Waves propogate at a constant speed throughout the same medium (in this case ether), hence the total speed you would observe of all the waves is your speed + wave speed. This is an addition of constants, hence the result is also constant.

Even if it does rotate for some amount of time, why wouln't it stop? The forces within have to be outstanding.

The rotation would have to stop at a certain point (because loads of kinetic energy gets lost through collisions - friction). All this friction causes the whole thing to heat up again, but what happens afterwards is a mystery to me. (My guess is that the heating of the collapsing universe would cause it to rotate more rapidly, since systems tend to have as much entropy & kinetic energy as possible. But somehow I feel this isn't applicable in this case... Guess it's about time I get those thermodynamics courses ;)).

Bye!

Crisp

--
"The best thing you can become in life, is yourself." -- M. Eyskens.
 
Crisp,
I get your point. Look at it this way. We are not examining these waves or the motion of the bodies in ether directly. We wouldn't know where to start. We're looking at the red shift. That's the key to this whole thing. The red shift can be compounded. Here's how it works. The successive linear layout of the waves produces a red shift from our vantage point. Meanwhile, the expansion of each wave in all directions produces another red shift of its own. It might not be possible to separate the two. I wonder, if there were a group of pulsars on the same line and separated by, lets say, 200 light years, what kind of Doppler effect we would notice. I'm still hammering this all out, so, there's bound to be improvements in the mechanics of this model.

Now, all these deeply conflicting forces needed to compress the universe and conflicts like more energy being on the edge of an explosion than in the center, are the types of things that lead me to question why and how the universe could be expanding.

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online.



[This message has been edited by ISDAMan (edited September 03, 1999).]
 
ISDAMan,

"conflicts like more energy being on the edge of an explosion than in the center"

This quote leads me to believe that you have some problem with the jump from three to four dimensions. It is a though nut to crack but you must realise that there are no edges to our universe ! You see, we are still in the explosion. The Big Bang is nothing like a shock wave of a 3D explosion, in fact may be the term 'explosion' is not even right for there is nothing really that is exploding unless you want to call the 'fabric of spacetime' something.

"all these deeply conflicting forces needed to compress the universe "
I really don't know what you are talking about here, the universe does not need to be compressed ! If you are talking about gravity trying to pull everything back together again then you must know that this is only one possibility and by no means verified by facts. On the contrary it seems more and more that everything will just eternally float further and further away cause there doesn't seem to be enough mass.
As Boris said in one of his mails : "Maybe one day it will just pop !" ;)

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton
 
ISDAMan,

We are not examining these waves or the motion of the bodies in ether directly. We wouldn't know where to start.

I was afraid you were going to say that, since that was also the first thing I thought when I wrote my reply :). However, I thought this way: Doppler shifts (redshifts) are bound to the observer (it's "the observer's fault" that redshifts appear, since he is moving away). If you look at the big picture (and could somehow put yourself outside the universe and have a good look back at it) then the speed would be constant. However, I feel this is one of those "choose the correct frame of reference" kinda problems that I know nothing about (this makes me wonder what I actually DO know :).

Anyway, I am off for 10 days of holidays in the Scottish Highlands. See you all later :).

Bye!

----------
"The best thing you can become in life is yourself." -- M. Eyskens.
 
Crisp:

Regarding redshift. It is not observed because we (the observers) are 'moving away'; rather it is observed because the emitters are moving away (hence, it is the same in all directions.) Also, the redshift is not only caused by the emitters moving away; light is 'stretched out' by expanding space over the billions of years that it travels from distant emitters to Earth. For very distant emitters, this stretching effect becomes even more significant than the classical Doppler shift.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Hay everyone,

I'm back and I have an important update for my model. Worse yet, this time, I figured I'd start out by actually proving my point ;). Remember how I have shown you that this whole universe acts in waves like water? Well, it seems that there has been obvious proof of this all along. We have three types of galaxies: Elliptical, Spiral, and Abnormal. For the purposes of this evidence, we'll look at the spiral. It spins. Wow, what a revelation! But, wait,... there's more! 'Round and 'round and 'round it goes,... were it stops,... it can't happen! What do I mean? It's obvious that the tendrils of stars being strung along by the center of the disk must follow the rotation of the core. Since it's spinning in towards the center, why doesn't it ever wind up? We already have that answer. We've had it for years. These tendrils aren't like string tied to a central spinning pole. In fact, they are a wave form. The wave can consistently spin inwards and always hold it's shape without winding up. Now, if I looked at a small corner of an oil painting, without having knowledge of the complete work, would it be wise of me to surmise that the rest of this artwork would be in the fashion of a charcoal sketch. Of course not. No matter how tiny or large the area of the picture is that I examine, it will always bare the mark of an oil painting. Likewise, as we see that the galaxies bare witness of wave action, and that all sorts of other smaller phenomena bare the same wittiness, it is only wise to expect that in an even larger scale, the universe will behave in the same fashion. Now, hold tight to you chairs. I'm about to pull the key thread out of the string theory. If the string theory were true, there would be a major prohibition against the rotation of galaxies in the spinning disk format that we see. For the string theory to hold true, at least in normal space, the strings may not be disconnected. Everything in the universe is supposed to be made up of and laid out upon these strings. Each and every spiral galaxy, being that they spin and do not wind up, scream, with a loud voice, "Look Ma,... No Strings Attached!!!" They are free to never wind up. Wait! Aren't strings supposed to explain the reason why there's no spacial jitters? If there's no strings, what accounts for this? That's an easy one. Remember this, I've described this whole thing to you like water. In fact, it's probably safe to say that the processes we see in water can be, pretty well, superimposed to space. Now, when do we ever see jittery waves in water? There's only two times I know of. One, stems from what is basically compression and reverberation due to high obstacle volume in combination with close proximity with a massive limiting surface. That surface, of course, being the floor and walls this body of water travels in. The other, stems from the presence of only certain types wind. Superimposing these attribute to space, I'm certain, you will not find the first in normal space. Perhaps, you will in some level of a black hole. There's confining space there. As far as the latter is concerned, it is conceivable that some certain particle wind could produce such an effect in the short term. I would look for it in a new super nova. I don't know how you'd find it though. The key to proving or disproving string theory, my theory, or any theory is the consistency of behavior. You have to be able to complete a thought. String theory inconsistent. Things behave like strings in a grid-like fashion on so many levels. Yet, without provocation, they abandon the grid formation and start to do all sorts of other things. At the same time, they are supposed to be adhering to the string principles. I think not.

My model even covers the reason why a black hole can effect a strong gravitational force for only such a short distance away from the center of the opening. In the conventional model of things, gravity is a force. Therefore, there are some things that must hold true. Among other things, there has to be an opposing force and, if confined, it must increase in or focus the intensity. Of all the signs that we have of black holes, we don't see extreme gravity forces on the outskirts of the black hole or a beam effect inwards toward the black hole. In reality, we see minimal gravity bleed extending from the black hole. This defies it's existance if it were a force. I say, just like cold is actually a lack of heat and does not exist itself, gravity is actually a lack of a steady grade between two points in space. Basically, it's following the track of a dimple. Since the grade of the dimple is shallow outside and gradually increasing, you do not get and abnormally high gravitational force on the outskirts. Also, in sure that without rotation of the massive core in the first place, a black hole could not start. This sort of hints that there could be objects that appear too massive to be neutron stars that could actually be super neutron stars that lacked the rotation needed to draw in the walls of spacial fabric. The gravity produced by the dimple of these objects would be far superior to that of a conventional black hole. That being said, I'm ready to take some tough shots.

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online.
 
ISDAMan,

The strings in string theory are not all connected together. In fact, in most variants of the string theory the strings are actually loops. They permeate the fabric of space, and trough their vibrations transmit the various forces/effects of matter/energy.

The spirals in the spiral galaxies are currently theorized to be starburst shockwaves travelling tangentially to the direction of orbit. In other words, the entire galaxy is a big clump of gas and dark matter which we do not see, and the shining 'arms' are merely regions within the galaxy "currently" (cosmologically speaking) undergoing active star birth. The entire congregation of stars and dark matter orbits around the center, just as the planets orbit around the sun. So it's hard to understand where you come from with all this 'spin-up' business.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Hay all,

I've been working on my theories and there will be more to come very soon. I hope to see my old friends back again. This time, I'll have more bold claims and hope for more great debate.

ISDAMan
 
Hit us!

-slap-

Thanks...

Crisp

------------------
"The best thing you can become in life is yourself" -- M. Eyskens.



[This message has been edited by Crisp (edited December 22, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top