Can Space be created within space?
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 1 Aug 2010 19:41 On Aug 1, 4:58 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 11:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 9:16 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 2:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 7/31/10 11:49 PM, Kali Hawa wrote: > > > > > > Can a bigbang occur within our Universe? > > > 'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html > > > 'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our > > solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion > > is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed > > outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule > > out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right > > now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the > > clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.' > > > The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or > > the local Universe we exist in is, a jet stream. Analogous to the jet > > stream of a black hole. > > > The following is an image of a jet stream: > > >http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > > The reason for the expansion of the universe is the continual emission > > of dark matter. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where the > > conditions enable dark matter to be compressed into matter. > > > It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing. > > > > > Why not? > > > > -------------- > > > idiot > > > space is nothing > > > so > > > how can a nothing be created from another nothing !! > > > you are not a physicist > > > go deal with philosophy > > > and even in phylosophy > > > you dont make any sense > > > Y.P > > > > ---------------------- > > > What ripples? > > > 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur... > > > "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view > > of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two > > galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is > > somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the > > water." > > > The ripple will eventually reach the Earth and this is evidence dark > > matter exists from the galaxy cluster to the Earth. This is evidence > > dark matter is the medium of space in which light waves propagate. > > IF nothing gets out of a black hole then we are not seeing black holes > but short of a black hole. Jet streams would not exist for real black > holes. > > Mitch Raemsch It is not that nothing gets out. It is that nothing vanishes into a black hole. When the dark matter and matter fall past the event horizon of a black hole the matter and dark matter are emitted into the jet stream as dark matter.
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Aug 2010 19:51 On 8/1/10 6:32 PM, Huang wrote: > On Aug 1, 6:26 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/1/10 1:53 PM, Huang wrote: >> >>> Velocity of light is indeed the same in all frames of reference. So >>> why should we expect that redshift implies expansion "exclusively". It >>> does not. >> >> Velocity of light, more correctly the speed of light is independent >> of redshift! > > > Ok, fine. Speed of light is independent of redshift. > > Surely you would agree that if we were contracting locally that we > would expect to observe redshift. Blueshift!
From: Huang on 1 Aug 2010 20:30 On Aug 1, 6:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/1/10 6:32 PM, Huang wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 6:26 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8/1/10 1:53 PM, Huang wrote: > > >>> Velocity of light is indeed the same in all frames of reference. So > >>> why should we expect that redshift implies expansion "exclusively". It > >>> does not. > > >> Velocity of light, more correctly the speed of light is independent > >> of redshift! > > > Ok, fine. Speed of light is independent of redshift. > > > Surely you would agree that if we were contracting locally that we > > would expect to observe redshift. > > Blueshift! No - blue shift only occurs if you are approaching the source - not receeding from it. If we are contracting away from the light source we would still see redshift. There's really no reason that the cosmic oatmeal & raisin model cannot be applied to a contracting spacetime.
From: Huang on 1 Aug 2010 20:45 On Aug 1, 7:30 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 6:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 8/1/10 6:32 PM, Huang wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 6:26 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 8/1/10 1:53 PM, Huang wrote: > > > >>> Velocity of light is indeed the same in all frames of reference. So > > >>> why should we expect that redshift implies expansion "exclusively". It > > >>> does not. > > > >> Velocity of light, more correctly the speed of light is independent > > >> of redshift! > > > > Ok, fine. Speed of light is independent of redshift. > > > > Surely you would agree that if we were contracting locally that we > > > would expect to observe redshift. > > > Blueshift! > > No - blue shift only occurs if you are approaching the source - not > receeding from it. If we are contracting away from the light source we > would still see redshift. > > There's really no reason that the cosmic oatmeal & raisin model cannot > be applied to a contracting spacetime.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - In fact, you guys gave me an idea. I have often said that there must be a cosmic equivalent of Planck Length and PlanckTime. Basically, an upper limit on length. The largest possible length or segment of time allowable by physics. Sam gave me a clue of how something like that might come about. Big bang cosmology gives us the age of the universe since it's hypothetical inception. However, contraction should be equivalent to expansion vis-a-vis Einstein's EP. So we should he able to hypothesize a big crunch. That crunch should be calculable based on the rate of contraction. Take the time from the bigbang, and add to that the time until the big crunch. That sum should be equal to the maximal segment of time allowable by physics. A cosmic equivalent of PlanckTime. An upper bound. From that one should be able to determine the upper bound on length somehow.
From: Peter Webb on 2 Aug 2010 04:17
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:faWdneJfa_TglcvRnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 8/1/10 6:32 PM, Huang wrote: >> On Aug 1, 6:26 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/1/10 1:53 PM, Huang wrote: >>> >>>> Velocity of light is indeed the same in all frames of reference. So >>>> why should we expect that redshift implies expansion "exclusively". It >>>> does not. >>> >>> Velocity of light, more correctly the speed of light is independent >>> of redshift! >> >> >> Ok, fine. Speed of light is independent of redshift. >> >> Surely you would agree that if we were contracting locally that we >> would expect to observe redshift. > > Blueshift! I read "Bullshit!". Either is correct. |