 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008VSL
I have begun reading Joao Magueijo's book "Faster than the Speed of Light". His thesis is that light in the early universe travelled faster than c. But so far in the book he is just describing Einstein's theories and what it was like to be a graduate student at Cambridge. Double-A > I have begun reading Joao Magueijo's book "Faster than the Speed of > Light". His thesis is that light in the early universe travelled > faster than c. But so far in the book he is just describing > Einstein's theories and what it was like to be a graduate student at > Cambridge. Yeah, Magueijo has been discussed here many times. He originally co- authored with Dr. Andy Albrecht, one of the fathers of inflation theory (along with Guth et al). Magueijo-Albrecht proposed an alternative to inflation. All it required was one simple adjustment to the axiom that the speed of light is universally constant. They called it variable speed of light, or VSL. If lightspeed is allowed to drop precipitously across the 'inflation' spike, the need for "inflation" disappears as if by magic (along with some niggling little problems with inflation). It very deftly resolves the Horizon Problem and the flatness paradox. But of course varying lightspeed amounts to a grand heresy. It also requires violating the Lorentz invariance, one of the biggest no-nos in physics. Upon that note, Albrecht got cold feet and back-pedaled back to the safety of "approved" doctrine. Magueijo freely admits it violates Lorentz, but remains steadfast and soldiers on anyway (talk about big brass cajones!). But he is a Void- Spacer and has no concept of the *mechanism* behind the lightspeed drop he intuitively knows to be real. If he did, he would recognize that it is NOT necessary to violate Lorentz (or any other constant for that matter). He could "have his cake and eat it too". That mechanism is explained here -- http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/page2.html oc & Double-A Best to think "space: to change speed of objects(making the distance shorter or grater) than to have even a tiny matter particle like the electron to reach 'c' Light goes at 186,242 mps It can't go faster and reality is it never slows down. Bert > oc & Double-A Best to think "space: to change speed of objects(making > the distance shorter or grater) than to have even a tiny matter particle > like the electron to reach 'c' Light goes at 186,242 mps It can't > go faster and reality is it never slows down. Bert Still if light is a particle and has any mass at all, it doesn't really reach c either. But that is speculation. Double-A > > I have begun reading Joao Magueijo's book "Faster than the Speed of > > Light". His thesis is that light in the early universe travelled [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > flatness paradox. But of course varying lightspeed amounts to a grand > heresy. Magueijo says that those who put the information in the textbooks are less concerned about heresy that those who got their information from those textbooks. This Einstein floated his own VSL theory in 1911. But I don't see that as Einstein being inconsistant with himself. Light does "seem" to slow in speed as it passes massive bodies as measured from a constant distant frame. It is just a matter of how you look at it. > It also requires violating the Lorentz invariance, one > of the biggest no-nos in physics. Upon that note, Albrecht got cold [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that matter). He could "have his cake and eat it too". That mechanism > is explained here --http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/page2.html Maybe you should send him a copy of your theory. He remarked that he already has a collection of "crackpot" theories that have been sent to him. Double-A > Maybe you should send him a copy of your theory. He remarked that he > already has a collection of "crackpot" theories that have been sent to > him. I did correspond with him by e-mail back in '02. He indicated he is firmly commited to the 'one-shot' BB and the standard open-ended expansion idea. Hence he has no concept of space being anything other than 'nothing'. Any further correspondance would have been pointless. > > Maybe you should send him a copy of your theory. He remarked that he > > already has a collection of "crackpot" theories that have been sent to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > expansion idea. Hence he has no concept of space being anything other > than 'nothing'. Any further correspondance would have been pointless. Interesting as he was writing about how Einstein was pondering whether space itself was a "something" which perhaps had anti-gravitational qualities. He thought tension would give it anti-gravity. I'm not sure how tension differs from pressure which is supposed to increase the gravity of a body. Eisntein was considering his cosmological constant. At this point in the book, Magueijo is calling it a mistake, even though we know it has been brought back. He plays rather loose with words, however, even calling Einsteins theiory "cranky" at one point. But he follows that with the standard reams of utmost praise. At this point (not quite 100 pages into it yet) you would think he wrote the book about Eisntein, and needed to come up with a gimick to sell it. Double-A AA wrote, >Interesting, as (Magueijo) was writing >about how Einstein was pondering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it anti-gravity. I'm not sure how tension >differs from pressure... Evidently he's come around to pondering whether it might be a 'something' after all. If he understood the concept of the cosmological PDT gradient, he would have the *cause* of his VSL, and with no need for violating the Lorentz invariance. > AA wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > PDT gradient, he would have the *cause* of his VSL, and with no need for > violating the Lorentz invariance. Magueijo seems to be discounting Einsteins ponderings about space with anti-gravitational properties. He maintains that the cosmological constant was Einstein's biggest mistake. While the book was only written a few years ago, I wonder if it was written before the evidence came out seeming to show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? Or perhaps he rejects accelerating expansion along with the inflationary period. I will just have to finish the book to find out. Double-A invariance. > Magueijo seems to be discounting Einsteins ponderings about space with > anti-gravitational properties. He maintains that the cosmological > constant was Einstein's biggest mistake. While the book was only > written a few years ago, I wonder if it was written before the > evidence came out seeming to show that the expansion of the universe > is accelerating? No, i believe his book came out in 2003 and the "ever-accelerating expansion" krap was hatched around 1996 with the advent of the HST deep-field observations of SN1a appearing dimmer than they 'should be'.. which in turn required invention of "dark energy" to drive the perceived expansion. > Or perhaps he rejects accelerating expansion along > with the inflationary period. I will just have to finish the book to > find out. In my brief correspondance with him in '02 he was commited to an 'open ended' expansion (whether "ever-accelerating" he didn't say) and the 'one-shot' BB. There was no indication he perceived space as anything other than 'void' much less a fliudic Plenum full of density gradients. > invariance. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > other than 'void' much less a fliudic Plenum full of density > gradients. I believe that he regarded space as a void as you say. He is critical of Einstein for having considered that it might have qualities such as anit-gravity. However......, he strangely contradicts himself in using the term "Comological Fluid" to refer to the large scale space that the galaxies seem to be empedded in. He talks about how as the universe expands, it isn't really the galaxies that have velocity relative to each other, but that the cosmological fluid between them is expanding. Now I know that if particles are suspended in a fluid like water, and more water is being pumped in, that the particles can be moved further apart. But I don't follow how a cosmological fluid that is really void and nothing can be expanding and therby causing the galaxies to become further apart. I guess it takes 6 years of grad school to understand such things! Double-A > ... he strangely contradicts himself in using the term > "Comological Fluid" to refer to the large scale space that the > galaxies seem to be empedded in. Wow! Now that is a new one, using the verboten 'F' word. > He talks about how as the universe > expands, it isn't really the galaxies that have velocity relative to > each other, but that the cosmological fluid between them is > expanding. Hells bells, then he *is*, at least de facto, describing a cosmological density gradient(!). Now if he can 'get' the fact that expansion of the Fluid correlates to diminishment of its *density*, that its volume / density are inverse, and if he can correlate the steepest density-drop to his lightspeed drop, then he will have the acting mechanism of his VSL. > Now I know that if particles are suspended in a fluid like > water, and more water is being pumped in, that the particles can be > moved further apart. But I don't follow how a cosmological fluid that > is really void and nothing can be expanding and therby causing the > galaxies to become further apart. I guess it takes 6 years of grad > school to understand such things! Well, the water analogy breaks down because water is not expandable/ compressible or amenable to density gradients. Where do you suppose he mighta got the idea of space being an expandable Fluid back in the timeframe of 2002-'03? Do you think..? Nah. :-) > Where do you suppose he mighta got the idea of space being an > expandable Fluid back in the timeframe of 2002-'03? Do you think..? > Nah. :-) If he did, would it matter to you? happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > If he did, would it matter to you? Not in the least. Nobody "owns" the fact that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun.. or that there is a cosmological density(PDT) gradient of the spatial medium concomitant with the expansion rate of that medium, and that the speed of light drops concomitantly with the expansion, most precipitously in the earliest epoch following the BB. The lightspeed drop is _as observed from the 'outside' frame_, while here 'inside' we observe artifacts of the expansion such as the excessive SN1a dimming. > > ... he strangely contradicts himself in using the term > > "Comological Fluid" to refer to the large scale space that the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Well, the water analogy breaks down because water is not expandable/ > compressible or amenable to density gradients. I think I had that cosmological fluid described a bit wrong. The cosmological fluid as he presents it is the fanciful fluid made up of the galaxies, as though they were water molecules. But the analogy breaks down fast because there is no mutual repulsion, Brownian motion, pressure, etc. But here is a direct quote from the book: "In the relativistic picture of expansion, the components of the cosmological fluid, that is the galaxies, are encrusted in space and therefore are not moving relative to space, however space itself is in motion, expanding and creating more and more room between any two given points as time goes by. Thus the distance between any two galaxies increases in time creating the illusion of mechanical motion. But in reality, galaxies just sit there contemplating the spectacle of the universe creating more and more space between them. - "Faster Than the Speed of Light" - Joao Magueijo. However, for someone who seems to be advocating space as nothing and void, Magueijo doesn't make sense if you replace all the words "space" in the above paragraph with "nothing". I have never seen him talk about the density of space itself, only about the density of gravitating matter in space. He also claims the cosmological constant would not reduce or become diluted as the universe expanded. On the other hand, he seems to think the cosmological constant could have existed during the inflationalry period yet not exist today. Double-A > I think I had that cosmological fluid described a bit wrong. The > cosmological fluid as he presents it is the fanciful fluid made up of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > spectacle of the universe creating more and more space between them. > - "Faster Than the Speed of Light" - Joao Magueijo. Then he's still the same old dyed-in-the-wool Void-Spacer as always, like the Ancient Mariner, stuck with the albatross of the Lorentz invariance if he wants a varying lightspeed. > However, for someone who seems to be advocating space as nothing and > void, Magueijo doesn't make sense if you replace all the words "space" > in the above paragraph with "nothing". Reciting the same old "dough-less raisin bread" theme. > I have never seen him talk about the density of space itself, only > about the density of gravitating matter in > > I think I had that cosmological fluid described a bit wrong. The > > cosmological fluid as he presents it is the fanciful fluid made up of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Reciting the same old "dough-less raisin bread" theme. Expanding nothing, now there's a concept! Double-A > Expanding nothing, now there's a concept! Yep. That's the status quo's standard 'one-shot' BB, ever-accelerating expansion of 'Nothing', "carrying matter along for the ride" unto entropic heat death. Makes a lotta sense huh? > > Expanding nothing, now there's a concept! > > Yep. That's the status quo's standard 'one-shot' BB, ever-accelerating > expansion of 'Nothing', "carrying matter along for the ride" unto > entropic heat death. Makes a lotta sense huh? Magueijo's main theory is about the speed of light at the time of the inflationary period. This is a period that may or may not have even happened. It is all highly speculative to begin with. His theory has little to do with anything we can observe or meassure today. It is something likg saying that if Alice really went to Wonderland, could she only walk there or could she fly? Double-A > Magueijo's main theory is about the speed of light at the time of the > inflationary period. This is a period that may or may not have even > happened. It is all highly speculative to begin with. His theory has > little to do with anything we can observe or meassure today. It is > something likg saying that if Alice really went to Wonderland, could > she only walk there or could she fly? Well, there was naturally a period of `inflate-ment` that gradually leveled out (as would follow any explosion), but not the spike of *hyper*inflation that's billed as resolving the Horizon Problem. Simply letting the speed of light drop precipitously across this perceived spike resolves the H.P. quite deftly, and eliminates the need for (hyper)inflation altogether. BUT if space is perceived as 'void', the grand bugaboo of Lorentz remains unassailed. Only when the cosmological density (PDT) gradient of space itself is recognized does that bugaboo vanish as a fog in the sun. >> Magueijo's main theory is about the speed of light at the time of the >> inflationary period. This is a period that may or may not have even [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >cosmological density (PDT) gradient of space itself is recognized does >that bugaboo vanish as a fog in the sun. What are the units of the PDT gradient? How it is measured? Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen > > Magueijo's main theory is about the speed of light at the time of the > > inflationary period. This is a period that may or may not have even [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > cosmological density (PDT) gradient of space itself is recognized does > that bugaboo vanish as a fog in the sun. Magueijo does think his theory of faster than c light would eliminate the need for an inflationary period. He thinks it could expain how the early universe stayed connected and gained homogenuity. He also thinks that since varying the speed of light appears to lead to the loss of conservation of energy and matter (which I would think would be a big problem for a theory), that his theory explains how mass was created iin the early universe. He takes a lot of cheap shots in his book at those he has had run ins with, such as editors who rejected his papers for journals. He managed to work in the "F" word, and even suggested that Einstein use the "MF" word in his last words spoken from his death bed. I know he is trying to make the book interesting and a good read, but he seems to project a lot of immaturity in a book with a theory he wants to be taken seriously. He thinks that if you could find a cosmic string, light would travel faster than c along it. So if you could follow the string in your spaceship, you could travel to distant parts of the universe at greater than c speed and not suffer the time dilation effects that would otherwise prevent you from returning to Earth while the civilization that sent you still existed. he thinks that the speed of c might decrease to zero at the event horiizon of a black hole. But I can't see that this would make much difference except to put the event horizon a little furhter out from the center. I have about 30 pages left to read, but he has shown no signs of accepting any sort of medium in space. He doesn't like the Cosmological Constant (Dark Energy), but thinks that if it exists, it will quickly domonate. He thinks that if we are really seeing the universe now accelerating in its expansion, that the Constant must have been extremely slight up to now, but now that it is being felt, will quckly drive the universe to extreme dispersion and heat death. However, he thinks that this may lead to a sudden increase in the value of c again, and result in another Big Bang! Most of his theories though (and his already has a bunch of alternative VSL theoies), cannot in ary way be tested, except for checking them for mathematical consistancy, and so are speculation. Double-A > . . . Most of his > theories though (and his already has a bunch of alternative VSL > theoies), cannot in ary way be tested, except for checking them for > mathematical consistancy, and so are speculation. > > Double-A Seems like Magueijo would feel right at home here in alt.astronomy. I wonder which one of us he is? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > > . . . Most of his > > theories though (and his already has a bunch of alternative VSL [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > happy days and... > starry starry nights! He posted some of his theory summaries in the archive group: umich.physics.gr-qc It is a way to put on record that you have come up with a theory even before the journals get around to publishing it (or if they refuse to publish it). I don't see anything lately. I know his theory has been discussed in the physics groups. Don't know if he has entered the discussions with a sock other than his own name. Wouldn't be surprised. Double-A > He posted some of his theory summaries in the archive group: > > umich.physics.gr-qc I understand Magueijo left Imperial College. Does this mean he's at U of Michigan? >> He posted some of his theory summaries in the archive group: >> >> umich.physics.gr-qc > > I understand Magueijo left Imperial College. Does this mean he's at U > of Michigan? Here's his Imperial email address... j.magueijo @ imperial.ac.uk Here's an older address, also at Imperial... j.magueijo @ ic.ac.uk Typical U of Mich. addresses end with... @umich.edu So you might also try... j.magueijo @ umich.edu If he's moved, he probably has his email forwarded. Also found Alcubierre's email address at the Albert Einstein Institute. It's from back in 2000, though... miguel @ aei-potsdam.mpg.de happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > Typical U of Mich. addresses end with... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > j.magueijo @ umich.edu Hah! Are you kidding? Gave up on the dude 6 years ago. He's an inveterate VS'er. I was just curious if he was still at Imperial. >> Typical U of Mich. addresses end with... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hah! Are you kidding? Gave up on the dude 6 years ago. He's an > inveterate VS'er. I was just curious if he was still at Imperial. Magueijo is also obviously an inveterate "out-of-the-box" thinker. He would be a good one to convince. His science background could take the SPED to new heights. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > Magueijo is also obviously an inveterate "out-of-the-box" > thinker. He would be a good one to convince. His science > background could take the SPED to new heights. It's been mentioned before in the context of a 'What If'. If Magueijo, Barrow, Moffatt and Troitskii, with their very-similar VSL models, could be teamed up with Lindner, Shifman, and Warren* with their in- common Flowing Space models, then there would be a synergy that could take cosmology itself to unbounded new heights. It wouldn't even need any knowledge of the CBB model. It would work just fine with the 'one- shot' BB because it would get rid of the "ever-accelerating expansion" krap and allow for the Big Crunch as a matter of course. But alas, ne'er the twain shall meet. *This was before i was aware of Martin, Huenefeld and Stefanko who have also deduced the FS model of gravity on their own. > > He posted some of his theory summaries in the archive group: > > > umich.physics.gr-qc > > I understand Magueijo left Imperial College. Does this mean he's at U > of Michigan? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo%C3%A3o_Magueijo Apparently he just did a Science Channel series this year: João Magueijo's Big Bang. http://www.scienceontv.com/2008/04/18/joao-magueijo%E2%80%99s-big-bang/ http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/faster-than-the.html I think he's still at Imperial College in London. He said that John Moffat had no college degree, but sitting down over tankards of ale with the right faculty members at Trinity College, Cambridge, he impressed them with how many great scientists he had worked with, knew, or corresponded with (including Bohr and Einbstein), and so they allowed him to enter a Ph.D. program with no prior degree, and he succeeded in earning it. Double-A Howdy AA Just wanted to give you credit for your contribution re. time dilation at a BH's event horizon.. which would give the appearance of "stoppage" of the inflow at the proton's 'event horizon'.. which in turn would dovetail with Painius' concept of the inflow sort of 'petering out' like a California dry lake. This is in contrast to Wolter's preoccupation with (and agonizing over) the 'Roach Motel' issue during his last few months. That's the issue of "where does the stuff go once it vents through the core of the nucleus?" As related before, he finally resolved it to his own satisfaction upon delving into the work of Bohm and Pribram. > Howdy AA > Just wanted to give you credit for your > contribution re. time dilation at a BH's event horizon.. which would > give the appearance of "stoppage" of the inflow at the proton's 'event > horizon'.. which in turn would dovetail with Painius' concept of the > inflow sort of 'petering out' like a California dry lake. . . . "Petering out"? Not quite... There is nothing that i can find in mainstream quantum mechanics that explains where the energies of the atom come from. Nothing. It's as if it's too unimportant to even address. And it actually appears as if particle physicists accept (without actually saying so) that on a quantum level, perpetual motion and energy are okay. The SNF, the WNF, the EM force are all traced well down into the smallest-sensed levels. The only force that does not trace well to the smallest levels is gravity. And the motion of the high-grade energy of the SPED into each and every atom brings all of this to light. It is the SPED that constantly supplies/renews the forces, strong, weak and electromagnetic. It is the SPED that transforms into the energies and MATTER of the smallest-sensed levels and sustains them. And it is the SPED, by constantly entering matter on the smallest-sensed levels, that causes gravity. There is SO much more clarity in this than in anything i've read in the field of quantum physics! There is so much potential here that it's actually just a little bit foreboding. E=mc² applies only to EM energy and cannot/does not apply to the SPED. The high-grade energy of the SPED is only related to "c" by the fact that it is the carrier of EM radiation. To me, this means that a totally new and different mathematical relationship is required to bring the reality of the SPED into the realm of physics. And i have no idea how or what the SPED's energy can be related to in terms of what is already known. Part of my problem is that i'm still trying to envision in my mind the vibrational properties of the SPED. It's not electromagnetic in nature, so what exactly *is* the SPED's nature? And what do we have in the realm of physics that we can associate and relate the SPED to in order to better understand it? Your and Wolter's descriptions of the energy density of space serve well as metaphors, and these help me to better understand it. I want and need to dig deeper! I think of this exercise as not one of seeking to dredge out the DMP, but instead as one of focusing upon the deeper picture of the SPED. Sort of like peeling off the deeper layers of an onion. <g> happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > Part of my problem is that i'm still trying to envision in > my mind the vibrational properties of the SPED. It's not > electromagnetic in nature, so what exactly *is* the > SPED's nature? And what do we have in the realm of > physics that we can associate and relate the SPED to in > order to better understand it? Well, just in the last few months (and catalyzed by dialog with you, BTW), the 'bipolar granulon' nature of the SPED became embarrassingly obvious, bringing Wolter's original observation full circle by explaining WHY "there is no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of EM radiation." As you recall, it ended up explaining polarization of light too. A bit of 'intuitive extrapolation'(IE) was applied, seeing the common planform throughout nature upon which the CBB model itself is rooted and based. That's the dual hemisphered 'donut' with a common equator, rotating on a polar axis. It's the most primal form in nature from which all else 'fractalizes' and evolves. And it's BIPOLAR. That was the cue. Eureka. :-) There's a 'granular'/'corpuscular' aspect to the sub-Planckian stuff, so let's invent this new term, 'granulon' (after all, the mainstream invents new "particles" willy-nilly at the drop of a hat:-)). An individual 'granulon' is a dipole, just as is the proton, the H atom, all the way up to the 'donut' of the macro-universe. This is IE unleashed. In the absence of any EM radiation, the 'granulons' lie in totally random alignment, the SPED is quiescent. But remember, this totally quiescent field, this seeming "void", is charged with the sub-Planckian energy density (PDT value) of "E=mc^3". Now a bit of EM radiation is stirred to propagate. 'Granulons' are nudged into alignment, the **degree of alignment** depending on amplitude of the EM wave. And the wave propagates, its velocity fixed by the PDT value (energy density) of the "granulon" sea. (See any similarity to Dirac's "sea" or old Bernoulli's 'corpuscular' model?). This undulating wave of oscillating bipolar "granulons" _is the propagation mechanism of Maxwell's E and H fields_. Since EM amplitude is the function of *degree of alignment* of "granulons" oscillating en masse, it explains _WHY_ there is no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of EM radiation. It also explains polarization of light. And this revelation of bipolar "granulons" was directly catalyzed by dialog with you. > Your and Wolter's descriptions of the energy density of > space serve well as metaphors, and these help me to > better understand it. The foregoing is more literal than metaphoric. The bipolar nature is clearly demonstrated by polarization of light, in addition to explaining the 'why' of what's long been established, ie., unlimited amplitude potential of EM radiation. > I want and need to dig deeper! I > think of this exercise as not one of seeking to dredge > out the DMP, but instead as one of focusing upon the > deeper picture of the SPED. Sort of like peeling off the > deeper layers of an onion. <g> Well, we've already established that's there's also a highly ordered, 'octave-like' wave nature to the SPED, reflected in its sub- synchronous, subharmonic "notes" of the Periodic table. > There is nothing that i can find in mainstream quantum > mechanics that explains where the energies of the atom > come from. Nothing. It's as if it's too unimportant to > even address. And it actually appears as if particle > physicists accept (without actually saying so) that on a > quantum level, perpetual motion and energy are okay. Yeah, and they offer no rational explanation of why, in accelerator collisions, the liberated "particles" have no independant stand-alone existance outside the nucleus. Why do these decay to "nothing" almost instantaneously, requiring sophisticated instrumentation to detect their brief passing? Obviously they're not "particles" at all but simple 'condensates' arising from underlying symmetries within the nucleus when it got whacked. > The SNF, the WNF, the EM force are all traced well down > into the smallest-sensed levels. The only force that does > not trace well to the smallest levels is gravity. This is true only under the VSP. Under the FS model, gravity and strong (and 'weak') nuclear force are processes of one and the same Flow. Unification comes as an unsought and unsolicited by-product, like a friendly dog who trotted in through the back door and sat down grinning. > And the > motion of the high-grade energy of the SPED into each [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > have no idea how or what the SPED's energy can be > related to in terms of what is already known. Seems like "what goes around comes around" often in these matters.. like Newton's original observation about the 'speed of gravity'. And Bernoulli's 'corpuscular whirlpool' model of (what we are calling the SPED). I believe it was AA who posted this article originally, and it's been posted a time or two since. Note the referance to Bernoulli about midway through the piece - http://www.scientificblogging.com/recreational_number_theory/dark_matter_and_dar k_energy > To me, this means that a totally new and > different mathematical relationship is required to bring > the reality of the SPED into the realm of physics. There ya go, propounding the "Primacy of Math" trip again. <g (Cheany- esque grin). The SPED already *demonstrates itself* as _fundamental_ to physics. It demonstrates itself on many fronts, notably those half dozen Cardinal Points of Evidence that've been elucidated here so many times. It don't take one iota of math to understand it. As Wolter used to say, all the math you'll even need is already in place. Even his 'c- dilation' curve is already represented by the Lorentzian time-dilation curve. Of course what you're sayin' is that the "show me the math" guys will never look at anything unless you "show them the math" up front. But the reality is, if they can't see what's glaringly obvious right in front of their noses already, you can "show 'em the math" till the cows come home and they'll never look at it. This is not to say that somewhere in the far future when (and if) the reality of the SPED is recognized, an upgraded set of math tables may be designed to _describe_ it.. just as was the case with Relativity. SR was already "cooked" in the mind of Einstein, and then the math to describe it came afterward. The "horse was before the cart", as it should be. But then along in the mid-1920s he dropped the seemingly innocent and innocuous little statement, "Remember gentlemen, we have not proven that the aether does not exist, we have only proven we do not need it (for mathematical purposes)." But the mainstream glommed onto that and ran with it, spinning it to mean a new age of enlightenment had dawned, the Primacy of Math supplanted the old superstition. The "aether" was dead. And the rest is history. The Primacy of Math doctrine, nay, the Primacy of Math Institution, systemically and systematically rejects and denies the existance of the *mechanism* the Math describes. The Void-Space Paradigm is its spawn.. and the direct cause of the shambles and chaos characterizing astrophysics/cosmology and theoretical physics today. Addendum: Concerning the "bipolar granulon" aspect of the SPED matrix. It is proposed that the 'granulons' lie in a state of totally random alignment when no EM radiation is being carried. When an EM wave arises, the 'granulons' are nudged toward collective alignment, and an oscillating alignment-state (or wave packet) then propagates at c, constituting a "photon". Well, the idea of "totally random alignment" at first might appear to conflict with the SPED being an exquisitely ordered, 'octave-like' vibrational matrix with the Periodic Table at the lowest end of its "keyboard". However there is no conflict when you recognize that the *alignment domain* is distinct from the *frequency/wavelength* domain. They are two different critters. By analogy, consider a block of iron and the 'alignment domain' of its constituent atoms. When no magnetism is present, the atoms lie in totally random alignment. When magnetism is applied to the iron, its atoms are nudged toward collective alignment. Yet no matter how much magnetism is present, the iron remains unchanged in its "iron-ness", that is, in the frequency/wavelength domain of its exquisitely-ordered atomic lattice. Likewise, the frequency/wavelength domain of the spatial matrix remains unchanged no matter how high the amplitude of EM radiation it might happen to be carrying. > Addendum: > Concerning the "bipolar granulon" aspect of the SPED [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > spatial matrix remains unchanged no matter how high the amplitude of > EM radiation it might happen to be carrying. If "totally random alignment" happens only in the absence of EM modulation, then this state of the SPED does not exist anywhere within optical range. Light can be seen coming in toward us from up to billions of light years away, and the emitters of this light are omnidirectional transmitters. And, of course, there are other EM radiations besides light that also seem to constantly modulate the entire SPED of our visible cosmos. In "light" of this, what happens when a light beam from one source crosses the emanations from a different source? It might also be interesting to think about opposing light rays. E.g., the light coming to our Solar System from, say, the star Rigel vs. the light from our Sun that is emitted toward Rigel. A straight line between the two stars is modulated by the two light rays going in opposite directions. Unless we can position a space vehicle precisely on this line, we cannot see if the light cancels. But then, there's always reflected light. Some of that from Earth hits the Moon, and some reflected light from the Moon hits Earth. If we can treat the SPED in the same way we treat known forms of energy, wouldn't reflected light from Earth cancel/interfere with the light from the Moon? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > If "totally random alignment" happens only in the absence > of EM modulation, then this state of the SPED does not exist > anywhere within optical range. Absolutely correct. Even in deepest space, there's still the omnipresent CMBR, there's low-level, transient radiation from a near- infinitude of distant point sources. The term "Totally random alignment" was used to illustrate a point, fully aware that such a condition of absolute totality does not exist in nature (like the Schwartzchild model of a BH pictures an absolutely non-rotating BH to illustrate the principle of the event horizon). > Light can be seen coming in > toward us from up to billions of light years away, and the > emitters of this light are omnidirectional transmitters. And, > of course, there are other EM radiations besides light that > also seem to constantly modulate the entire SPED of our > visible cosmos. Yuppers! > In "light" of this, what happens when a light beam from one > source crosses the emanations from a different source? It [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Rigel. A straight line between the two stars is modulated by > the two light rays going in opposite directions. Remember that the light is broad-spectrum, like "white noise", not coherent sine waves as from a laser. > Unless we can position a space vehicle precisely on this line, > we cannot see if the light cancels. But then, there's always [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > energy, wouldn't reflected light from Earth cancel/interfere > with the light from the Moon? Again, it's broadband EM noise. You'd get cancellation/interferance only with coherent waves. Take an example, using radio. Say you have a couple of old-time untuned spark transmitters. They put out broadband hash. Obviously they don't "interfere" with each other. Now take a couple of vacuum tube transmitters which put out tuned, coherent sine wave carriers (analogous to lasers). Say the carriers are 1000 Hz apart, and you can hear the familiar 'beat' or heterodyne products (birdies) which is the 'interferance' between the carriers. >> . . . >> In "light" of this, what happens when a light beam from one [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Again, it's broadband EM noise. You'd get cancellation/interferance > only with coherent waves. . . . Okay, so hows about the laser mirrors on the Moon? These are the ones they've been using to accurately measure the distance of the Moon as it changes thru its monthly cycle, and as its orbit moves farther away each year. Shouldn't there be interference, or even cancellation? Or does the three second difference between transmit and receive resolve the issue? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, >Or does the three second difference >between transmit and receive resolve the >issue? Sure, what's measured is the 2-way transit time of an extremely short duration laser pulse. A quick Google under 'Lunar laser ranging' should turn up a lot of info. oc Light bouncing back and forth such as in a laser tube intensifies its strength. My thinking is if we aimed to powerful laser beams at close range these beams would not collide. Never heard of photon collisions.Electron positron collisions give of photons. Radio photons could be a different story,for they are long waves Bert > oc Light bouncing back and forth such as in a laser tube intensifies its > strength. My thinking is if we aimed to powerful laser beams at close > range these beams would not collide. Never heard of photon > collisions. Photon collisions cause electron positron pair productions. > Electron positron collisions give of photons. Radio photons > could be a different story,for they are long waves Bert I think what we think of as radio waves are more like waves of photons. Double-A Double-A Never thought photons hit photons Einstein got his Nobel for photons of very high energy(gamma) can kick free electrons of a metal's surface. Also that a powerful laser can get electrons up to 99.9999 of 'c' Cheap accelerator Bert >> To me, this means that a totally new and >> different mathematical relationship is required to bring [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Paradigm is its spawn.. and the direct cause of the shambles and chaos > characterizing astrophysics/cosmology and theoretical physics today. Thank our lucky stars for that! But because of the haze/mask/veil we enjoy by virtue of the VSP, there's no reason why we can't bounce a few math balls toward the basket... You and i like to cite the "fanciful" E=mc³ to represent the tremendous energetics of the SPED. But the truth is, the SPED quite possibly makes this "expression" pale against its real and true energetics. This is why i'd like to study the math. I have no delusions about others gazing in awe at whatever we actually discover. If they were going to do that, they would have done so already. As you say, the SPED demonstrates itself, and it does this so well that others cannot see what's right there in front of their schnozolas. But "E=mc³" still shows a mathematical relationship between the SPED and the speed of EM radiation, and this is what i first of all find unlikely, since as i said, the SPED is the carrier of EM radiation, the SPED is not EM radiation itself, so how can there be a direct math relationship between a non-EM carrier and the speed of the modulating EM radiation that would lead to the amount of energy the non-EM carrier contains? Secondly, i can see the possibility of a relationship between the SPED and matter (mass), however the mass in Einstein's popular equation is actually the change in mass that results in a loss or gain of energy. And once again, this does nothing to describe the high- grade energetics of the SPED. All the equation, E=mc², actually shows us is how much energy is released in a radioactive substance when a certain amount of matter is converted. So to show the tremendous amount of energy had by the SPED, E=mc² must be discarded, and a relationship among things like matter, the force of gravity, etc., can then be brought into focus. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > ...there's no reason why we can't bounce a > few math balls toward the basket... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is, the SPED quite possibly makes this "expression" > pale against its real and true energetics. Yasser. "E=mc³" was a tool of convenience simply to denote emphasis. It is no doubt 'waaay conservative in describing the real energy density (PDT value) of the SPED. We discussed this theme a few years ago along with dissenting but civil 'OG' if you recall. OG saw no relevance to the fact that there is *no perceptible upper limit to amplitude of EM radiation*. You suggested that maybe there is a "saturatation point" analogous to magnetic saturation, above which EM amplitude might be "clipped off" or leveled. I mentioned that Wolter had mused that the limit might be the energy level of the BB itself (since we do quite literally live *inside* the BB at its most expanded state). In any case, the energy-carrying capability of EM radiation IS higher than we can begin to conceive of, let alone describe with math. Personally, i could give a rat's a.s about the Math. But that's just me.:-) I just find a never-ending reverance at the magnificence and grandeur of it that language falls short of conveying. A walk in the Sun or a walk under the stars leaves one thunderstruck at the awesome, even terrifying, dynamism of space itself.. that its hydrodymanic pressure literally powers each of those stars, each an incandescing 'vent point' of space itself venting down to its 'ground state'. And out beyond our naked-eye vision, that same pressure powers the quasars quite handily and routinely pops off supernovas, yet orders the atoms of the grass and dandelions and the spider's silk.. and whose equisitely-ordered vibrational matrix is the wellspring of life and consciousness itself. It never grows old, but becomes more and more joy-giving and enchanting, and engenders a love of life that the religionists seek in their 'God'. > This is why > i'd like to study the math. Well, to each their own. But i'm quite happy to wait a while on The Math. :-) > I have no delusions about > others gazing in awe at whatever we actually discover. > If they were going to do that, they would have done so > already. As you say, the SPED demonstrates itself, and > it does this so well that others cannot see what's right > there in front of their schnozolas. To their loss.. >> . . . This is why i'd like to study the math. > > Well, to each their own. But i'm quite happy to wait a while on The > Math. :-) . . . That's *good*! Because i'm unable to find the time right now to do it properly. I will have to wait and make time for it hopefully in the near future. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net > He said that John Moffat had no college degree, but sitting down over > tankards of ale with the right faculty members at Trinity College, > Cambridge, he impressed them with how many great scientists he had > worked with, knew, or corresponded with (including Bohr and > Einbstein), and so they allowed him to enter a Ph.D. program with no > prior degree, and he succeeded in earning it. Imagine that! One question - does Magueijo mention Troitskii anywhere in his book? Or has he dropped off the radar? > > He said that John Moffat had no college degree, but sitting down over > > tankards of ale with the right faculty members at Trinity College, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Imagine that! One question - does Magueijo mention Troitskii anywhere > in his book? Or has he dropped off the radar? I don't recall him mentioning Troitskii. Double-A > Seems like Magueijo would feel right at home here in > alt.astronomy. I wonder which one of us he is? Heh. It's unlikely so renouned a mukky-muk would ever take note of this little backwater NG. On Jul 1, 11:10 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote, re. Magueijo: > ...his theory explains how mass was > created iin the early universe. ...having no concept that the first elements "fizzed out" of the rapidly-decompressing spatial medium like when you pop the cork on a soda bottle. Only the lightest elements had a chance to form before the PDT value of space dropped below fusion pressure. The VSP has no concept that atoms are like vacuoles or 'bubbles' embedded in their medium. In the analogy of Mr. Fish, bubbles are 'being' while the much- more-substantial medium in which they're embedded is 'not-being' or void. > ..he thinks that the speed of c might decrease to zero at the > event horizon of a black hole. This would be correct as observed from our frame 'out here', while `at` the event horizon, the flow of space itself reaches c. But in Magueijo's world there is no spatial medium to flow. > He thinks that if we are really seeing the > universe now accelerating in its expansion, that the Constant must > have been extremely slight up to now, but now that it is being felt, > will quckly drive the universe to extreme dispersion and heat death. > However, he thinks that this may lead to a sudden increase in the > value of c again, and result in another Big Bang! A variation of the 'oscillating' or reciprocating model. >On Jul 1, 11:10 am, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote, re. Magueijo: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >more-substantial medium in which they're embedded is 'not-being' or >void. What are the units of the PDT value? How is it measured? >> ..he thinks that the speed of c might decrease to zero at the >> event horizon of a black hole. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >A variation of the 'oscillating' or reciprocating model. Signature02D2D2 > What are the units of the PDT value? How is it measured? Well, as regards 'units', the local PDT value would be the ambient value just outside our Sun's gravity well. That would be *One PDT Unit*, or 1 PDTU(analogous to one astronomical unit, or AU). "Measurement" has been discussed here several times in years past in regard to 'c-dilation', which is a direct function of PDT value. If you take a graph of relativistic time dilation such depicted here by the green line, http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html and reverse the graph, turning it end-for-end, it also depicts the ascending curve 'c-dilation'/ PDT value back to the instant of the BB, as shown here - http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/page2.html Numerically, PDTU count would climb exponentially to the left, with One PDTU represented at the far right, or 'Present'. >> What are the units of the PDT value? How is it measured? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Numerically, PDTU count would climb exponentially to the left, with > One PDTU represented at the far right, or 'Present'. What Ken might be looking for here are the units of... Pressure, Density, and Time In physics there's always a standard units system used, like for example the "cgs" system for centimeters, grams and seconds. And i wonder, too, how the PDT "measures up" to standard measuring units systems. If this can be determined, then perhaps equations can be derived that can describe the power of the SPED? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >> What are the units of the PDT value? How is it measured? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Numerically, PDTU count would climb exponentially to the left, with >One PDTU represented at the far right, or 'Present'. But none of that answers my questions, you are just talking about qualitative changes. I don't know what "c-dilation" is. Signature02D2D2 > But none of that answers my questions, you are just talking about > qualitative changes. I don't know what "c-dilation" is. Well, try for a moment to step back and look at the 'big picture', to consider the 'Statue' instead of just concentrating on the 'rivets and seams' of the Statue. Qualitative changes are a primary feature of the 'big picture'. Mentally transpose to the 'outside' referance frame. (Yeah, it's said that there is no "outside" to the universe. But as humans, we do have the innate ability to mentally "see from" that overview.) 'C-dilation' has been discussed in depth here many times over the years. It is the drop in lightspeed _as viewed from the 'outside' referance frame_, from 'outside' the universe so to speak. There is a precipitous drop in the pressure/density (or PDT value) _of the spatial medium itself_ from the instant of the Big Bang. The speed of light drops concomitantly with the PDT drop, because lightspeed is a direct function of that value. This is 'c-dilation', and it is as viewed _from the 'outside' frame_. Meanwhile here 'inside', we observe the speed of light to be a constant 186,282 mps here `locally`, just as the speed of light is a constant 186,282 mps 'there', locally, at deep cosmological distances. The prime variable between 'here' and 'there' is the PDT value of space (and of course the *volume* of space which is more contracted at deep cosmological distances). The constancy of the speed of light is never violated, `locally`, either 'here' or 'there'. The Lorentz invariance is never violated, nor is any other constant for that matter. The natural extension/expansion of Special Relativity is to recognize the *cosmological PDT gradient*. Just as SR holds c constant in all inertial frames, the expanded version, SR2, holds c constant in all *PDT frames* as well. And 'c-dilation', properly understood, is seen from 'outside' and is a primary feature of SR2. Now the sitting paradigm holds that space is a universally-isotropic 'void-nothing' all the way back to the instant of the BB. Of course this precludes existance of a spatial medium or any PDT gradients, or any extension/expansion of Relativity. So if you're a 'Void- Spacer' (and the term is used in all kindness, with no pejorative intent), none of this will mean anything and it'll be all gobbledegook. But if interested, you might wanta review this page - http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/page2.html Even under the prevailing Singular or 'one-shot' BB idea, the cosmological PDT gradient and 'c-dilation' can be easily understood once the reality of the spatial medium is recognized. It is what "exploded" forth from the BB, carrying its sprinkling of Matter along for the ride. Addendum: It's probably worth mentioning regarding the 'flat' status of GR, that although GR does describe a drop in lightspeed in a gravity well, it does not explain *why* the drop occurs.. which is the diminishing PDT value (ie., thinning) of the spatial medium as it accelerates into the gravity well. Nor does it recognize the contraction of the *volume* of space outside a gravity well.. which is the root of the Pioneer anomaly, causing they spacecraft to lag behind where they 'should be'. >Addendum: > It's probably worth mentioning regarding the 'flat' status [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the root of the Pioneer anomaly, causing they spacecraft to lag behind >where they 'should be'. If the value can be expressed numerically, the value must have the fundamental SI units attached. If it doesn't, then it is really hard to relate it to anything else, or understand how it fits with other quantities. This is what I don't understand. Signature02D2D2 > If the value can be expressed numerically, the value must have the > fundamental SI units attached. If it doesn't, then it is really hard > to relate it to anything else, or understand how it fits with other > quantities. This is what I don't understand. Umm.. not sure what you mean by "fundamental SI units". But as suggested earlier, the ambient PDT value of local space outside of any gravity well could be designated PDT unit One, or PDTU 1 as the baseline unit. A negative-going value could be assigned to descent into a gravity well, and a positive-going value assigned to the cosmological PDT gradient going back to the BB. It could be modeled on a temperature scale maybe, assigning an 'absolute' negative value marking the event horizon of a black hole.. and an 'absolute' positive value which would mark the point of emergence from the BB. It would be up to the Math Heads, the 'rivets and seams' guys, to design the actual scales. But of course nobody is going to step "outside the box" of the Void-Space Paradigm in the foreseeable future to design any such scales. >> If the value can be expressed numerically, the value must have the >> fundamental SI units attached. If it doesn't, then it is really hard [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >box" of the Void-Space Paradigm in the foreseeable future to design >any such scales. But can the value be expressed in terms of mass, length, time, etc.? Pressure is normally force per unit area. Signature02D2D2 > But can the value be expressed in terms of mass, length, time, etc.? > Pressure is normally force per unit area. OK I get your drift now. This too has been discussed many times, particularly regarding the *pressure* issue. Will address it in the morning. Rough day, sack time. Suffice it to say, the hydrodynamic pressure of the spatial medium exceeds degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus, driving the flow of space *into* the core of matter's every constituent proton. And herein lies unification of gravity and the strong nuclear force. Such is the hyperpressurized state of space itself, even at our meager 'local' PDTU 1 value. > > But can the value be expressed in terms of mass, length, time, etc.? > > Pressure is normally force per unit area. > > OK I get your drift now. This too has been discussed many times, > particularly regarding the *pressure* issue. Anyhow, one cardinal feature of the flowing-space model of gravity is the pressure-driven, accelerating flow of the spatial medium into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink (or drain). This is true whether it's a single proton adrift in deep space, or a large aggregation of protons constituting a gravitating mass (e.g., asteroid, moon, planet, sun). This same model with its 'reverse starburst' flow pattern has been deduced independantly and without collaboration by a number of people worldwide (Shifman, H. Warren, Lindner, Huenefeld, Stefanko et al). Their models differ only superficially, but all share the same core mechanism: the accelerating flow of space itself into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. The authors' main commonality is : they reject the 'space-as-void' indoctrination unequivocally, recognizing space as exactly what it _demonstrates itself_ to be, particularly in the behavior of gravity. It's a no-brainer like "Doh! The Earth really is round and revolves around the sun." One issue that the CBB model brings to the table is emphasis on the *sheer enormous-ness* of the pressurized state of the medium. Gordon Wolter recognized this hyperpressure state early on in the formulation of his model, calling it the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' (later assigned the acronym SCO by Painius). So your request for "force per unit area" would be the pressure driving the flow into the core of the atomic nucleus, ie., into the core of matter's every constituent proton.. and generating the ordered standing-wave vortices comprizing all atomic structure and the subnuclear domain. In your referance to "mass", _all_ atomic structure consists of *processes of flow*, processes of the spatial medium itself `venting down` to the lowest-pressure 'ground state' at the core of the nucleus. All Matter consists of ordered circular standing waves of this venting-down process. A rough analogy is seen in the eddies and whorls of a river, while *appearing* to be stationary, discrete entities, they are processes of the river's flow. Or a candle flame which appears fixed, but is a process of convective flow. Likewise, all Matter is but processes of One Flow seeking its lowest pressure state. In terms of energy-density, Matter also represents the very *lowest* energy (and longest wavelength) state of the spatial medium, appearing on 'this side' of the Planck length. While the greatest bulk of 'What Is', in terms of energy density (PDT value) resides on the 'other side' of the Planck line. The sub-Planckian 'granularity' or wavelength-state lies below our sensory and EM resolution, making it appear "void" to our sense-based logic. Yet it demonstrates itself dramatically and profoundly on many fronts as *anything but* a void.. one example being its ability to crush a massive star down to a black hole, often popping off a supernova (and occasionally a hypernova) in the process. In your referance to "time", the CBB model sees the proton as a microscale black hole analog replete with its own 'event horizon'. That's the point at which the accelerating inflow reaches c, forming the EH. Time dilation at the EH gives the *appearance* that the inflow "stops" at the EH, giving the proton the appearance and nature of a 'solid' point particle. Painius assigned the acronym 'SPED' to the spatial medium, for sub- Planck(ian) energy domain. Its 'granularity' or wavelength-state obeys the maxim that the shorter the wave the higher the energy. He used the expression "E=mc^3" to describe this energy density (PDT value). "E=mc^3" is not intended as an "equation" per se but a fanciful expression denoting emphasis. To give some sense of scale of this 'granularity', picture the vortex of water going down a bathtub drain. Let this vortex represent a simple atom (eg., a hydrogen atom). The water molecules in the bathtub drain, in terms of scale, represent the individual "granulons" of the SPED flowing into the H atom's nucleus.. this inflow itself being a vortex. Better knock off for brevity. :-) > Expanding nothing, now there's a concept! > > Double-A When nothing expands, then something's gotta give! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net >> Maybe you should send him a copy of your theory. He remarked that he >> already has a collection of "crackpot" theories that have been sent to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >expansion idea. Hence he has no concept of space being anything other >than 'nothing'. Any further correspondance would have been pointless. Irony Alert! Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen >>> Maybe you should send him a copy of your theory. He remarked that he >>> already has a collection of "crackpot" theories that have been sent to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Irony Alert! Pedo alert! Art Deco hiding in the bushes! > Einstein floated his own VSL theory in 1911. > But I don't see that as Einstein being inconsistant with himself. > Light does "seem" to slow in speed as it passes massive bodies as > measured from a constant distant frame. It is just a matter of how > you look at it. Yep, his development of GR expanded upon SR by recognizing the slowing of lightspeed in a gravity well relative to an outside observer.. which made SR with its universal lightspeed-constancy a wholly owned subsidiary of GR. Here's a good discussion of it- http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/c_speedoflight.html But GR simply describes the effect and cannot explain *why* it occurs. Slowing of light in a "gravitationally dense" region (per this article's vernacular) is due to _diminished_ density (or PDT value) of the spatial medium. Conversely, lightspeed increases in "gravitationally sparse" regions such as deep space where PDT value is higher. And at deep cosmological distances, lightspeed begins increasing exponentially the farther back you go, due to the steepening *cosmological PDT gradient*. Yet the speed of light is always constant `locally` in all PDT frames.. which is the natural extension of both SR and GR. And as Painius recently emphasized, spatial volume also *contracts* concomitantly with increasing PDT value, as you "play the tape backwards" of the expansion of the universe. Hey AA, In that book you're reading, does it mention the other 'maverik mainstreamers', i.e., Barrow, Moffatt and Troitskii, who are also VSL proponents? Their models show the lightspeed drop somewhat more gradual than Magueijo's, more closely resembling the CBB model's drop curve. But these guys are also VS'ers and have no concept of the mechanism behind the drop. The book may not mention it, but there is a caveat to random reading about VSL theories : the name Barry Setterfield will frequently come up, cluttering any Search on the subject. He is a biblical creationist who has hijacked the VSL theme to propound his creationist agenda, placing the "moment of creation" some 6000 (or so) years ago. See - http://www.ldolphin.org/chronbarry.html > Hey AA, > In that book you're reading, does it mention the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > creationist agenda, placing the "moment of creation" some 6000 (or so) > years ago. See -http://www.ldolphin.org/chronbarry.html So far the book is talking about Einstein. He hasn't gotten to discussing his own theory much yet. I would make better progress if I didn't keep falling asleep and dropping the book! Hard to get enough sleep nowadays. Double-A >> Einstein floated his own VSL theory in 1911. >> But I don't see that as Einstein being inconsistant with himself. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >value, as you "play the tape backwards" of the expansion of the >universe. What are the units of PDT value? How do you measure it? Signature"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic] should be your concern, Deco." -- David Tholen > >> Einstein floated his own VSL theory in 1911. > >> But I don't see that as Einstein being inconsistant with himself. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > What are the units of PDT value? How do you measure it? Flatten one Deco with a asphalt roller vehicle! Take the longest resulting part as One Deco unit which would still measure no such thing - but is a good idea anyway! >I have begun reading Joao Magueijo's book "Faster than the Speed of > Light". His thesis is that light in the early universe travelled [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Double-A Here's my two cents worth ... The fact that there is a cosmic speed limit for light seems to indicate that there is something out there in the Universe that limits it to 186,246 m/sec. Since there was nothing out there right after the Big Bang to impede the speed of light, especially during the hyperinflation period, light in all likelihood may have had an "instantaneous" speed limit for a short time. The speed of sound is measured at feet per second at sea level, which means that it travels at a given speed in a given density. Just like light has a red shift when it recedes and a blue shift when it approaches, sound waves are also stretched or compressed relative to the observer. That tells me that the speed of light is dictated by the average density of the Universe, which is probably measured in something like one to five atoms per square meter. It also seems that after the initial inflation, the early on the Universe was denser and light traveled slower. Then the cosmic expansion started to accelerate and the average density decreased and light became faster. If the ever increasing acceleration of the expansion of the Universe continues, then sometime in the very distant future, the speed of light might once again be instantaneous. Hagar Guth did not change 'c' He had space inflation at the first trillionth of a second of the BB out faster than light He knew not to fool with Einstein's SR We even talk that the expanding "space" between the galaxies can be inflating faster than 'c' Bert > Hagar Guth did not change 'c' He had space inflation at the first > trillionth of a second of the BB out faster than light He knew not to > fool with Einstein's SR We even talk that the expanding "space" > between the galaxies can be inflating faster than 'c' Bert If the universe can inflate faster than light, then what about the price of gas? Double-A > >I have begun reading Joao Magueijo's book "Faster than the Speed of > > Light". His thesis is that light in the early universe travelled [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message