Can Space be created within space?
in [Physics]
|
From: Huang on 4 Aug 2010 14:37 On Aug 4, 9:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:27 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Here's the argument in favor of applying the Equivalence principle > > directly to distortions of spacetime. Please destroy my argument at > > any step, I will enumerate the key ideas. > > [0] > What do you think the equivalence principle says, exactly? > Put it in the context of the observer in a spaceship, if you like. > > > > > > > [1] The equivalence principle can be applied to experiments with > > stationary observer and rocket ship. > > > [2] The stationary observer has it's own gravitational field. > > > [3] The rocket ship has it's own gravitational field. > > > [4] It is absurd that the Equivalence Principle would apply to the > > rocket or obsever but not the associated gravitational fields. > > > [5] Therefore, the equivalence principle must also apply to > > gravitational fields because they are component to the Einsteins own > > gedanken experiments. > > > [6] Hence Equivalence Principle applies to chunks of bent space which > > move relative to each other, and > > > [7] should also be applicable to cosmic expansion / contraction > > because it's a motion no different than any other > > > So that's my story and Im stickin to it. Anyone want a piece of this > > please step up and hit me with ya best shot.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Basically what it says is very simple. The inertial mass which is created by accelerating an object is no different than the gravitational mass of a body at rest in a gravitational field. That these different kinds of mass are equivalent, inertial and gravitational. I would go further. If a body in motion has a gravitational field, that that field is also in motion. Whether the field itself has inertia is irrelevant, if it is in motion relative to it's surroundings and the elevator example should be applicable to the field itself. The fact that the field is regarded as warped space is pretty handy....if you want to argue that big bang is equivalent to big crunch.
From: PD on 4 Aug 2010 14:43 On Aug 4, 1:37 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 9:22 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 3, 8:27 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Here's the argument in favor of applying the Equivalence principle > > > directly to distortions of spacetime. Please destroy my argument at > > > any step, I will enumerate the key ideas. > > > [0] > > What do you think the equivalence principle says, exactly? > > Put it in the context of the observer in a spaceship, if you like. > > > > [1] The equivalence principle can be applied to experiments with > > > stationary observer and rocket ship. > > > > [2] The stationary observer has it's own gravitational field. > > > > [3] The rocket ship has it's own gravitational field. > > > > [4] It is absurd that the Equivalence Principle would apply to the > > > rocket or obsever but not the associated gravitational fields. > > > > [5] Therefore, the equivalence principle must also apply to > > > gravitational fields because they are component to the Einsteins own > > > gedanken experiments. > > > > [6] Hence Equivalence Principle applies to chunks of bent space which > > > move relative to each other, and > > > > [7] should also be applicable to cosmic expansion / contraction > > > because it's a motion no different than any other > > > > So that's my story and Im stickin to it. Anyone want a piece of this > > > please step up and hit me with ya best shot.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Basically what it says is very simple. The inertial mass which is > created by accelerating an object is no different than the > gravitational mass of a body at rest in a gravitational field. That > these different kinds of mass are equivalent, inertial and > gravitational. No, that is not the equivalence principle, though it is related to it. You may want to look again. Better yet, would you like a resource to READ from? > > I would go further. If a body in motion has a gravitational field, > that that field is also in motion. Whether the field itself has > inertia is irrelevant, if it is in motion relative to it's > surroundings and the elevator example should be applicable to the > field itself. Whether you would go further or not is irrelevant. What you've just stated has nothing to do with the equivalence principle, which is why I asked you what you thought the equivalence principle is. > > The fact that the field is regarded as warped space is pretty > handy....if you want to argue that big bang is equivalent to big > crunch.
From: PD on 4 Aug 2010 14:45 On Aug 4, 1:26 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 9:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 3, 4:02 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 3, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 3, 2:49 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 6:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sam, I did not say anything about centerless universe.. If you can have > > > > > > > > > > > centerless expansion, then you can also have centerless contraction. > > > > > > > > > > > > Just as the universe can be regarded as expanding "without a center", > > > > > > > > > > > so too it can be modelled as a contraction "without a center". > > > > > > > > > > > That's correct. Observation show that space is expanding.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > But I think that Hubble's interpretation of redshift was a bit off. > > > > > > > > > Hubble gives only two concievable explanations: > > > > > > > > > > [a] Everything is flying away from us, placing us in the center of a > > > > > > > > > bunch of stuff which is moving outwards, or > > > > > > > > > [b] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > > > > > > > I think that his options were incomplete. I think that either: > > > > > > > > > > [a] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > > > > > > [b] We are contracting away from space and it is centerless. > > > > > > > > > > I think that both of these are valid possibilities, and that they > > > > > > > > > should be equivalent under Equivalence Principle. > > > > > > > > > Please. Stop with the gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > The Principle of Relativity does NOT mean "everything is relative". > > > > > > > > The Principle of Equivalence does NOT mean "opposite things are > > > > > > > > equivalent." > > > > > > > > > You can babble if you want. I just don't recommend that you attach > > > > > > > > buzz phrases from pulp physics to the babbling. It will only put folks > > > > > > > > off.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > So, the only time we can apply the Equivalence Principle is when we > > > > > > > are looking at rectilinear motion. Cant apply it to anything else > > > > > > > except trains and rockets. > > > > > > > Nor did I say that. > > > > > > You, the fuzzy logic champion, seem to veer quite dramatically from > > > > > > Black to White. > > > > > > "Well, if it means more than trains and rockets, then I can say it > > > > > > means whatever I want, can't I?" > > > > > > > > Ahem - > > > > > > > > Space is a "physical thing". And whenever two physical things are in > > > > > > > motion with respect to each other, relativity must apply. > > > > > > > No, sir. This again is gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > If one > > > > > > > region of space (which is a thing) appears to be in motion relative to > > > > > > > another, then I see no reason why these principles wouldnt apply.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Surely you would concede that expansion of space qualifies as "motion" > > > > > of something. Something must be in motion, otherwise the concept of > > > > > expansion is just vacuous. > > > > > > If the universe were 1-dimensional, then it might be easier to see > > > > > that something must be in motion. > > > > > > Are we now arguing that something such as space can expand and that > > > > > there was no motion involved in this process ? Doesn't that seem a bit > > > > > contradictory ? > > > > > First of all, the principle of relativity does not apply to any old > > > > kind of motion. Nor does the principle of equivalence. > > > > Secondly, there IS a difference between something moving from one > > > > coordinate in space to another coordinate in space, and the metric of > > > > space itself changing. > > > > > Rather than muddling through with loose interpretations of terms that > > > > are in fact carefully defined and delineated, don't you think it would > > > > be beneficial if you actually learned some of the careful delineations > > > > and definitions? > > > > > Or is it more fun for you to just babble in free-association style, > > > > hoping that you can defend some loose connection between your thinking > > > > and what physics means by these things? > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > There's more than one way to skin the cat, and as some of those ways > > > are equivalent. Has to be. > > > > All Im suggesting is that there is a maximal segment of time allowable > > > by physics, and suggesting a way to estimate what it is. Age of > > > universe based on big bang, added to time we've got left until the big > > > crunch. > > > What's the rationale that there is even going to be a big crunch? > > Is your rationale the fact that you heard it on TV some time ago? > > > > That would yield a cosmic counterpart to Planck Time, the > > > maximal segment of time possible given contemporary physics.' > > > It's only a counterpart in the sense that you would arbitrarily pair a > > minimum with a maximum. > > But this is like pairing a virus with a blue whale and implying that > > they must be related. > > > > I would actually calculate the time left until the big crunch based on > > > a contracting spacetime, which I consider equivalent to an expanding > > > one. > > > > I dont really know where I might have muddled any definitions in that, > > > but your perfectly welcome to criticize anyhting I say because frankly > > > I have a certain amount of confidence that it's a worthwhile idea. > > > Whether correct or not I do not know, but then again Im not the one > > > funding things such as SETI am I. > > > That's true, and so now I understand your gambit. > > You perceive a lot of the research that is being done (like SETI) to > > be pointless diddling exercises without real rationale or clear > > thought. If they had a rationale or clear thought behind them, you > > tell yourself, then you would understand and endorse the projects. But > > since you don't, then they must not have a well-considered > > justification. That being said, you figure that you are just as > > entitled to engage in a similar, pointless, diddling exercise without > > much in the way of a well-considered justification or clear rationale. > > And so you toss in your barely baked ideas, imagining that they must > > be at least as baked as some of the other things you've seen in the > > news. Perhaps you can get your slice of notoriety by tossing your > > barely baked contribution into the ring. > > > > Raises one eyebrow. > > > > ?.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I was only joking about SETI. Personally I tend to believe that indeed > we are not the only living things in this universe. It's not very > reasonable to think that we are alone. > > But the justification for a big crunch would be the idea that we are > contracting away form space, causing redshift. Certainly we can only > contract just so far until we are no more. Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the big crunch. In the big crunch, objects in the universe are *approaching* each other, and their radiation is blue-shifted. As I mentioned earlier, it helps to know what terms used in physics actually mean, rather than just trying to "intuit" what they mean and following implications of what you THINK they mean. But to do that requires a little reading, which is apparently more effort than you are willing to put out. > > If cosmic contraction and expansion are equivalent, then you have a > big bang and a big crunch, the time to go from big bang to big crunch > would be the maximal time segment allowable under physics.
From: Huang on 4 Aug 2010 20:18 On Aug 4, 1:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 1:26 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 9:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 3, 4:02 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 3, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 3, 2:49 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 10:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 6:21 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sam, I did not say anything about centerless universe. If you can have > > > > > > > > > > > > centerless expansion, then you can also have centerless contraction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just as the universe can be regarded as expanding "without a center", > > > > > > > > > > > > so too it can be modelled as a contraction "without a center". > > > > > > > > > > > > That's correct. Observation show that space is expanding.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > But I think that Hubble's interpretation of redshift was a bit off. > > > > > > > > > > Hubble gives only two concievable explanations: > > > > > > > > > > > [a] Everything is flying away from us, placing us in the center of a > > > > > > > > > > bunch of stuff which is moving outwards, or > > > > > > > > > > [b] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > > > > > > > > I think that his options were incomplete. I think that either: > > > > > > > > > > > [a] Space is expanding and is centerless. > > > > > > > > > > [b] We are contracting away from space and it is centerless. > > > > > > > > > > > I think that both of these are valid possibilities, and that they > > > > > > > > > > should be equivalent under Equivalence Principle. > > > > > > > > > > Please. Stop with the gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > > The Principle of Relativity does NOT mean "everything is relative". > > > > > > > > > The Principle of Equivalence does NOT mean "opposite things are > > > > > > > > > equivalent." > > > > > > > > > > You can babble if you want. I just don't recommend that you attach > > > > > > > > > buzz phrases from pulp physics to the babbling. It will only put folks > > > > > > > > > off.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > So, the only time we can apply the Equivalence Principle is when we > > > > > > > > are looking at rectilinear motion. Cant apply it to anything else > > > > > > > > except trains and rockets. > > > > > > > > Nor did I say that. > > > > > > > You, the fuzzy logic champion, seem to veer quite dramatically from > > > > > > > Black to White. > > > > > > > "Well, if it means more than trains and rockets, then I can say it > > > > > > > means whatever I want, can't I?" > > > > > > > > > Ahem - > > > > > > > > > Space is a "physical thing". And whenever two physical things are in > > > > > > > > motion with respect to each other, relativity must apply. > > > > > > > > No, sir. This again is gobbledygook. > > > > > > > > > If one > > > > > > > > region of space (which is a thing) appears to be in motion relative to > > > > > > > > another, then I see no reason why these principles wouldnt apply.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > Surely you would concede that expansion of space qualifies as "motion" > > > > > > of something. Something must be in motion, otherwise the concept of > > > > > > expansion is just vacuous. > > > > > > > If the universe were 1-dimensional, then it might be easier to see > > > > > > that something must be in motion. > > > > > > > Are we now arguing that something such as space can expand and that > > > > > > there was no motion involved in this process ? Doesn't that seem a bit > > > > > > contradictory ? > > > > > > First of all, the principle of relativity does not apply to any old > > > > > kind of motion. Nor does the principle of equivalence. > > > > > Secondly, there IS a difference between something moving from one > > > > > coordinate in space to another coordinate in space, and the metric of > > > > > space itself changing. > > > > > > Rather than muddling through with loose interpretations of terms that > > > > > are in fact carefully defined and delineated, don't you think it would > > > > > be beneficial if you actually learned some of the careful delineations > > > > > and definitions? > > > > > > Or is it more fun for you to just babble in free-association style, > > > > > hoping that you can defend some loose connection between your thinking > > > > > and what physics means by these things? > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > There's more than one way to skin the cat, and as some of those ways > > > > are equivalent. Has to be. > > > > > All Im suggesting is that there is a maximal segment of time allowable > > > > by physics, and suggesting a way to estimate what it is. Age of > > > > universe based on big bang, added to time we've got left until the big > > > > crunch. > > > > What's the rationale that there is even going to be a big crunch? > > > Is your rationale the fact that you heard it on TV some time ago? > > > > > That would yield a cosmic counterpart to Planck Time, the > > > > maximal segment of time possible given contemporary physics.' > > > > It's only a counterpart in the sense that you would arbitrarily pair a > > > minimum with a maximum. > > > But this is like pairing a virus with a blue whale and implying that > > > they must be related. > > > > > I would actually calculate the time left until the big crunch based on > > > > a contracting spacetime, which I consider equivalent to an expanding > > > > one. > > > > > I dont really know where I might have muddled any definitions in that, > > > > but your perfectly welcome to criticize anyhting I say because frankly > > > > I have a certain amount of confidence that it's a worthwhile idea. > > > > Whether correct or not I do not know, but then again Im not the one > > > > funding things such as SETI am I. > > > > That's true, and so now I understand your gambit. > > > You perceive a lot of the research that is being done (like SETI) to > > > be pointless diddling exercises without real rationale or clear > > > thought. If they had a rationale or clear thought behind them, you > > > tell yourself, then you would understand and endorse the projects. But > > > since you don't, then they must not have a well-considered > > > justification. That being said, you figure that you are just as > > > entitled to engage in a similar, pointless, diddling exercise without > > > much in the way of a well-considered justification or clear rationale.. > > > And so you toss in your barely baked ideas, imagining that they must > > > be at least as baked as some of the other things you've seen in the > > > news. Perhaps you can get your slice of notoriety by tossing your > > > barely baked contribution into the ring. > > > > > Raises one eyebrow. > > > > > ?.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I was only joking about SETI. Personally I tend to believe that indeed > > we are not the only living things in this universe. It's not very > > reasonable to think that we are alone. > > > But the justification for a big crunch would be the idea that we are > > contracting away form space, causing redshift. Certainly we can only > > contract just so far until we are no more. > > Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the big crunch. In the big > crunch, objects in the universe are *approaching* each other, and > their radiation is blue-shifted. > > As I mentioned earlier, it helps to know what terms used in physics > actually mean, rather than just trying to "intuit" what they mean and > following implications of what you THINK they mean. But to do that > requires a little reading, which is apparently more effort than you > are willing to put out. OK - so the term "Big Crunch" has already been coined many years ago to describe the death of the universe based on bgi bang cosmology, yes yes I concede, I stole a name that some else had already reserved for this other well known process which was described decades ago. For that you have my apology. However, the concept of a crunch of some kind is appropriate and so maybe I should distinguish my big crunch from pre-existing big crunches. So - the process I described, lets call it the "Big Smoosh". Would that appease the powers that be ?
From: Y.Porat on 5 Aug 2010 03:21
On Aug 4, 3:47 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 Aug, 04:50, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 8:23 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > What is the characteristic impedence of space, and why would nothing > > > have an impedance? > > > ----------------------- > > it is not the net vacuum that has > > impedance > > you find impedance > > only if there is mass init > > for instance > > > the measuring tools that yopu use > > to find it > > HAS MASS!! > > > so jus stick it to your skull > > the new basic iron rule of physics > > > NO MASS -THE ONLY ONE- > > NO REAL PHYSICS !! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------------ > > NO SPACE WARP NO REAL PHYSICS. MASS IS SECONDARY. ;-) ------------------ (:-) -------------------- |