Can Space be created within space?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 3 Aug 2010 16:25 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
From: Huang on 3 Aug 2010 17:02 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. That would yield a cosmic counterpart to Planck Time, the maximal segment of time possible given contemporary physics. 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. Raises one eyebrow. ?.
From: Huang on 3 Aug 2010 21:27 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. [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.
From: Y.Porat on 3 Aug 2010 23:50 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 ------------------------------------
From: Jacko on 4 Aug 2010 09:47
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. ;-) |