Can Space be created within space?
in [Physics]
|
From: Huang on 6 Aug 2010 17:21 On Aug 6, 2:03 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The centre of the universe. > =================== > > The centroid of all the black holes weighted by mass in the local > universe, with all their light cone of influence taken into account > for bringing the 'final' mass to the centre. It is likely to be > somewhere. Any two such accumulators not in each others light cone are > seperate and may be different universes from this prospective. > > Centreless is a concept introduced by lazy estimators. ;-) > > Expansion by dark energy > =================== > > Space warps atract mass. if not enough mass exists to go round some > spacewarp will be left over having an apparent light bending mass, > while not having enough gravity to stop the expansion effect. Why does > light bend twice? > > The expansion of space by energy > ========================= > > Does space expand on the inside to fill the external swartzchild > radius? How slow can light get due to gravity? They may evolve faster > on the outside, but I doubt they'd come close to the edge of our > universe without joining our slow rate of light. Does the centre black > hole universe model imply some oscillation of the size of space? > Singularity contains an infinity with a singularity which contains an > infinity ad infinitum? > > Endamology > ========= > > What size does a black hole have to be before the sheer stress > fracture effect is out weighed by the time dilation effect? > > Cheers Jacko > > http://community.city.ac.uk/netcommunity/jackokring I have a better wording of the thought experiment, Originally I said: "Somewhere along the line you have observer and light source, and the observer is seeing redshifted light. Assuming that observer and light source are not in motion with respect to each other, there are really only two possibilities; " It sounds better to say : "Somewhere along the line you have observer and light source, and the observer is seeing redshifted light. Assuming that observer and light source are both stationary with respect to their local neighborhoods, there are really only two possibilities; " [1] Space is expanding in a neighborhood around the light source, or [2] Space is contracting locally in a neighborhood about the observer
From: PD on 6 Aug 2010 17:26 On Aug 4, 7:18 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 ? You don't have to appease anyone. You just should be a little more careful about checking what you say.
From: Huang on 6 Aug 2010 21:42 > > 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 ? > > You don't have to appease anyone. You just should be a little more > careful about checking what you say.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have a tendency of considering words and ideas separated to the point that any words neccesary to sculpt an understanding in another persons mind are fair game in order to convey an idea, but you're right - we cannot have multiple definitions for the same word. I'm a big abuser of standard nomenclature to be sure.
From: Jacko on 7 Aug 2010 16:38 > I have a tendency of considering words and ideas separated to the > point that any words neccesary to sculpt an understanding in another > persons mind are fair game in order to convey an idea, but you're > right - we cannot have multiple definitions for the same word. I'm a > big abuser of standard nomenclature to be sure. This is a dictum error. the crystalization of language to country borders and the resulting wars are all based around the 'standardization' of language. Which although a fine objective, has the problem of multiple standard authorities. It also opens abuse of understanding, by say detatching people from the meaning of words, by the process of assuming that no questions have to be passed to get the point spoken, and also by the process of purposefully hiding the origin of words for a population control gain by 'respelling' to the authorities request a.k.a. NewSpeak of the modern politician. Yes just 1 isomorphic form for the equations (containing the logic of the common goal) but words are as free as the birds, until shot that is. Cheers Jacko
From: Huang on 8 Aug 2010 22:43
On Aug 7, 3:38 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I have a tendency of considering words and ideas separated to the > > point that any words neccesary to sculpt an understanding in another > > persons mind are fair game in order to convey an idea, but you're > > right - we cannot have multiple definitions for the same word. I'm a > > big abuser of standard nomenclature to be sure. > > This is a dictum error. the crystalization of language to country > borders and the resulting wars are all based around the > 'standardization' of language. Which although a fine objective, has > the problem of multiple standard authorities. It also opens abuse of > understanding, by say detatching people from the meaning of words, by > the process of assuming that no questions have to be passed to get the > point spoken, and also by the process of purposefully hiding the > origin of words for a population control gain by 'respelling' to the > authorities request a.k.a. NewSpeak of the modern politician. > > Yes just 1 isomorphic form for the equations (containing the logic of > the common goal) but words are as free as the birds, until shot that > is. > > Cheers Jacko Any probabilistic problem can be restated in terms of existential indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. |