light velocity variable, no dark energy needed
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Does a flat observable universe imply an infinite universe?
Next: 40 TH ANNIVERSARY OF TELFER MINE DISCOVERY ON OCT 14TH 2010. Copy herein of letter sent to WESTERN AUSTRALIA PREMIER COLIN BARNETT as personal communication to the Silent Majority.
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Aug 2010 09:47 On 8/3/10 12:12 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > On 02/08/2010 10:45 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 8/2/10 7:14 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >>> Always a bit quick on the draw aren't you Sam? >>> >>> The fact of the matter is that light speed cannot be measured outside of >>> our local section of the universe. But a faster light speed in other >>> sections of the universe would look exactly the same as the light speed >>> in our section of the universe. >> >> Ref: http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q651.html >> >> Q: How do we know that the speed of light is the same in every galaxy? >> >> A: We do not know this for absolute certain, but when we study the light >> from far away galaxies we see similar kinds of spectral lines as we see >> from elements close to us on the Earth. The relationships among the >> spectral lines in distant atoms also follow the same rules they do here, >> so the laws of atomic physics, and the value of fundamental constants >> that determine these physical laws seems to be the same everywhere. As >> for the speed of light being different in some galaxies, this would lead >> to a very complicated universe and there is no evidence that the >> universe is anything but the rather uniform thing that it is with laws >> and constants being the same everywhere we can look. >> >> Measurement of reflections in SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud >> are consistent with the constant speed of light. Similarly neutrinos >> and photons arrival at earth from SN1987A are consistent with a the >> constant speed of light. Similar arguments are made for quasars and >> gravitational lensing. > > So how does whatever you copied and pasted contradict anything I said? > > Yousuf Khan Why do you expect my posting to be contradictory. We don't know for sure, but there is no contradictory evidence that constants and laws of physics aren't the same everywhere.
From: Yevgen Barsukov on 3 Aug 2010 10:03 Llanzlan Klazmon <bill.m.tho...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:42 am, Yevgen Barsukov <evgen...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Check out the new paper by Wun-Yi Shu on modification of general > > relativity > > that makes speed of light dependent on degree of universe expansion. > > Eliminates need for dark energy, presently needed to explain > > accelerated expansion (2/3 of all energy in the universe in present > > model). > > > Popular explanation is here:http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html > > > Actual paper:http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf > > > Looks promising, although more work is needed on deriving constants > > from experimental data. I guess they rushed to publish this, > > while working on more rounded up papers later. > > > Regards, > > Yevgen > > > -- > > Tune in to "Strange Drawing of the Day" buzz:http://www.google.com/profiles/100679771837661030957#buzz > > Actual trashing of Shu's paper here: > > http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/ > > Enjoy. It is somewhat entertaining, but what author of trashing is missing is that Shu is not trying to stay with general relativity, and therefore expectations that his quantities could be expressed in terms of traditional units are unfounded. It is completely new theory and it can not be expected to arrive on the same metrics as general relativity. It is however consistent with itself, and at least with observations to which it was applied (red shifts of supernovas). Now, I see actual weakness of the paper (if not the theory) in the fact that its constants are not yet completely constrained by other observations. Fitting the supernova data only gives some "compound" constrains, but some additional data is clearly needed to get the values of constants themselves. Well, one paper is not supposed to solve all the problems. Otherwise what would author do for the rest of his life? :-) I am sure somebody working on figuring this out just as we type. Regards, Yevgen -- Tune in to "Strange Drawing of the Day" buzz: http://www.google.com/profiles/100679771837661030957#buzz
From: Yousuf Khan on 3 Aug 2010 15:06 On 03/08/2010 9:47 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 8/3/10 12:12 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >> So how does whatever you copied and pasted contradict anything I said? >> >> Yousuf Khan > > Why do you expect my posting to be contradictory. We don't know for > sure, but there is no contradictory evidence that constants and laws > of physics aren't the same everywhere. Oh, okay, my apologies, I just naturally assume that you're going to contradict me. :) Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 3 Aug 2010 15:10 On 03/08/2010 10:03 AM, Yevgen Barsukov wrote: > Llanzlan Klazmon<bill.m.tho...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Actual trashing of Shu's paper here: >> >> http://badphysics.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/nobang/ >> >> Enjoy. > > It is somewhat entertaining, but what author of trashing is missing is > that Shu > is not trying to stay with general relativity, and therefore > expectations that > his quantities could be expressed in terms of traditional units are > unfounded. > It is completely new theory and it can not be expected to arrive on > the same > metrics as general relativity. It is however consistent with itself, > and at least with > observations to which it was applied (red shifts of supernovas). > > Now, I see actual weakness of the paper (if not the theory) in the > fact that its constants > are not yet completely constrained by other observations. Fitting the > supernova > data only gives some "compound" constrains, but some additional data > is clearly > needed to get the values of constants themselves. > Well, one paper is not supposed to solve all the problems. Otherwise > what would > author do for the rest of his life? :-) I am sure somebody working on > figuring this out just as we type. > > Regards, > Yevgen As I said, whether or not this particular theory is going to be the final theory that explains the whole universe is irrelevant. I am seeing that physics is finally starting embrace a new path to understanding reality, and this is just another one of those papers going along that path. Yousuf Khan
From: Raymond Yohros on 8 Aug 2010 13:06
On Aug 2, 7:04 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > On 02/08/2010 4:42 PM, Yevgen Barsukov wrote: > > Check out the new paper by Wun-Yi Shu on modification of general > > relativity > > that makes speed of light dependent on degree of universe expansion. > > Eliminates need for dark energy, presently needed to explain > > accelerated expansion (2/3 of all energy in the universe in present > > model). > > I think this is the right approach that is going to eventually emerge > about the universe, whether or not this particular theory is the right > theory or not is of no particular importance. What is going to happen is > that it will become more and more evident that time, space, mass and > energy are all really the same things, where one can be converted into > another and vice-versa. > that is the reversible nature of the universe. nothing created or destroyed but transform. the transformation path can be describe like a waveform. > > The beginning of the 20th century saw us figure out that mass and energy > are the same things. Now in the 21st century, the last bits of the > universe will also now be folded in. > > Yousuf Khan > matenergyspacetime acting as 1 at the bb r.y |