 |
 | 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 / January 2009Astronomy Putzels 101.13
Putzels 101.13 The Past, Present and Future of the Universe Isaac Asimov opposed the Big Bang theory. But not in so many words. Asimov had a different problem than most scientists. Most scientists have internal conflicts because they have been brought up to think there is a creator, a superior being, a "god" with or without the capital "G", a "deity". And their whole lives are spent agonizing over this conflict with their chosen calling, "science". To their credit, others rarely if ever see them in conflict. They are really scientists, after all, and not priests. Asimov suffered from a different kind of conflict because Asimov was a diehard atheist. He would not accept that there was any kind of supernatural being who could break the laws of physics with the flick of a finger. So rather than being in conflict between religion and science, Asimov's internal devil was a bloody fight between mainstream science and his own logical deductions that occasionally strayed from the realm of scientific convention. You see, Asimov held the tenets of astronomy and physics about as highly as anybody possibly could. So when he was in conflict with mainstream astronomy, he was so subtle about it that one truly had to look closely to catch the signs of his infrequent maverick ways. I could tell that he did not favor the Big Bang. He wrote so lovingly about a different kind of Universe, one that worked fairly well with the observations, but one that flew right in the face of the tenets of Big Bang theory. It was an exotic form of the less popular "Big Bang/Big Crunch" theory of the state of the Universe. And it went something like this... Imagine you are looking down on a four-leaf clover. Now, instead of four, flat two-dimensional leaves, try to see four _lobes_, four, three-dimensional lobes. That is what our Universe looks like today, and our galaxy is inside one of those four lobes. Two of those lobes of space, including the one you and i live in and the one opposite to it, are filled with matter with just a smattering of antimatter. The other two lobes are filled with antimatter with a tiny bit of matter. All four lobes are presently in a state of expansion. There will come a time when the expansion will halt, and contraction will begin. Then eons later, all the materials and energy will come back together, pass through each other with very little consequence, and begin to expand again. This is Isaac Asimov's idea of the state of our huge Cosmos. There is not just one Universe, the one in which we find ourselves, but four great Universes. There are two Universes with matter and two with antimatter, so this solves the "baryon asymmetry" problem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry There is one point about this model with which i must disagree. I'm no fan of singularities and all things crunching back into a singularity like some Big Bang/Big Crunch models depict. However, if the Universe keeps expanding and contracting over and over again, then i think something still has to account for the "early Universe quasars" and other differences that are observed far away and long, long ago. The model Asimov liked depicted all the matter coming back together, the four lobes of Universe passing through each other with no consequence, and then going back into an expansion phase. If there was no consequence during the "crunch" part, no traumatic events of some kind, then how could there be things like quasars? So it seems very clear that, while the "Big Crunch" probably didn't involve everything crunching back into any kind of "singularity", there was enough crunching, enough interaction between matter and antimatter, to result in massive changes in the distribution of matter and energy as the four lobes began to grow again. This type of Universe has no overall beginning nor end, just a series of restarts that happen over and over again. It's an exotic variation on what is known as an "oscillatory universe", and it still has a few problems to solve. And yet it's been my own favorite for many, many years until i began to learn about the CBB model that oc has talked about now for many years. Now i'm on the fence. The CBB model, as first described by Gordon Wolter and then added to over the years by oc, is an attractive and compelling model of the state of the Universe... http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/ For those of you who would like to hear more about the most popular model, the "Big Bang" Universe, it is treated very well at Ned Wright's Cosmology FAQ. You will also find many other interesting topics and links in Ned's FAQ... http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html And if your interested in finding out more about ol' Isaac Asimov and his immense library of non-fiction writings, here's a great place to start... http://www.cenara.com/users/ce00018/nonfic.htm Now, perhaps you have your own ideas about what the Universe is really like? Did it have a beginning? & does it have an end? Does it go on forever? Do you still like the Fred Hoyle Steady State type of Universe? Or do you favor a Big Bang/Big Crunch or Big Bounce kind of Cosmos? And how about that MOND? If you like a particular model or have a model of your own, and you are okay with sharing your ideas, then tell me what you like and why you like it! happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." > Carl Sagan P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net > Putzels < snip > > Now, perhaps you have your own ideas about what > the Universe is really like? Did it have a beginning? & [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and you are okay with sharing your ideas, then tell > me what you like and why you like it! It is most distressing to believe that our beautiful Universe is doomed to expand forever, with all its stars eventually burning out and turning into cinders, to drift eternally in a vast sea of nothingness. I don't think nature works that way. It is also highly improbable that the Universe will reach an equilibrium at some point trillions of years hence and forever stay that way, with the same burned out ashes of its once majestic luminescence. The options of multiple, parallel and 11-dimensioned Universes are the straws scientists grasp for, when logical answers escape them. In order to create a new Universe, the old one has to be recycled and the only logical means to accomplish that is the Big Bang/Big Crunch option. That leaves us with the enigma of the Singularity. It is often described as an entity the size of a pin head, which contains all the matter of the Cosmos. Common sense would dictate that this is all but impossible ... or is it?? Not too long ago the atom was hailed as the smallest particle known to physics, the building block of all matter, as we knew it at that time. Then it was discovered that there were sub-atomic particles, a nucleus composed of Protons and Neutrons, orbited by Electrons. On a minute scale, it was a mini-Solar System, or even a micro-mini Galaxy, of one considered molecular structures. To be sure, the spacing and the comparative dimensions of the Electrons orbiting the nucleus is in all likelihood synonymous with the relative size and spacing of the planets of our Solar System. This, of course, is an assumption, since we do not yet possess the technology to peer into the shell of an atom to discern its actual composition. Then we discovered that even the sub-atomic particles are composed of Quarks and once again scientists are convinced that the end of the chain has been reached. Our Universe begins to resemble the famous nested Russian Dolls, Local Galaxy groups fit into Galaxy clusters, Galaxies fit into the Local Group, Solar System fit into Galaxies, Atoms fit into Solar Systems, Sub-atomic particles fit into Atoms, Quarks fit into Sub-atomic particles. This could go on forever ... or not. The point is, there a huge, empty spaces all around any of these cosmic constituents and if all that empty space is removed and ultimately all these particles are touching each other, it is not all that difficult to imagine a Singularity. When a star the size of our Sun ends its life cycle, it becomes a White Dwarf, a fraction of its original size, but the interior atoms are still, well, atoms. Their Neutrons still orbit the Nucleus. Larger stars go Supernova and then collapse into Neutron stars, where the Electrons are crushed into the Nucleus, thus removing all those voids between sub-atomic particles. That is why a star three times the size of our Sun winds up with a diameter of a small city, but with a billion fold density. Black Holes, which contain the masses of hundreds and even thousands of Suns, have probably crushed the atomic structure down to the quark level, creating a gigantic mass in the space of an Earth diameter, with a gravity field so powerful that even light cannot escape. We now know for a fact that Black Holes exist and are the rule, rather than the exception, at the center of most galaxies. We also know that they are feeding off the surrounding stars. As they gobble the stars orbiting closest to them, the rest move in closer to feed the hungry beast. At some point in the distant future, there won't be any Stars left in the Galaxy and the immense gravity of the Black Hole attracts it other BHs in the local Group, forming increasingly immense monsters. Googols of years from now, when the last Black Hole gets gobbled up, their total mass will overcome the final resistance of the minute Quarks and the final crunch to that next lower, as yet undiscovered, level will begin, creating the final Singularity. It will probably be the size of our present Solar System, infinitely dense and with no further collapse possible. The rebound from that final Crunch will the next Big Bang in the continuous recycling of all cosmic matter. >> Putzels > < snip > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > possible. The rebound from that final Crunch will the next Big Bang in > the continuous recycling of all cosmic matter. I like it, Hagar, i do... except maybe for the singularity. Your argument is compelling, however i still find it hard to accept the idea of a true singularity, as cosmology and the Big Bang model would have us believe. I do like the idea of an oscillating, vibrating Universe, though. And i don't think that a BB/BC model absolutely *must* crunch into a singularity. The observations we make of the Universe far away and long ago, and even the making of deuterium can be explained by a traumatic event during the crunch that does not have to reach the level of a singularity. And if this is true, then a model like oc's CBB Universe is also very believable. It would be traumatic indeed to be sucked into the center of a toroid and be kicked around for maybe a billion or two years before being forcefully expelled from the other end and beginning another full expansion/contraction phase lasting maybe 25 billion yrs or so. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "If you do not conquer self, you will be conquered by self." > Napoleon Hill P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net >>> Putzels >> < snip > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > to accept the idea of a true singularity, as cosmology > and the Big Bang model would have us believe. Paine, if you compress all the matter of the Universe into a ball, so that there is absolutely no space between the particles, then you have a Singularity. It could be as big as our Galaxy (100K LYs), or perhaps only as big as our Solar System (2LYs). By human standards, that is beyond what would be considered a singularity, but on a cosmic scale, it would amount to a minute speck. Also, the name Singularity is misleading, since it conjures up visions of a very tiny entity. However, if we were to translate it as "cannot be compacted any further", then size is not really relevant. Just a thought. >>>> Putzels >>> < snip > [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > a very tiny entity. However, if we were to translate it as "cannot be > compacted any further", then size is not really relevant. Just a thought. Yes, now *that* makes more sense than the usual mainstream version. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "I have tried so hard to do right." > Grover Cleveland's last words P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, replying to Hagar: >I like it,... except maybe for the >singularity. Your argument is compelling, >however i still find it hard to accept the >idea of a true singularity... >i don't think that a BB/BC model >absolutely *must* crunch into a >singularity. There's no reason whatsoever why it *must* crunch into a point "absolute" zero volume and infinite density. Just an extremely compacted, extremely dense mass is all the "singuarity" really amounts to. A 'true singularity' is a mathematical abstraction. The core 'engine' of the reciprocating BB/BC model need not be a "true singularity", just an extremely dense, compactified mass. The CBB model's 'engine' is likewise a hyperdense/compact mass, a squashed-out, spinning disc. >The observations we make of the >Universe far away and long ago, and >even the making of deuterium can be >explained by a traumatic event during >the crunch that does not have to reach >the level of a ('true') singularity. This is equally true of the BB/BC and CBB models. Painius wrote, >I do like the idea of an oscillating, >vibrating (reciprocating?) BB/BC >Universe, though... a model like the CBB >Universe is also very believable. The BB/BC idea, if it's taken as a stand-alone model, suffers some serious drawbacks. Even stipulating that _the spatial medium_ is what exploded, expanded, contracted and imploded, carrying the 'dustbunny' of matter along for the ride, there remains some questions. What/where is the central core mass that's necessary for Contraction to take place? Obviously, self-gravitation of the 'dustbunny' of matter is 'waay insufficient to drive Contraction. Witness the mainstream's oft-cited "missing mass" problem which favors the universe being ever-expanding and open-ended. The CBB model on the other hand, has as its very centerpiece the "missing mass", the Primal Particle BH 'Engine' whose mass is 'waay more than sufficient to gravitationally close the universe. Another problem with the 'stand alone' BB/BC, even with the spatial medium stipulated, is-- what ordains the highly-ordered formation of the Perodic Table? In the absence of a continuously-running, central 'master oscillator' which "broadcasts" the highly-ordered standing wave field of space, how do the elements "know", always, unerringly, to be exactly what they are? Why does not total chaos reign throughout the cosmos? The stand-alone BB/BC provides for no such 'Master Oscillator' driving the vibratory matrix of space, "singing the strings". A primary feature of the CBB model IS exactly that 'Master Oscillator', the PP 'Engine' itself. It continuously "broadcasts" the standing-wave field which ordains the formation of the elements in their unerring exactness everywhere in the cosmos. Wolter's "Ultimate Tokamak", nature's ultimate fusion reactor, the Primal Particle, fuses within its hyperdense mass the *entire Table of the Elements*. This is the immanifest "DNA script" of the potential Periodic Table in the externalized universe, "broadcast" here and ever-present in the sub-Planckian wavefield of the SPED. Our Periodic Table, when it appears 'out here', represents the very *lowest end* of the frequency domain, as the subsynchronous, subharmonic "notes" ever-present in the SPED, manifesting now on 'this side' of the Planck line but bearing the same highly-ordered, 'octave-like' nature of the SPED. Our reality 'out here' is the "lowest end of the keyboard". But the 'stand-alone' BB/BC provides for none of this. Of and by itself, it could never be a viable model. Its viability lies only in being a 'parenthetical' subset, a single slice cut from the overarching Process of the continuous BB driven by its centerpiece 'Engine'/Master Oscillator. > Painius wrote, >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > of the continuous BB driven by its centerpiece 'Engine'/Master > Oscillator. Something else i began to question as i read Hagar's treatise on what might be called a "realistic singularity". Suppose he's right, and suppose the BC results in a realistic singularity of some great mass of matter all condensed into the smallest volume possible. What would then instigate a new expansion? a new "Bang", if you will? And how long would it take for this new Bang to... bang? a year? a century? an eon? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "I have tried so hard to do right." > Grover Cleveland's last words P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net >> Painius wrote, >>> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > if you will? And how long would it take for this new > Bang to... bang? a year? a century? an eon? Look at it this way, when a star with a mass of 3 times our Sun goes Supernova, it is caused by the rebound of the core collapse, when the fusion process finally stops at the iron stage. That is the dead end for all stars, no matter what mass. A black hole overcomes that by the sheer brute force of its gravity. When all matter of the Universe is assembled in that final Black Hole, its gravity momentarily overcomes the repulsion of the smallest, as yet undiscovered, particles (surely something several orders below the quark) and that rebound could tear apart the fabric of the BHs gravity, giving rise to a "Hyper-Nova", aka The Big Bang. >>> Painius wrote, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > orders below the quark) and that rebound could tear apart the fabric of > the BHs gravity, giving rise to a "Hyper-Nova", aka The Big Bang. Okay, cool. Everything we can observe that does this leaves a mass behind... a white dwarf, a neutron star, a quark star, a black hole. So what would the BB or the BB/BC leave behind? And would this not be pretty good evidence that the BB is hogwash just based upon its premise that there is no "center" of the Universe where the BB was spawned? Let me try to be clear. When asked, "Does the Universe have a center? Can we peer back in time far enough to be able to see the Big Bang, or where the Big Bang began from?" an astronomer will say, "No, the Universe has no center. It is not an explosion radiating from a point. There is no center because all positions in the Universe are equivalent. The Universe is homogeneous, which is part of the cosmological principle." And yet everything we observe that *does* expand from a point (and both the BB and the BB/BC must at least originate an expansion this way from a singularity), there is not just a mighty explosion, but also a considerable mass left behind. Neither the BB nor the BB/BC models allow this, and why do you think that is? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "I have tried so hard to do right." > Grover Cleveland's last words P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, >Let me try to be clear. When asked, >"Does the Universe have a center? Can [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >And yet everything we observe that >*does* expand from a point (and both the >BB and the BB/BC must at least >originate an expansion this way from a >singularity), there is not just a mighty >explosion, but also a considerable mass >left behind. Neither the BB nor the >BB/BC models allow this, and why do >you think that is? If you take a look at that illustration of the CBB toroid, notice the little circle representing the 'known universe', the sphere of our visible cosmos, embedded like a 'marble' out near the periphery of the 'donut'. In our FoR here 'inside' the marble, the BB "seems" to have occured "everywhere at once", without a central point of origin. In that freon cycle analogy, a cluster of freon molecules represents that same embedded 'marble'. In the FoR 'inside' the cluster, the "bang" of its flashing to gas 'seems' to have happened "everywhere at once" without a central point of origin. So the CBB model (as well as its freon-cycle analogy) fully picture why the 'Bang' lacks a central point of origin. > Painius wrote, >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > So the CBB model (as well as its freon-cycle analogy) fully picture why > the 'Bang' lacks a central point of origin. Yes, and here's the thing... rather than a marble- like "sphere", our visible cosmos is actually more cone-shaped stretching back to what we can see as some sort of "beginning". And every direction we look, that's what we see. In the case of the BB, it's the beginning of the Universe that we think we see. In the case of the BB/BC model, it's just the beginning of another cycle, another oscillation. And in the case of the CBB model, it's the expulsion from the PP Engine that we're looking at. This raises two questions in my mind... 1) As we look farther and farther back in time at greater and greater distances, is it actually possible to "see" around the curve of the toroid back to the time we were thrust from the center? and 2) Why can't we see "forward"? I can answer that by saying that the theory of relativity and the nature of the speed of light limits our ability so that we can ONLY look backward in time. Our Universe that we peer up into on many a night is ONLY our past. In a more local frame, we can certainly "see" our path around the Sun at about 6:00AM every morning. We can even see our Solar system's path around the center of the galaxy by looking toward the star, Vega, near the constellation, Hercules. However, the farther we look, the longer back in the past we are looking. And that's in ALL directions. It's as if we are always looking out the rear window of the car, and we cannot see in the direction we are actually going. Even up until the moment we begin to be sucked into the PP Engine, we will still only see our past. All the galaxies blue-shifted instead of red, but all of them still sending us their light from many, many years ago depending upon their distance from us. It would be an interesting life, the life you suggest for the most advanced of the Universe's life, oc. To stay out in the outskirts of the toroid, occasionally picking up stakes and traveling "up-river" to escape the hungry mouth of the intake end of the center. If we're past the central plane and just beginning the contraction phase, then A) we've probably seen the last of any life *that* advanced, because they will have probably moved on upstream, and B) we still seem to have about 12 or 13 billion years to catch up with 'em. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "I have tried so hard to do right." > Grover Cleveland's last words P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net > Yes, and here's the thing... rather than a marble- > like "sphere", our visible cosmos is actually more [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > still sending us their light from many, many years > ago depending upon their distance from us. Oh maaan?! I think i just found a way to test the CBB model, oc! But i hesitate to describe it because i know how very attached to it you are. And if i'm correct, this is a way to not only make the CBB model "falsifiable", but to actually falsify it, as well. Are you game to hear it? or should i keep my big trap shut? Who knows? I could be wrong, and you might be able to refute it. It's just a Gedanken, after all. Well, shall i continue? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "I have tried so hard to do right." > Grover Cleveland's last words P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Hope you all watched History channel on the UNIVERSE It had these same thoughts Treb and I have been posting for over 10 years. Only difference is imperial thinkers have those infinite universe that are different. For 57 years I have said this There are as many universes as flakes of snow in an endless storm. All are exactly the same right down to their number of electrons. They are separated by a time lapse. Treb positive universe is a 100 trillionth of a second ahead of ours. We can communicate because gravity waves can not be blocked. That and our brain waves are in tune with gravity waves(vibrate the same frequency) It was Treb That made the first contact. Go figure TreBert Ps Forgot to also say Nature deals in very large numbers,and creates in pairs. Painius exclaimed, >Oh maaan?! I think i just found a way to >test the CBB model! But i hesitate to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Well, shall i continue? Hell, shoot the works. I'm game. Gehzundheit! > Painius exclaimed, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Hell, shoot the works. I'm game. Gehzundheit! You crafty ol' coot! You anticipated my argument a bit with your treatment of anistropy near the ends of the toroidal center and an isotropic sky at the solstice. But here it is anyway. I already wrote it so i might as well post it... Now, before i begin this thought experiment, i want you to know, oc, that i am hoping more than you know that i am wrong. I really don't want to be right about this, my friend, and i am hoping with all my strength that you can find a flaw in my reasoning... I got to thinkin' about what i wrote above--the part about not being able to see "out ahead". And i closed my eyes and pictured our planet Earth, our Solar system, our whole Milky Way galaxy, even the Local Group and the Virgo supercluster of galaxies drifting through space in the toroid of the CBB model. And i mentally tried to "look out in front". I asked myself, 'Why can't we see the galaxy clusters out in front of us?' After all, they too are emitting light and radiation in all directions, aren't they? Their light should also reach our eyes, eventually, shouldn't it? It would still take many years to reach us, which would be determined by how many light years distant they are from us. But that light ought to reach our eyes. We should be able to look out in one direction and see "behind" us, and then look out in the opposite direction and see "ahead" of us. Do we? or don't we? Then, my eyes still closed, i pictured in my mind a small boat. I'm in the boat, and the boat and i are drifting slowly down a lazy stream. Then to simplify things a bit, I altered the velocity of light! Yup, in this my mental world, for the time being at least, the speed of light, "c", is equal to 1 ft/s--that's one (1) foot per second. So that tree out in front of me rising up from the nearby shore is reflecting light into my eye showing its structure, and since the tree is about 60 feet away, it takes about 60 seconds for that tree's reflected light to reach me. But it *DOES* reach me, and it *IS* out in front of me. Surely, the same goes for the bend in the river that i left behind. It's now about 150 feet away, and the light from the water and the greenery on the banks there at the bend takes about 150 seconds to reach my eyes. So i can see the bend in the river, and i can see the tree out in front. Why can't i see the galaxy clusters that are out in front of our cluster? I can see the bend behind me as it appeared 2-1/2 minutes ago, and i can see the tree in front of me as it appeared 1 minute ago. Since i'm slowly moving AWAY from the bend, and i'm slowly moving TOWARD the tree, the bend shows a red Doppler shift, while the tree shows a blue shift. In fact, all of the objects in front of me show a blue shift, and all the objects behind me show a red shift. So if i am in a galaxy cluster, drifting through space, and i'm looking out into the sky, half of the objects in the sky ought to show a red shift out in one direction, and in the opposite direction, half the objects in the sky should show a blue shift. Since that is not the case, since almost all of the objects in the sky show a red shift, then i submit that there is a reason why we cannot see "out in front of us", and that reason *cannot* be that we are drifting, flowing with space out in the body of a toroidal Universe. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** That's the end of my falsifyin'. I'm sure you'll find a way to refute my unworthy attempt. On a related note... You mentioned the "light cone" in another post. I've studied this cone before, and i've never fully understood how physicists can take the entire sky, fit it into a light cone, and toss that out as "reality". What's up with that?... Why is there only a "past cone"? Why is there no "future cone" for our cosmological observations?... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_line.svg happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." > Wayne Dyer P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, >...since almost all of the objects in the >sky show a red shift, then i submit that >there is a reason why we cannot see "out >in front of us", and that reason *cannot* >be that we are drifting, flowing with >space out in the body of a toroidal >Universe. > **** **** **** **** **** >That's the end of my falsifyin'. Oh but the reason *can* be, and is, that we in our little 'sphere' are drifting *with space*, not drifting IN space as your thesis depicts. If you re-read your whole thesis, where you're in your boat looking at those trees and things, all those objects themselves are co-moving with you. The *whole scene*, the trees, the water, the land, is our sphere, co-moving as a unit, like a boat, adrift upon the much larger "river", the flow of the toroidal Process itself. That's why we can't "see ahead" or "see behind" our lightspeed-limited sphere of visibility. It itself is co-moving together with an infinite number of other lightspeed-limited 'spheres of visibility'. >You mentioned the "light cone" in >another post. I've studied this cone >before, and i've never fully understood >how physicists can take the entire sky, fit >it into a light cone, and toss that out as >"reality". What's up with that?... I don't think they're presenting it "as reality" but simply as a graphic representing the sphere of the sky. >Why is there only a "past cone"? Why is >there no "future cone" for our >cosmological observations?... Because the finite speed of light has limited the size of the sphere (the mouth of the 'cone') to its present size. It will continue expanding with the passage of time. This expansion of the 'light cone' is not the expansion of the universe. They're two different and distinct critters. Even in the universe's Contraction phase, expansion of our light cone will continue unabated... and so will expansion of all the other light cones. And what does THAT portend?? :-) The CBB model predicts that more and more objects will be coming into view, de-redshifting and brightening as they come over our lightspeed horizon. But as we determined before, the time scale is far too long for that to be observed. > Painius wrote, >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > come over our lightspeed horizon. But as we determined before, the time > scale is far too long for that to be observed. Don't you find it just a tad "ironic" that the basis of Einstein's theory of relativity is something that is not and cannot be "relative"? But instead it is "absolute"? I speak of the light cone; i speak of the speed of light, "c". The light cone is absolute. The speed of light, "c", is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source. I find this unfathomable. Well, so far at least. I'm going to propose something to you, oc. You have a good mind for this sort of thing. Astronomy seems to think that, because nearly all of the seen objects, galaxies, galaxy clusters, quasars, show a red shift, then we must be peering out into our past in ALL directions. Suppose that's not true just for a moment. Suppose that half the sky actually *does* represent our past, and the other half represents our FUTURE, i.e., the direction in which we are actually headed, the direction we are *going*... If this is true, could the red shifts of the objects IN THE FUTURE PART OF THE SKY be accounted for? IOW, is it possible that we are looking out into the future, in the direction we are going, and *still* we see most of the objects receding from us? As if we are going *slower* than those objects? While you are thinking about that, let me tell you about a study i came across recently. I don't know the name of the researcher, as s/he used a screen name. The research was a collection of specific data on blue-shifted objects from the NED located at... http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html The research shows that the faster the galaxies are approaching, the fewer there are in the areas about RA 100 and RA 300. And the slower galaxies are all clumped together in these two regions of the sky ROUGHLY 180 DEGREES APART FROM EACH OTHER. (Note that the researcher did not mention any specific "declination" or "dec", and since the "right ascension" or "RA" is the longitude on the celestial sphere, and the "dec" is the latitude, then i must conclude that the researcher found most of the slower galaxies confined to those two longitudes, i.e., those two RAs, 100 and 300) The researcher found a total of 659 galaxies with radial velocities ranging from -100 kps to -3,586 kps (all blue-shifted). And the vast majority of the slower galaxies are confined to two areas of the sky that are opposite each other in direction from Earth! Can one then dare to suppose that RA=100 is either the direction we come from or the direction we are going, and RA=300 the opposite of that? Perhaps another possibility is that the blue-shifted galaxies are actually to the "right" and "left" of our direction of travel. So if this is the case, then our direction of travel would be along about the RA=10 or RA=210 or so. And one of those RAs would be the opposite direction from whence we came. Or not. What do you think? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "I got kicked out of ballet class because I pulled a groin muscle... It wasn't mine." > Rita Rudner P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, >Astronomy seems to think that, because >nearly all of the seen objects, galaxies, >galaxy clusters, quasars, show a red >shift, then we must be peering out into >our past in ALL directions. Correct. But operative term is "seems to think." >Suppose that's not true just for a >moment. Suppose that half the sky [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >actually headed, the direction we are >*going*... OK. First off, there would have to be a pronounced dipole anisotropy in the CMBR (ie., one side of the sky markedly bluer, or the other side of the sky markedly less-red than the other). Such a pronounced anisotropy simply isn't there. >If this is true, could the red shifts of the >objects IN THE FUTURE PART OF THE >SKY be accounted for? IF it were true, yes. And even if it's not true, yes, the whole-sky redshift that's presently observed, the Hubble Constant itself, is compatible with our being AT, or even slightly past, the maximum-expansion ('solstice') point ***in present time***... simply because the observed whole-sky redshift is showing expanson that occured eons and eons ago, deeper and deeper in past time. >...let me tell you about a study i came >across recently... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >clumped together in these two regions of >the sky ROUGHLY 180 DEGREES >APART FROM EACH OTHER. You're much more well-read in these areas than i. But even with such anisotropies of galaxy clustering and direction-of-motion in the near field, the PRIMARY MARKER of a whole-sky direction-of-travel would have to appear in the CMBR, which again, simply is not there. The near-perfect whole-sky isotropy suggests we're at or near the 'solstice' point (or even slightly past it). Hey. Do ya think... the slight blue-red anisotropy (about 1 part in 100,000) that's presently observed, which is believed to be the Doppler shift of our Local Group relative to the CMBR, might *actually* be a direction-of-travel marker of the CMBR itself..? Hmm. > Painius wrote, >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the sky markedly less-red than the other). Such a pronounced anisotropy > simply isn't there. I agree that there ought to be some anisotropy in the CMBR, but i go for a less subtle difference. You may have pinpointed how to find the direction of travel with this idea, though. First of all, the CMBR is very "old" light, older even than the light from the farthest galaxies we can see in the Hubble UDF. Therefore it should not come as a surprise that there is no heretofore detected "less redness" in one direction over another. Perhaps if the CMBR and those farthest galaxies are studied more closely, with an eye toward detecting a subtle difference in the red shifts, we might detect a difference in one side of the sky over the other side? And the side with slightly lower red shifts might be the direction of travel? >> If this is true, could the red shifts of the >> objects IN THE FUTURE PART OF THE [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > shift of our Local Group relative to the CMBR, might *actually* be a > direction-of-travel marker of the CMBR itself..? Hmm. Yes, i do (see above)! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "We live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic." > David Russell P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, >First of all, the CMBR is very "old" light, >older even than the light from the >farthest galaxies we can see in the >Hubble UDF. Therefore it should not >come as a surprise that there is no >heretofore detected "less redness" in one >direction over another. You are correct. And i stand corrected in that earlier statement "the CMBR is the PRIMARY marker of anisotropy." I was failing to account for phase lag, the eons of time it would take for anistropy to begin to register in the CMBR.. 'phase lag' being the delay imposed by the finite speed of light across cosmological distances. Painius wrote, >Don't you find it just a tad "ironic" that >the basis of Einstein's theory of relativity >is something that is not and cannot be >"relative"? But instead it is "absolute"? Well, the 'relative' in relativity has primarily to do with being able to *experientially* "see from" alternate referance frames, to mentally "be" in that alternate frame. There are professing relativists by the score who can rattle off "The Math" till the cows come home, yet not have the slightest `experiential' grasp of relativity's 'Relative-ness'. >I speak of the speed of light, "c". (It) is >absolute. The speed of light, "c", is the >same for all inertial observers regardless >of the state of motion of the source. I >find this unfathomable. Well, so far at >least. Well, SR's absolute invariability of the speed of light was amended by Uncle Albert as you know, when he acknowledged that lightspeed drops in a gravity well.. thereby making SR subservient to the new dog on the block, GR (though he offered no explanation of WHY it drops). F'rinstance, out here at Earth, c is 186,282 mps, locally. Yet lightspeed is less at Mercury *to us*. But if you were on Mercury, your local lightspeed is still 186,282 mps. So, why? Neither SR nor GR offer any explanation; GR merely describes it. Both SR and GR are 'flat' because they describe space mathematically _as if_ it were a universally isotropic 'Nothing', a pure void. They do not recognize (and institutionally deny) the spatial medium, the SPED, and the *density gradients* that abound everywhere within it. And lightspeed is the function of the *local* density of space. In any gravity well, spatial density diminishes with depth due to the 'venturi effect' of space venting down into the gravitator (the sink, or pressure drain). In our Sun's gravity well, spatial density is lower at Mercury than at Earth. And that, plain and simple, is *why* the lightspeed drop occurs (what G.Wolter called 'c-dilation'). Yet at both Earth and Mercury, c is still a constant 186,282 mps *locally*. Obviously a *volumetric* expansion has also accompanied the density drop, due to the Sun-ward stretching of the accelerating space flow. Now take a gander out in the opposite direction to where the Pioneer spacecraft are, 'way out at the fringes of the Sun's gravity well. Out there, space is *more dense* than here at Earth, and more compacted (less stretched Sun-ward). Also, lightspeed is higher there due to the higher spatial density ('c-dilation' again). But c is still constant 'there' locally, just as it is constant 'here', locally. Obviously the Pioneer anomaly must be related to this. Doh. The spacecraft obviously did not travel 'straight out' radially from here, but followed a curving, arching trajectory.. giving them 'proper motion' from our vantage point down here. Well, they're not where they 'should be' on their ballistic path, but appear to be lagging. So what's happening? Hell, they've simply entered denser, more compacted space, making it *appear* (to us down here) they haven't traveled "as far as they should". Pretty simple, but foerver lost on the VS'ers, the devotees of the 'No Medium' dogma. So back to the 'flat' status of SR and GR. Obviously when *density gradients* in the spatial medium are recognized, relativity's 'flatness' begins to dissipate like a fog in the noonday sun. SO, taking a "Sagan-esque" journey of the mind back across cosmological time, 'playing the tape backwards' in time, the density of space remains fairly constant out to a radius of several BLY, whereupon it begins climbing exponentially up toward the instant of emergence from the BB. This is the *cosmological density gradient*, unrecognized under the VSP. Where SR holds c constant in all inertial frames, the expanded model (which recognizes the spatial medium) holds c constant in all *density frames* as well. This is the natural expansion/extension, the "de-flattening" of SR. The natural expansion/extension ('de-flattening') of GR is in explaining the literal _causal mechanism_ of gravity, instead of just cryptically describing it as "curvature of space". The 'curvature' is the measure of the *rate of acceleration* of flowing space. It is GR's accelerometer readout. And the upgrading of GR explains *why* lightspeed drops with diminishing space density in a gravity well and why lightspeed *increases* across the steepening cosmological density gradient. It explains why this 'c-dilation' does not violate the Lorentz invariance (or any other constant for that matter). And it explains the perceived "ever-accelerating expansion" of the universe with no need for mythical "dark energy". > > Painius wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com > http://painellsworth.net The photon wavefront is what needs to be detected, in much the same as the graviton wave front needs detecting. Perhaps we don't really know where we've been or where we're going. How enormous can a photon get? ~ BG >> > Painius wrote, >> [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > ~ BG Pretty enormous in terms of "energy level". Check out those Gamma mammas! And who knows what might be above gamma rays on the EM spectrum? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "We live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic." > David Russell P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, > >How enormous can a photon get? > >~ BG > >Pretty enormous in terms of "energy >level". Check out those Gamma >mammas! And who knows what might be >above gamma rays on the EM spectrum? Above high gamma, the EM spectrum is generally believed to "peter out", is it not?.. much like the idea that the Planck length is believed to be the smallest unit that "has any meaning". Well, under the CBB model, the frequency domain stretches on *above* the EM spectrum in an unbroken continuum like the scales on a keyboard, with our EM spectrum occupying the lowest 'octave' on the keyboard... while concomitantly, the wavelength domain stretches on *below* the Planck line in that same unbroken continuum. Of course this is the sub-Planckian frequency/wavelength domain of the the SPED itself, its energy density obeying the maxim that the shorter the wave (and higher the frequency) the higher the energy. > Painius wrote, >> Brad enkwired... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > obeying the maxim that the shorter the wave (and higher the frequency) > the higher the energy. Here's Kevin Johnson's "mainstream" answer to the question. He was asked what was below the AC freqs. and what was above the gamma rays... "There are no natural phenomena (and yet (?) no artificial sources) that emit radiation that is beyond femtometer wavelengths (gamma rays). "The same is true for ELF (extremely low frequency) radio waves. They are used for low bandwidth communication with submerged submarine vessels. Naturally they occur in lightning storms. "If you need some inspiration about the EM spectrum, check this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum "I believe some sci-fi authors have popularized the use of "delta waves" or "delta radiation" for unknown radiations ("beyond alpha, beta and gamma"). But science uses this term in a different meaning. "(In the real world, delta ray is a term that can been used for very fast electrons produced in quantity by alpha particles or other fast energetic charged particles knocking orbiting electrons out of atoms. Delta rays appear as branches in the main track of a cloud chamber.) "A truly scientific scale would just read the frequency or the wavelength. The boundaries between the different categories are not sharp." Let us remember, too, that the SPED can be as different from EM waves as EM waves are different from sound waves, perhaps much more different. Since the SPED energy is not EM, then just as sound waves have speeds that are totally unrelated to "c", the maximum speed of SPED waves (if there is a max. speed) is probably much higher than "c". I wonder if there's any way to mathematically figure the speed of space at the *surface* of the gravitational mass in a BH? It would be equal to the escape velocity at the surface. I submit that it is there, at the surface of the largest BH one can imagine, that we'll find the "c" for "celeritas", the "top speed" of the spatial energy that is the SPED. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "I think on-stage nudity is disgusting, shameful and damaging to all things American. But if I were 22 with a great body, it would be artistic, tasteful, patriotic and a progressive religious experience." > Shelley Winters P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, >Since the SPED energy is not EM, then >just as sound waves have speeds that >are totally unrelated to "c", the maximum >speed of SPED waves (if there is a max. >speed) is probably much higher than "c". Sure, `phase velocity` can travel much faster than the 'group velocity' of two primary waves propagating together. Google 'Group velocity, phase velocity'. But since the VSP does not recognize the existance of the SPED, the mainsteam would never recognize superluminal phase velocities in the SPED.. which of course would be the natural medium of communication of any advanced ETs out there. :-) Phase-velocity communication would *not* be in the form discrete lineal "information" as we know it, that's modulated onto an EM wave propagating at c. It would be holographic and transmitted in the form of whole concepts. > . . . recognize superluminal phase velocities in the > SPED.. which of course would be the natural medium of communication of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wave propagating at c. It would be holographic and transmitted in the > form of whole concepts. Not just communication, but perhaps transportation as well. It's a way around the little "c" speed limit. happy holidays and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Whatever you fear most has no power - it is your fear that has the power." > Oprah P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, >Not just communication, but perhaps >transportation as well. It's a way around >the little "c" speed limit. Most certainly, transportation. But a hyperdrive would work by projecting a lobe of less-dense space 'ahead` of the vessel, allowing the more-dense, higher pressure space `behind' to push. The ship literally "falls" into the less-dense space. As long as this pressure/density assymetry is maintained, it constitutes a boot-strapping 'warp node' that can propagate at many times the speed of light. Encapsuled in its 'warp node', the ship is shielded from collision with space debris by the massive bow wave that will sweep debris aside, and the gravitational-wave "wake" that is generated. That's why you never want to engage your Drive anywhere near a planet.:-) The cone-shaped GW 'wake' is exactly analogous to the sonic boom wake trailed by a supersonic jet. To draw an analogy of a hyperdrive, picture piloting a hot air balloon. You're actually using the balloon to project a lobe of less-dense air in the direction of travel (in this case, straight up). The presssure of denser air 'behind' (below) pushes you and your whole rig in the direction of travel (up). Another hyperdrive analogy is a supercavitating torpedo (see Google). Then along comes Alcubierre, and while operating under the VSP's 'no medium' mandate, proceeds to perfectly *describe* mathematically the hyperdrive principle. > Painius wrote, >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the VSP's 'no medium' mandate, proceeds to perfectly *describe* > mathematically the hyperdrive principle. So, since mass makes space less dense, all one has to do is harness a managably-sized BH and project it out in front of the ship. happy holidays and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Whatever you fear most has no power - it is your fear that has the power." > Oprah P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, re. hyperdrives, >So, since mass makes space less dense, >all one has to do is harness a >managably-sized BH and project it out in >front of the ship. Well, however it might be implemented, it would certainly involve establishing a lobe of less-dense, lower-pressure space ahead of the ship. Using that hot air balloon analogy, the balloon's envelope would represent a compressional bow wave, and the rarefaction/ low pressure zone behind the bow wave would be the 'capsule' or warp node, where the 'gondola' (the ship) rides, with the rebounding pressure wave from behind pushing the whole node along. All the while, inside the node and aboard the ship, the laws of GR remain unchanged and the chronometer runs at normal speed. AND there is *no time dilation* as there would be if running at sub-luminal speeds(!). This is by far the biggest boon of a hyperdrive. Leave the Sol system and go to a star 100 LY away and return, and your twin on Earth is still there, your ages unchanged. Alcubierre's math model, of course, does not recognize the spatial medium nor the *literal* pressure/density assymetry the math describes. His 'no medium' model would require "exotic matter" to supply the required levels of energy. Well, the spatial medium itself is jam-packed with 'waay more than sufficient energy, per your fanciful expression "E=mc³". Space itself *is* the "exotic matter". And, as we demonstrated in showing matter/space co-entrainment in the Bullet Cluster and as the PRIMARY factor in non-Keplerian rotation of galaxies, space itself IS the enigmatic "dark matter". As well as Alcubierre's "exotic matter". > Painius wrote, re. hyperdrives, >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > non-Keplerian rotation of galaxies, space itself IS the enigmatic "dark > matter". As well as Alcubierre's "exotic matter". Still needed is a way to form the balloon/bubble of rarefied, tenuous SPED in front of the ship... With hot-air balloons, the procedure is to light a fire beneath the balloon that continuously keeps the air inside the balloon hot. So if the theorized miniature BH can be manufactured, a specified controlled quantity of them could be expelled from the nose of the ship and act like "hot air" for the balloon? And remember, the new and less "fanciful" equation for the high-grade energy of the SPED is... E = mC² where the capital "C" is the speed of the SPED into the center of the toroid. It is not so fanciful as the E=mc³ because the units of measure are not at all violated. It is still somewhat fanciful because thus far i have not yet been able to deduce or even estimate the actual value of "C". It is an unknown. In my Sine-Wave version of the CBB, "C" can never approach "c", so i think that Wolter's vision of a catastrophic trip through the center of the toroid has to be closer to the truth. "C" must be far greater than "c". Also, when you think about it, the center, the PP, is pretty much the biggest BH imaginable. And if the matter that is sucked in at the event horizon of, say, a stellar BH can add to the mass of the BH, then it would follow that the mass that's sucked into the PP at the intake would add to the mass of the PP, isn't this correct? And you would have a constantly growing PP, which over time would expand to fairly outrageous proportions. So this alone tends to make me feel correct about the intake mass not adding in with the mass of a BH. happy holidays and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Whatever you fear most has no power - it is your fear that has the power." > Oprah P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, >In my Sine-Wave version of the CBB, "C" >can never approach "c", so i think that >Wolter's vision of a catastrophic trip >through the center of the toroid has to be >closer to the truth. "C" must be far >greater than "c". Aha. Now ii's clear why you been coming up with that "kinder, gentler core" concept. You were picturing the flow somehow going 'around' rather than *through* the 'Ultimate Tokamak' core of the PP and thence being blasted out equatorially by the centrifugal effect of the PP's spin. >Also, when you think about it, the center, >the PP, is pretty much the biggest BH >imaginable. Yuppers. By many, many orders of magnitude, "biggest" in terms of mass. And its exact center is the only true 'fixed' point in the whole macro-universe. >And if the matter that is sucked in at the >event horizon of, say, a stellar BH can >add to the mass of the BH, then it would >follow that the mass that's sucked into >the PP at the intake would add to the >mass of the PP, isn't this correct? No, as explained in another thread. The intake and output rates are equal, thus the PP's mass remains constant. And this sequeys(sp?) into something we discussed a few years ago. The PP, in its role as 'Compressor' takes the ambient pressure of the SCO and 'turbo-boosts' it up by many orders of magnitude before blasting the brand-new SPED out the spinning equator, the 'Bang' point. And i (ahem) taking a cue from your "E=mc³", assigned a likewise 'fanciful' expression to the pre-BB state, "E=mc^¢", the internal energy state of the 'Ultimate Tokamak' itself. Instantly upon expulsion, the brand-new SPED begins its precipitous de-pressurization, expansion and cooling, as illustrated in the graph on pg. 2 of my li'l website. The pressure/density of the SPED gradually levels out to its present `local' value, which is the ambient pressure of the SCO. > Painius wrote, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > website. The pressure/density of the SPED gradually levels out to its > present `local' value, which is the ambient pressure of the SCO. Well, i still say that incoming matter does not add to the mass of a BH. It's accelerated to near-c at the EH and is pure energy long before it gets to the surface of the BH. There is a lot of energy inside the EH, but the mass is the same as it was the day it was born. You said something above that goes counter to my own mind picture of the toroidal center. You said that the "brand-new SPED" is blasted "out the spinning equator" of the ultimate black hole, the PP. This tends to make me want to picture the center as a spinning sphere. But i have been picturing the center as elongated, rotating around its long axis, and blasting the SPED out one of its poles. How can the SPED be blasted out in a uniform direction from the PP equator? Seems to me it would be blasted out in ecliptic plane fashion, like a star, if it were coming from the PP's equatorial region. Only from a polar region could it first spew out in one direction, and then curve to form the external toroid Universe in which we live, correct? happy holidays and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "In time we hate that which we often fear." > Will Shakespeare P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Hot dayum, Paine. I woke up with a start about 3 AM, seeing with sudden clarity where you been 'coming from' on this idea of the EH presenting a "wall" to inbound matter. Then i turned on the Webbie rig and read your post wherein you sed, >Well, i still say that incoming matter >does not add to the mass of a BH. It's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >energy inside the EH, but the mass is >the same as it was the day it was born. OK. Before, i was utterly unable to 'get' how you coulda 'got' this idea. Inbound accreting matter is *in space*. That space is accelerating, carrying the matter along. But the matter is still moving sub-c *in the space that it's in*. The space accelerates on through the event horizon, exiting from our EM universe. The entrained matter is *still* moving sub-c *in that space*, while the space is moving well beyond c below the EH. Whereas you were seeing the matter's velocity referanced to our local frame 'out here', not from ITS local FoR, 'there' in the accelerating space flow, even when that flow is well beyond c, below the EH. Even below the EH, the matter is still moving sub-c *in its local frame*. In that frame, there is no such thing as the "event horizon" we preceive from 'out here'. ITS "event horizon" doesn't come until it smacks into the core mass, the "singularity", adding to that mass. > Hot dayum, Paine. I woke up with a start about 3 AM, seeing with sudden > clarity where you been 'coming from' on this idea of the EH presenting a [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > preceive from 'out here'. ITS "event horizon" doesn't come until it > smacks into the core mass, the "singularity", adding to that mass. We'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this minor point, oc. Inbound matter to, say, planet Selene is being accelerated by the SPED. It crashes into the Moon's surface at a speed that can be less than or greater than the Moon's "escape velocity" depending on several factors. You seem to be saying that, just because it's a black hole and not the Moon, the inbound matter for some reason cannot be accelerated beyond "sub-c". And it can. And when it gets very close to "c", the inbound matter converts to energy and goes "poof". If the escape velocity of a black hole is "c" at its event horizon, this means that the SPED has accelerated itself to "c" at the event horizon. So any matter accelerated by the SPED would be traveling at "near c" either just before or soon after entering the event horizon. And that is where the matter converts to energy. I know you don't agree with Einstein on this, either. But the matter is not "in space", the matter is "spatially extended". This is why the hyperdrive you described, although it works in theory to accelerate a ship up to and past the speed of light, it would have to be a very well- controlled acceleration, because if the ship gets too close to lightspeed, it too will just go "poof". So it's not really "hyper", is it? You described a "bubble" of sorts that protects the ship some way? What exactly is inside this bubble besides the ship? (if not the SPED) happy holidays and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "In time we hate that which we often fear." > Will Shakespeare P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius writted, >We'll just have to "agree to disagree" on >this minor point.. That's cool. But disagreein's fun, ey wot? >And when it gets very close to "c", the >inbound matter converts to energy and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >And that is where the matter converts to >energy. OK. Just for fun, try this - picture that there is no such thing as an "event horizon" at all. After all, it is not in reality a "thing" at all, but a perceptual construct, just as a rainbow is a perceptual construct. Now ('thought experiment' time), picture riding alongside a unit of space as it accelerates up to, and beyond the speed of light. Remember, there is no "event horizon" at all, just smooth, exponential acceleration of that unit of space until it plows into the "singularity". Any matter being carried along inside that unit of space is still moving sub-c *relative to that space* right up to the instant of impact. Even if that matter were moving at 99.9999% c relative to the space that it's in, it still remains sub-c *relative to the space that it's in*. It doesn't go 'poof' at the perceptual construct we call the event horizon. Passage through is an utter non-event in its FoR. For another example, in converse of the above, the newborn SPED ejected from the PP is moving at many times c, yet matter within it is always moving sub-c *relative to the space that it's in". > Painius writted, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > SPED ejected from the PP is moving at many times c, yet matter within it > is always moving sub-c *relative to the space that it's in". Everything about this universe has a wave-front or event horizon, whereas those original or first photons exist, outside of which those nifty photons (mostly of what we can not see) simply do not exist. The vast bulk of cosmic physical stuff is likely running at 0.1'c' behind those photons, whereas only an extremely slight bit of cosmic physical stuff might have been given 0.5'c' velocity. So, if this is all a singular PP or BB, how many trillion years old is our physical universe? ~ BG >> Painius writted, >> > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > ~ BG For an infinite Universe in space and time, "age" or "how many . . . years old" it is *has no meaning*. To have an age, something must have a beginning. Our *part* of the Universe did have a beginning. And it began roughly 13 - 15 billion years ago. happy holidays and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Ability is of little account without opportunity." > Lucille Ball P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net > >> Painius writted, > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Our *part* of the Universe did have a beginning. > And it began roughly 13 - 15 billion years ago. Our galaxy may be that young, or perhaps on its tenth cycle by now. Imagine how many good and bad times those galaxies getting sucked into the "Great Attractor" have been through. ~ BG >> >> Painius writted, >> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > ~ BG The Great Attractor is one of the biggest reasons that i no longer accept the BB theory. It's existence flies straight in the face of Hubble Flow. AND the Great Attractor may very well be the intake of the Primal Particle (PP). Does this not strongly support the CBB model! Of course, since the GA is, at most, only 250 million light years away, i'd say we're quite a bit closer to the intake than either Wolter or oc presently believes! happy holidays and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Ability is of little account without opportunity." > Lucille Ball P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com http://painellsworth.net Painius wrote, addtessing 'BG', >AND the Great Attractor may very well >be the intake of the Primal Particle (PP). >Does this not strongly support the CBB >model! > >Of course, since the GA is, at most, only >250 million light years away, i'd say >we're quite a bit closer to the intake than >either Wolter or oc presently believes! Paine, several years ago, shortly after you came onboard the NG IIRC, you seemed to 'get' the CBB concept right off the bat. We were dis-cussin' lightcones and the principle of *all* phases of the CBB cycle running continuously and simultaneously.. which is to say, the Explosion, Expansion, Contraction, and final Implosion phases all run perpetually and simultaneously, each at its respective station on the cycle. (It was from this discussion that i got the freon cycle analogy, IIRC.) And the subject of quasars entered the discussion. And lo, it became obvious that outside our lightcone and "upriver" a ways, the quasar epoch is in full flower *right now* just as all the other phases are in full flower right now, in present time, but outside our lightcone of visibility. Now just for fun, to update that discussion a bit, let's substitute the `sphere of visibiity' for the lightcone (since the SoV is what the lightcone represents anyway). In that illustration of the CBB Toroid (the side-on view), create another SoV, but locate it "upriver" about 1/3 of the way back toward the PP, along the equatorial plane. Make it about 2/3 the size of 'our' SoV, since it hasn't expanded as much. Let it represent the quasar epoch. Imagine being AT the center of that sphere of visibility, with the whole firmament blazing with quasars. And dig the idea that that epoch is literally in full flower, right now, outside our SoV. OK, so now create another SoV, placing it "downriver", deeper into the Contraction phase. But make it bigger, since it's expanded more than 'our' SoV. At the center of this "future" SoV, let there be a planet that's home to those 'Seeding Elders' we've speculated about. And dig the idea that that epoch is literally in full flower, right now, outside our SoV. So insofar as the "Great Attractor" under discussion, rest assured it's a mini-phenom of some kind, located well inside the boundaries of 'our' SoV, itself sitting out near the middle of the 'Main Sequence' of the CBB Process (under the CBB model that is). Just out of curiosity, what precipitated this avid "anti-BB" crusade of late? I don't recall your ever voicing it before, even when the BB was the subject of discussion. Oc wrote, >OK, so now create another SoV, placing >it "downriver", deeper into the >Contraction phase. But make it bigger, >since it's expanded more than 'our' SoV. Lest a squawk arise, probably better re-iterate that the expansion of the sphere of visibility (SoV) is *not* the expansion of space. They are two different and distinct critters. Expansion of the SoV is continuous and unending, its expansion rate fixed by the finite speed of light across time (illustrated by the lightcone). It continues expanding on into the Contraction phase of space, right on up to the Big Crunch. oc I do not believe in the big crunch. Do you? If so WHY? trebert Bert wrote, >I do not believe in the big crunch. Do >you? Absolutely. If the term 'Big Crunch' is undesirable, call it the Big Pacman. :-) >If so WHY? 'Cause i don't believe in Sky Pixies. oc Big Crunch would have all star light returning to where they came from. Time would have to run backwards People would be born in caskets,and living backwards till they finally drop back into their mothers womb. Well its fun to run a camera film backwards and see frame by from a broken glass put itself back to gather piece by piece. go figure Easy theory the arrow of time can only point to the future. That goes against imperial thinking. (so what) I have proven that a peron in a spaceship can tell if he is moving and not the scenery. Einstein would hate me for that (so what) I have had more time to think science than him,and he never had a Cern particle accelerator. TreBert > Painius wrote, addtessing 'BG', >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > boundaries of 'our' SoV, itself sitting out near the middle of the 'Main > Sequence' of the CBB Process (under the CBB model that is). This is one of the best descriptions of this aspect of the CBB model you've ever given, oc. I have to give you credit for this awesome bit of imagery. But the fact remains that within the SoV of our local space, we CAN see certain aspects of the PAST that our local space once experienced. So it follows that we might also be able to see some aspects of the FUTURE that our local space has yet to experience... Our Local Space. Forget all about light cones and SoV's for the moment. Our local space is made up of Earth, the Sun and Solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, the cluster of galaxies called "the Local Group" and the Virgo supercluster of galaxies. I'm sure the Virgo supercluster has an overall movement, perhaps a spin as well as a motion of the overall supercluster in some direction through space. Let's ignore that motion for now. We know that our Local Group is on a straight-line vector headed toward the center of the Virgo cluster, but that might very well be just one component of an orbital motion around Virgo. So let's ignore that, too. The future motion of our galaxy, the Milky Way, is in the general direction of the constellation "Hydra" at roughly 600 km/sec. Yes, it's unfortunate that from Earth's position, our vantage point, that the direction of travel of the galaxy is pretty much invisible and unavailable to us. This is because the part of Hydra we're headed for is also very nearly the direction of the center of our galaxy. And many of the things we're headed for are therefore blocked by the central core and/or spiral arms. The Great Attractor is in the direction of the Hydra and Centaurus constellations. This area of the sky is about 45 degrees away from the head of the huge snake (Hydra) which is the general direction we're headed on the galactic scale. Add in the potential for error in the measurements and math, and to me it strongly appears that the Great Attractor is most definitely in our future. Now, if you read my other post about the SPED as it zooms out of the PP being the CBB rendition of Alan Guth's inflation theory, and we realize that it's possible that the SPED is separating from the plane of the expulsion at all points along that plane, and then we see that our local space might have then separated from that plane shortly after coming out from the PP, you may realize that we could very possibly be on the "short trip" around to the pole of the PP. So i truly wish i could be as optimistic as you about being further out in the toroid and therefore farther away from the PP pole. However, the evidence i've pointed out above shows otherwise. It appears very likely that our galaxy is at best 250 million light years away from the PP pole. The bright side is, of course, that at 600 km/sec we won't get their fast! > Just out of curiosity, what precipitated this avid > "anti-BB" crusade of late? I don't recall your ever voicing it before, > even when the BB was the subject of discussion. If you get me started on this one, it will probably turn into a rant. And i still have a good deal of respect for most individual astronomers. Let's just say that, while i have never liked the BB model, and yet i was never that vocal about my disliking, the turning point was that article on the mysterious "dark flow" discovery that, in reality, was just a rediscovery of the Great Attractor. Saul Levy is right. There are some very stupid astronomers out there who don't even think to check the history books when they make their "great discoveries". And this really stretches the credibility where the observations and deductions regarding the Big Bang are concerned, too. In my mind, cosmology has lost a lot of its credibility. The sad part is... i've been checking from time to time, and those childish dark-flow publishers have apparently STILL not figured out their mistake. It's a sad time for science, my friend. happy holidays and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "But I do love thee! and when I love thee not, Chaos is come again." > Will Shakespeare P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message