PDA

View Full Version : Space?

Chesty Morgan
27th Jul 2006, 00:44
If space is infinitely large, that must mean we are infinitely small and therefore don't exist.

If however, space is not infinitely large, WTF is outside it? What is it expanding into?

G-CPTN
27th Jul 2006, 00:47
Define Space.
Is it 'nothing' with bits in it? If Space is a vacuum, why don't the bits expand until they equalise the 'pressure'?

Chesty Morgan
27th Jul 2006, 00:53
Well I suppose 'Universe' is a more appropriate word.

The entire continuum in which we exist. Including all matter and energy.

I nicked that from Wikipedia btw!

Bluesteel705
27th Jul 2006, 00:53
Ah well the expansion of the universe is not like an explosion or whatever as we would know it. Its not on a physical scale that we as humans can realy grasp. In spacetime distance and and space itself are not absolute, they are defined by a 'metric' which can change, hence the universe expanding is refered to as 'The Metric Expansion of Space' IE: Rather than the universe exploding out into absolute nothingness, the space itself contains the objects and is itself changing. Space is filling the gap between objects.

Basicaly; Space is said to expand when the locations of objects sitting in that space get further apart.

AcroChik
27th Jul 2006, 01:03
Here's a charming thought...

Let's suppose the universe is expanding. It is. Let's suppose the rate of expansion is accelerating. Apparently, it is. Let's say that there's not enough mass in the universe to cause enough gravitational attraction to draw the matter back together into a unity at some stage. No one knows... yet (but eventually they will).

If these conditions are true, then the acceleration of expansion will continue until it approaches the speed of light. At that stage there will be a flashover as all mass is converted to energy and the entire universe will wink out.

And what will be left? Nothing.

Now, there's an excuse for not doing your homework! Afterall, if the universe is going to cease existing, whatever's the point in studying trig?

And don't start in about saddle-shaped unbounded... blah blah blah. I'm just having a little fun at the end of an over-long day :p

Chesty Morgan
27th Jul 2006, 01:08
Aaaaaaaargh! But what is it expanding in to??? What is "nothing"? Is the universe, as an entity, moving...anywhere? What's holding it up?

AcroChik
27th Jul 2006, 01:12
"What's holding it up?"

Just for you? Posh Spice's suspenders ;)

Bluesteel705
27th Jul 2006, 01:15
Its not expanding into nothingness though, Space is never truly empty. Everything in it is getting further apart, hence the expansion. :ok:

G-CPTN
27th Jul 2006, 01:17
The answer to what is outside the Universe, is similar to asking what happens if you travel North from the North Pole. Space is curved, and we are still (mentally) in the state that the ancients were in when they thought that the Earth was flat - ie what happens when you reach the edge (ie do you fall off?)?
Do you think that creatures much smaller than ourselves (such as ants) can answer the question "How big is the World?" Likewise, there is no way that Man can travel far enough (over the edge of the flat Earth) to find out where the Universe ends.
If you think you're up to it, explain how matter entering a Black Hole ends up so compressed that it occupies infinitessimal volume (ie a 'singularity')?

G-CPTN
27th Jul 2006, 01:19
What's holding it up?
Don't you KNOW about the Turtles?
the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down."

Bluesteel705
27th Jul 2006, 01:23
If you think you're up to it, explain how matter entering a Black Hole ends up so compressed that it occupies infinitessimal volume (ie a 'singularity')?

Well nobody realy knows since not even light can escape the event horizon and everything gets seperated from the rest of the universe. So you have to guess using maths :ugh: :{ .

And would the turtle be the A'Tuin or somesuch? :ok:

Buster Cherry
27th Jul 2006, 01:23
Posh Spice's suspenders :yuk:

Now, If you would have said Kylie.....:E

Chesty Morgan
27th Jul 2006, 01:25
Space is never truly empty. Everything in it is getting further apart, hence the expansion So is 'Space' infinite? If it isn't it's gotta be stretching into SOMETHING!!!!

Posh Spice's suspenders Phwooar;)

Likewise, there is no way that Man can travel far enough (over the edge of the flat Earth) to find out where the Universe ends But if we could, hypothetically of course, what would be there?

Don't you KNOW about the Turtle? Err...NO! Edit: I do now:ok:

I need help!:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Bluesteel705
27th Jul 2006, 01:29
Empirical measurements of the global curvature of spacetime suggest that spacetime is globally flat, which entails that the universe is spatially infinite. :{

G-CPTN
27th Jul 2006, 01:35
So is 'Space' infinite? If it isn't it's gotta be stretching into SOMETHING!!!!

But if we could, hypothetically of course, what would be there?

We can't comprehend the concept(s), because, as yet, we haven't experienced anything similar. Apart from Leonardo (da Vince), how many of his era could comprehend helicopters and space travel.

To understand (!) the concept of an infinite number, imagine the LARGEST number that you can. Now add ONE to it, . . .
then double it.

Bluesteel705
27th Jul 2006, 01:37
We can't comprehend the concept(s), because, as yet, we haven't experienced anything similar. Apart from Leonardo (da Vince), how many of his era could comprehend helicopters and space travel.

Well I heard that the Aliens what built Stonehenge left a calculator underneath and the government found it but kept it quiet, and weve had electricity for 400 years but the pope had it all hushed up for some reason.....

I'll get me tinfoil hat....

mocoman
27th Jul 2006, 01:55
No No No NO NO....

Space does not have to expand 'into' something;

Universe is created when matter expands into a void otherwise unoccupied....:E

Space continues to exist, but is unused, and has no function other than that occupied by a cab-driver outside a nightclub,

Irrelevant until required....:E

G-CPTN
27th Jul 2006, 01:58
Where does your lap go when you stand up?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
27th Jul 2006, 02:03
WTF is outside it?Milk (10 points for the reference)

Actually, the universe is a disk riding on the backs of four elephants (10 more points here)

mocoman
27th Jul 2006, 02:26
Discworld.....10pts thank you......:ugh:

Buster Hyman
27th Jul 2006, 02:44
Oh, so it wasn't Yertle the Turtles back then?

twenty eight
27th Jul 2006, 08:57
This is what Cornell University has to say about the expansion of the universe.
Linked (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274) because it is to big to quote.
About as clear as mud.
:8

ORAC
27th Jul 2006, 09:01
universe expanding is refered to as 'The Metric Expansion of Space' So inflation only started after we went metric then?

I thought everything cost a lot more afterwards......... :suspect:

Windy Militant
27th Jul 2006, 09:14
Haven't they come up with some theory that there are constant matter/anti matter collisions happening alll the time. The result of this is that bits of the universe are appearing and disappearing at random points all the time. Something to do with Vacuum energy or summut.
If this is the case it might explain why socks, biros, keys, TV remotes and other sundry items seem to disappear then pop up several days or even years later in the fridge! :\

Erwin Schroedinger
27th Jul 2006, 09:53
universe expanding is refered to as 'The Metric Expansion of Space'
I still think the Imperialist forces will win. *cue Star Wars intro music*

GearDown&Locked
27th Jul 2006, 10:23
If these conditions are true, then the acceleration of expansion will continue until it approaches the speed of light. At that stage there will be a flashover as all mass is converted to energy and the entire universe will wink out.

aah, BUT when will that be? We are always assuming that time is a constant; What if it isn't? Is the speed of light constant? time is measured by observing mater moving in space. Consider the following scenario:

Let's imagine we live inside a videotape player. Now if the speed of the videotape varies, faster or slower, do we notice it? no because our universe changes accordingly and even the speed of light wich is constant inside our universe becomes a variable outside it.

Funny isn't it? :}

GD&L

Kestrel_909
27th Jul 2006, 11:12
Funny isn't it? :}

Not the best joke I've read but certainly light years ahead of some others on here. :E

Objects are are getting further apart, so space is becoming more spacious?
I find it hard to imagine that in something bigger than my backyard, no life other than I exists. If we are the only form of life in the universe, then right now I feel very alone. But feeling alone is similar to feeling vulnerable, and why feel vulnerable if we are alone and nothing can come to harm us, except the end of the universe and I hope its a quick ending, I'm not a fan of these ten chapter endings.

frostbite
27th Jul 2006, 13:04
The man on TV said it's "the final frontier".

So there.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
27th Jul 2006, 14:05
Correct on DiscWorld mocoman

Still no point for Milk though :cool:

AcroChik
27th Jul 2006, 14:14
Some people need to express their inner child ~ I need to express my inner nerd.

It's been asked, "Is the speed of light constant?"

The answer is, "Yes, in the relative vacuum of space, the speed of light is constant." The speed of light is slowed when it passes through transparent fluids such as air, other gasses, water and things such as panes of glass and lenses. This was discovered during the mid 19th century. I forget the name of the scientist.

Compared to its constant velocity of 299,792,458 meters/second in the relative vacuum of space, the "delta" or "marginal percent change from the whole" by which it is slowed when passing through these media is vanishingly miniscule.

Very sensitive observational tools invented, designed and built by that even more sensitive observational tool, the human mind, can measure these deviations in velocity to something on the order of one part in 10^15. That's a very small number.

ExSimGuy
27th Jul 2006, 14:33
Isn't vacuum just . . . empty space? What was there before there was space? How do you make space? Out of a vacuum? If in the past we didn't have space, how can there have been a 'there' for whatever it was to exist in? And if there wasn't anywhere for it to exist, how did it manage to make space?

Maybe space was there all along . . . but why? And what about time?Space is easy compared with time. Space is just . . . somewhere to put matter. Matter is just . . . stuff.

But time - time flows, passes, makes sense in the past and the future but not in the instantaneous, frozen present. What makes time flow? Could the flow be stopped? What would happen if it did?

(courtesy of Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen)

Some things to ponder there - preferably over several beers! "Who, where is God?" might be a lot easier to understand ;)

G-CPTN
27th Jul 2006, 14:57
One has heard that there were 11 dimensions, of which three were time, but one of the (time) dimensions has disappeared.
Lost in the mists of time I suppose.

lasernigel
27th Jul 2006, 15:02
Space...The final Frontier

'It's life Jim but not as we know it'

Trekkies Unite,Warp drive will soon be here.

:ok: :ok:

GearDown&Locked
27th Jul 2006, 15:36
It's been asked, "Is the speed of light constant?"

The answer is, "Yes, in the relative vacuum of space, the speed of light is constant."

Well wich is it? Is it constant or relative? On my book a constant is an absolute value, not related to this or that. Just serves to prove my theory: In this fluid that is our universe nothing is absolute. Things change as a whole, so to the observer they seem constant.

Right?

:E

G-CPTN
27th Jul 2006, 15:44
In this fluid that is our universe nothing is absolute. Things change as a whole, so to the observer they seem constant.
Right?
:E
Remember, the WHOLE Universe is merely a chemical experiment in a petri dish.
http://www.jollygoodgames.com/organism/images/screenshot.jpg

Later in the experiment:-
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/PTGPOD/558467.jpg

AcroChik
27th Jul 2006, 16:12
In space, the speed of light is constant in the relative vacuum. There is no known absolute vacuum (the relative vacuum of space has lots of stuff in it such as atoms ~ lots of hydrogen! ~ molecules, asteroids, planets, stars and us).

This idea of light speed constancy in physics takes into account certain assumptions. I've found a web site that offers a good description of the assumptions and their definitions:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

As you'll read, in a description more lucid and complete that I could ever hope to provide, as the nature of light and it's behavior are currently understood and agreed for experimental and observational purposes, it's constant.

It's important to remember that we're talking about a theoretical construct based upon the laws of physics as presently known. Some laws are known. There may be other laws that have yet to be discovered. The absolute nature of the universe and its operation are not known. But, some things about it are.

For the purposes of science, the current agreed description of our universe is called the Standard Model and is revised periodically based upon new knowledge. Science is the process of proving previous knowledge wrong and then having your own proof disproved in the future by an observer you'll probably never meet.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
27th Jul 2006, 16:40
but you might meet them if time is curved :8

boogie-nicey
27th Jul 2006, 16:42
Just noticed this thread and the question posed regarding "space" will be discussed in my book Slave Nation when I get around to writing it :)

Also discussed will be .... time

G-CPTN
27th Jul 2006, 16:44
my book Slave Nation when I get around to writing it :)
Also discussed will be .... time
When (s)he finds the TIME . . . :E

allan907
27th Jul 2006, 16:44
Space is infinite because we cannot comprehend it. Let's start from the beginning:

All atomic and molecular structure is the same - wherever you look. Nuclei, atoms, electrons, neutrons - it's repeated ad infinitum. Now what does the atomic structure remind you of?

If you said planets and solar systems then take a bow.

If you managed to get an electron microscope so powerful that you could see beyond what we can presently see you would notice the atomic structures with vast spaces in between. Try and define the sharp edge of a piece of paper under that microscope with the air beyond. You couldn't. The spaces between molecules and atoms would blend into each other so that a defined edge, as we see it, just wouldn't exist.

Now take a giant leap of imagination. Perhaps we are part of a quark as part of an atom in some being or object that is so big that from our perspective we could not possibly hope to see the edge. The best we can hope for is to see some of the other atoms relatively near (galaxies and star systems). Can you imagine that your planet is a mere atom in a match head that some super being is in the process of striking on a matchbox? Time, of course, is commensurate with size. The act of striking a match with the superbeing will take trillions and trillions of our years.

Now go the other way and look inward. Perhaps there are countless galaxies and star systems within our own bodies and the things that surround us on this world. Someone said in an earlier post that it would be hard for an ant to imagine the size of our planet. Could a thinking being on one of the planets in one of the galaxies in one of the atoms of our bodies even begin to imagine the solar system in which we live.

The human brain simply cannot take in the sizes involved - either up or down. What is true however is that the system - the atomic structure - is constant whether we look outward or inward. Is there an end?? Perhaps there doesn't have to be. And that folks is eternity and infinity.

Chesty Morgan
27th Jul 2006, 20:52
:{ ...................

TURIN
27th Jul 2006, 23:44
"In the beginning the universe was created. This has made an awfull lot of people unhappy and was widely regarded as a bad move......"

"Space is BIG! Really Big, I mean you may think it's a long way down the shops to the chemist but thats just peanuts to space, listen......"

"Time is bunk".

"...at the end of the universe there is nothing, void. Except of course the sweet trolly and a fine collection of Aldebaron liquers."

:O

AcroChik
27th Jul 2006, 23:45
Forty two.

G-CPTN
27th Jul 2006, 23:46
"...at the end of the universe there is nothing, void. Except of course the sweet trolly and a fine collection of Aldebaron liquers."
:O
I thought there was a Restaurant? (at the end of the Universe . . . )
asking to be transported to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. It turns out that Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, was constructed on the ruins of Frogstar World B,

separator
28th Jul 2006, 02:24
There is speculation, there is sheer speculation and then there is Cosmology.

sep

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
28th Jul 2006, 04:00
nobody got the milk reference yet? :sad:

Loose rivets
28th Jul 2006, 04:46
You BA\$TARDS!!!!!!!!

I ask time and agin for a science thread...NOTHING, ZIP, DIDLY SQUAT. I go to spend a few days up a nice cool mountain, and come back to the complete answer to the theory of everything has been done...to death.

Buster Hyman
28th Jul 2006, 05:40
If Space is a vacuum...then the bag must be [email protected]*#%ing HUGE!:eek:

Civis
28th Jul 2006, 09:28
Darn, thought this was going to be a peacefull evening. Get the med crew up, looks like Captain Rivets is havin an event.

There, there, Capt. R, have a little of this nice versed cocktail while the good Doctor and Nursey check yer lithium level. The JB University Brain Trust thought you'd be pleased that they figured it all out for ya whilst yer was communin wit natur an the wee animals an such on yer mountain top. Never did figur the wimmin thing out so there's some serious work left for ya.

If you really wants to chew on the universe thingy by yerself a little try:

www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html (http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html)

Public Lectures, Physics Colloquiums an assorted links. A good man
he is, that Prof. Steve

www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/stuff.html (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/stuff.html)

--------------------------------------------------

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html

Click " Ask an Expert "
Scroll down & click on: Particle Physics &

Today's Theories, tomorrow's physic's

If you get frusrtated with the math here's the final answers.
AcroChik and other learned company jumped in the Tardis and went back to the 15th century for a short visit wit Frair Ockham.

42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

Another consult with Zaphod Beeblebrox and examination of his
Infinite Improbability Drive confirmed the findings.

Remember, there's still the Wimmin thing to figure out.

Appears yer vitals are gettin a little better. Look, that nice
Captian Rotty brought ya a fish ball sandwhich to go with yer lithium.

ORAC
28th Jul 2006, 10:17
Now, the guy I´d like to meet and have a long chat with is Lazarus Long. TANSTAAFL. :cool:

Windy Militant
28th Jul 2006, 11:24
We should pack you lot off on the B Ark. 42 is not the answer.
The Question which was in Arthur Dents brainwaves was "what do you get if you multiply seven By Nine".
I've always thought that there was something fundamentaly wrong with the Universe.
Sigh, Me, brain the size of a planet and they ask me to open the door. :(

AcroChik
28th Jul 2006, 12:30
Today we think of their "special effects," as nearly childish, but the 13 hours worth of DVDs of Carl Sagan's television series Cosmos are probably still ~ after having been made more years ago than I've been alive ~ the most lucid, poetic, gentle and profound introduction to thinking cosmically I've ever seen or heard of.

Though he did some important work in his field and was deeply influential in NASA's Voyager program (his genius was getting big science funded), Sagan was not the world's most brilliant or innovative scientist, but he was among the most brilliant story-tellers and explainers of science who has ever lived.

If you want to begin to get a sense of how the curve of binding energy that holds the nucleotides in your DNA together is related to a comet, an apple pie and Athens having been a slave-holding state, and why these things underpin our experience of and knowledge of our expanding universe, Sagan's Cosmos is just the ticket.

Cosmos ~ which in Greek is the opposite of chaos ~ was produced during the Vietnam War and at the height of the West's nuclear stand-off with the Soviet Union ~ interestingly, that's an era that folks of my father's generation seem to now look back on as a time of optimism and stability today. Sagan says some things about politics, the military, religion and other hot-buttons that could never make it into a television series produced in my country these days.

He says without qualification that evolution is a fact. His demonstration of this is so elegant that it may in fact bring a tear to your eye. About the various possible futures our human race can select from in order to meet our fate or destiny he says, "The gates to heaven and hell are adjacent and unmarked."

It would be too much to say that Sagan's Cosmos, "changed my life," but surely it's one of the most important early intellectual adventures of my life ~ and I've seen it more than five times. I've given away at least ten copies of this DVD set girls when they reach twelve years old or so to help them not shy away from math and science. But, this isn't child's play; Sagan dishes up big ideas, artfully presented by a master storyteller in full command of the material.

It ain't cheap but it will make you rich ~ which is the best description of any good investment.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000055ZOB/sr=1-1/qid=1154086123/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0494381-5742339?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

tony draper
28th Jul 2006, 12:42
Galatea squeezed her left tit and the resulting spray became the Milky Way,hence the word Galaxy.
Thats wot we was tort at Missus Miggins Academy for the Children of Ragged Folk anyway.
:rolleyes:

singaporegirl
28th Jul 2006, 13:23
From Galatea's tit a mere squirt'll
Form a cosmos where stars and suns hurtle,
But what caused the big bang
From which everything sprang?
'Twas when she tripped over a turtle.
:rolleyes:

Loose rivets
28th Jul 2006, 20:16
One likes nursey's ministrations, and feels much better. In fact, one has spent some considerable time up said mountain, photographing a stunningly beautiful young friend,:E so the size of the universe seemed not to matter...for a while.

I also liked Carl Sagan's Cosmos, a relaxing and thought provoking presentation for young minds...of all ages.

But back to my first love.

One of the most unpleasant concepts of the Universe, is that it is a time prison. It is totally escape proof. There is no use talking of super-c speeds, we'll never break the ‘light-barrier'. Strangely enough, it doesn't take too long to accelerate to the speed of light–at an acceptable g-force–it's just that it takes a lot of power to get close to that kind of speed, and an infinite amount, to get infinitely near to c. So, pack a lot of sandwiches for a trip to Andromeda.

http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m031.html

If SETI does find a coherent and encoded stream of photons from a distant galaxy, the odds are that their sun will have died before the Earth was more than a load of dust from another such sun's demise. If we do make contact with something, it will surely be in this galaxy.

[email protected] : Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence at Home

Points to set as a foundation.

Outside the universe there is nothing. Nothing means just that–nothing. You can not put anything into this nothing...it can't exist there, at least until the expanding ‘fabric of space' arrives on its expansive journey, and brings with it a set of rules that allows the existence of energy and or matter.

Do not blame red-shift alone for our inability to see beyond the distant stars.

Remember that distant stars can be born, light up, die and perhaps explode, before their light reaches us. What you can see is very, very old.

Gravity first, the rest of the universe later.

To me, gravity is the most fascinating mechanism there is. I say mechanism, because I believe...no I don't, I just feel...that it will turn out to be a very simple process. It's just that we have no idea what's going on right now. General Relativity explains how things are behaving and indeed how to set our watches when going very fast, but it does not explain why it is doing it. If we don't really know how it works, how the heck can we expect to marry it with quantum physics and indeed expect to get a theory of everything?

When I was studying for my CPL in the early 60s, I was staying with a pal who was at uni for maths. We would talk late into the night about relativity, and I bounced a question to him about Lorenz contraction.

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/~korpela/astro10/html/lec15/img22.html

Later I put forward the idea that if that could happen, why would not the opposite be true–for any astronomical body in this universe? The idea being, that Earth for instance, is decelerating–in all directions simultaneously–relative to the ‘fixed stars', would it therefore be expanding relativistically? Would this explain gravity?

He liked the idea, but of course the concept was flawed...in many ways, not least of all by the fact that the surface of such a planet would be exceeding the speed of light within a short period. However, the idea lingered in the back of my mind for some years.

Such a force needed to reach out, not just exert an accelerative influence on the surface: there had to be some sort of ‘inflow'. This would then get rid of the problem of high relative speed when compared to local space time. (I'll try not to use terms like FRAME and METRIC, but just explain my meaning in a ‘nuts and bolts' kind of way.)

For years the super-brains worked on testing General Relativity (GR), to almost unbelievable levels of accuracy, and then, having satisfied themselves that the theory was solid, tried to marry it with quantum theory as mentioned above. The thing about quantum theory is that it contains perhaps the most successful set of predictions in science history. It works...GR works, but they do not fit together.

Nasty little things called gravitons were invented to explain gravity's one-way ‘force', and now string theory comes along to give hope of mediation between two disparate set of phenomenons.
Ugh! and double Ugh! But...in there, was an uncanny resemblance to some of the stuff that I had had rejected by various publishing bodies 30 years ago. So, back to the Universe.

I have in the more recent years been working on the marrying of two hypotheses, the expansion of matter. ie the change of absolute scale, and ‘gravitational inflow'. Together they make a workable model, albeit with a lot of rough edges.

Douglas Adams' description of its size, is as good as anyone's really. It is just so big, that from our view-point it is impossible to extrapolate with certainty to the outer and inner reaches. Almost anything could be going on beyond our testable arena.

The residual ‘noise' left after the big bang, gave us two (main) foundations for further research. The fluctuations in this 3 degree C background gave us just what we needed. Clustering gave the possibility of the formation of the galaxies we observe, and the (temperature) patterns spelled out a path back, via the inflationary period, to the big-bang. They were exciting times, but then came the era of searching in the dark for minute clues.

A while back, Sci-Am published a good leading article about space. One of the things it spelled out was the misconceptions held by the majority of folk, and this included many professionals in the field. Dark energy and missing or dark mass are often confused. You can see why. It would be good to get the terminology better defined for the layman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_mass

Other problems were mostly to do with the time that it takes for a photon to reach us from great distances. This may not sound very difficult, but...well, it just is. We have to be clear in our minds why the sky is not brilliantly lit at all times...there are enough stars out there to melt us out of existence, and it's not just the red-shift.

Within the ‘confines' of our universe many stars were not born early enough for their light to have reached us yet, but it is more to do with the nature of the very universe that is supposed not to have a nature...or indeed, any other characteristics except emptyness.

So what might space be like?

Well, I imagine a very specific structure. When, in the early 20th century, the need for an aether was finally dispensed with, people were happy with Maxwell's equations and could accept a photon being self sufficient. "A balancing act, a constant self-creating marvel"*

Its electrical and magnetic properties were born at the speed of light, and it carried on indefinitely until arriving at its destination and altering the energy state of...etc etc. The most incredible target being our retinas. A mere half dozen or so are detectable, yet we can stare at an amount per second that would fill a page with zeros.*

So hard to stay focused (ho ho) but space has to be a good host to photons, and I believe in ‘The aether is dead...long live aether II.' A very, very testable ‘substance'...once we know how. I used to be one of the very few that held on to the idea of space having a real substance, but nowadays, more and more people are looking again. And along comes string theory. Oh dear. Why should a green field space not be a specific ‘substance'...strings are. Perhaps just one ‘material' but in a perfectly orderly array...a three-dimensional graticule. Such a material, if unmodified by matter, could be, at least locally, a linear structure.

For some reason, latent energy causes a localized distortion, and a particle is born. Yes, ‘virtual' particles pop in and out of existence like a ‘sea of foam', but for now, lets just imagine an empty space. The graticule is even, but opening up...changing scale if you like. This change would only be observable from an Olympian view-point. The eye of God for instance. Now, here comes the clever bit. In string theory, the minute strings vibrate, giving different flavors (not necessarily in the quantum sense) of particle. In a smooth 3D distortion of this lattice, the change of curve would be analogous to the rise-time of a single electrical spike being equal to a frequency. Any electronics engineer will know of what I speak, but it's all about the rate of change of a curve, being equal to a frequency even though there is only one cycle. Okay, but this would mean that the universe was in some way able to translate that point of curvature into what we perceive as matter. Enough of that, cos it's getting away from the exciting speculation about the size of space and where it is going.

Wether or not the universe is ‘flat' has been mentioned above. Too much gravity v mass, and it will collaps back to the ‘big crunch', but too little, and it will carry on out until it becomes cold and lifeless. We are right on the cusp of it going either way...at least we though we were.

The rather creepy finding that the outer reaches of the universe are accelerating away at an increasing rate, have caused terms like, ‘the Great Attractor' to be coined. Some gargantuan force pulling the edges outward into who-knows-what! At a local symposium the other night, I asked why, if there was a fabric of space...and it had unpacked in a violent explosion from a singularity, were they surprised that such a fabric was not, by its very nature, springing apart by its own force lines. There would be no reason to suppose that the outer areas would not be subject to a lesser restrictive self-constraining structure. This has nothing to do with gravity, it is the nature of spacetime. When energy is used out of the continuum, and a particle is created, then this, and this alone, follows the rules of gravity.

There now follows a short intermission, while the Rivetess beats me over the head to stop me rambling, and allow her the use of the computer for more Earthly things.

But, like a dying star, I will say with my last gasp that our existance all starts with gravity. Endless orders of magnitude weaker than electrical forces, gravity makes the stars form and then light up...and ultimately die, often shedding a good proportion of their mass, all to be gathered again for another cycle, but perhaps with more exotic elements...and nicer wives.

* "Light Years" a super little book by Brian Clegg ISBN 0-7499-2197 8

AcroChik
28th Jul 2006, 20:35
LR...

Wonderful post. Beautiful!

When I was eight years old I was obsessed in the way only a child can be ~ along with having the right dresses, a pony and Pilot Barbie ~ about having a time machine. I babbled about this a lot.

At Christmastime, just before my ninth birthday, my gift was two huge and very heavy boxes. What's this? What's this? I clawed open the first: it was a massive, sturdy tripod. Baffled, I clawed open the second. It was a big Celestron telescope with a motor-drive. "There's your time machine," my mother said.

Rossian
28th Jul 2006, 21:16
Akrochick
To go with Cosmos you might want to take a look at Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man" from around the same era. Two really moving elements - his explanation, exposition might be a better word, of Pythagorus' theorem with clay tiles on sand should be compulsory viewing for all maths teachers; and the last episode where he visits Auschwitz and wades into a shallow pool where there are lots of bone fragments and explains how his family was wiped out there. Very touching.
They really do NOT make programmes like that any more. Avalable as a boxed DVD set (which I got for my last Christmas).
The Ancient Mariner

tony draper
28th Jul 2006, 21:25
Big black holes have small black holes
That live right there inside em,
and small black holes have smaller back holes
and so ad infinitem.
When yer get down to the smallest
What will cause your brows to pucker
All the ones you thought outside
are inside this little f*cker
:rolleyes:

AcroChik
28th Jul 2006, 21:48
Rossian...

I've never seen Bronowski's series and have heard again and again that it's a very well done piece of work. Shame on me, I own the book and haven't read it. Thanks for reminding me about it. Amazon just got my order.

Speaking of Pythagoras, if you're familiar with Sagan's Cosmos, you might recall that in one episode Sagan visits the the cave the mathematician lived in ~ "I'm standing on what might have been his porch." ~ and goes into some detail about the spiritual cult Pythagoras led that was based in part on the geometry of the five perfect solids ~ the five polyhedra in which each side of each surface is of the exact same length.

A bit about them here: http://www.codefun.com/Geometry_information1.htm ~ pretty pictures.

As Sagan tells it, Pythagoras was obessed, it seems, by the beauty and ideal nature of whole numbers. When he ran into irrationality in numbers that did not fit his scheme, he conspired along with Plato to surpress this knowledge. Though today we call it the Pythagorian constant, what was surpressed was knowledge of the square root of two ~ which is irrational in that it has no terminal digit (similar to Pi).

A little about the Pythagorian constant here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_two

In Cosmos, Sagan speculates that the willingness of Pythagoras and Plato to surpress a truth of nature had its origins in the surreal nature of the free Athenian society, in that it was built upon a foundation of slavery: to upset perfect order with irrationality would turn the State on its head. This is often the fate of knowledge that doesn't fit current beliefs or ideologies. History's replete with examples.

Sorry to be long-winded about this, but in my own country today this is certainly the case in government, media and in classrooms across the nation. Makes one quite angry.

Loose rivets
29th Jul 2006, 19:25
AcroChik I clawed open the first: it was a massive, sturdy tripod. Baffled, I clawed open the second. It was a big Celestron telescope with a motor-drive. "There's your time machine," my mother said.

What a super mum!

The trouble with writing about complex subjects, is that it is so difficult to make thing clear. A twenty minute comment can take several hours to edit. I usually find that someone will head up the wrong logical route at some point, and then the rest is nonsense.

Many years ago I read Gribbin and White's, "Stephen Hawking: A Life in Science." and others in a series. It was deemed to be at the more complex end of their spectrum, but still at an understandable level for the average keen reader. It seems that a later series was aimed at a younger readership and are slightly less complex. That's a shame, because I always needed just that little bit more detail rather than less.

However, the Hawking book was instrumental in re-awakening my interest in quantum-cosmology, and was perhaps first in their format of alternate pages of life-science-life-science. etc. The personal side was heart-rending of course. The burden of decision (for throat surgery) on his first wife, must have been terrible.

Bronowski's emotion-charged walk into that water, was for me, like many people it seems, a moment that I will never forget.

Cheerio
29th Jul 2006, 23:08
AcroChik,

I share your regard for Sagan. He was above all a great communicator. His published work is as life changing as any produced this last 2000 years.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
29th Jul 2006, 23:44
I used to be one of the very few that held on to the idea of space having a real substance,You know if you continue to voice lies like this, you will be locked in a dungeon to repent. If you chose to not repent, you will be burned at the stake.

Remember the Sun revolves around the Earth (which also is flat)

Buster Hyman
30th Jul 2006, 00:55
"Billyuns, and Billyuns of Galaxies..."

G-CPTN
30th Jul 2006, 00:58
Did you know that all Galaxies are made by Mars?
Don't know who makes the Milky Way though.

mocoman
30th Jul 2006, 03:08
Space is finite.....

It's the stupidity of mankind that is in-finite.....:ugh:

arcniz
30th Jul 2006, 04:50
Energy has field but no form,

Space has form but no field.

Where energy and space share,

They begin to matter.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
30th Jul 2006, 05:21
wot about the milk? :(

G-CPTN
30th Jul 2006, 05:24
Two pints today please.
Gold tops.

Loose rivets
30th Jul 2006, 05:37
Has my personal title arrived yet?

EDIT: EDIT again to a more polite expletive. Drat!

Dark Knight
30th Jul 2006, 05:46
The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book.

It has been compiled and recompiled many times over many years and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers.

The introduction begins like this:

"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen ..." and so on.

(After a while the style settles down a bit and it begins to tell you things you really need to know, like the fact that the fabulously beautiful planet Bethselamin is now so worried about the cumulative erosion by ten billion visiting tourists a year that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete whilst on the planet is surgically removed from your bodyweight when you leave: so every time you go to the lavatory it is vitally important to get a receipt.)

To be fair though, when confronted by the sheer enormity of distances between the stars, better minds than the one responsible for the Guide's introduction have faltered. Some invite you to consider for a moment a peanut in reading and a small walnut in Johannesburg, and other such dizzying concepts.

The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination.

Even light, which travels so fast that it takes most races thousands of years to realize that it travels at all, takes time to journey between the stars. It takes eight minutes from the star Sol to the place where the Earth used to be, and four years more to arrive at Sol's nearest stellar neighbour, Alpha Proxima.

For light to reach the other side of the Galaxy, for it to reach Damogran for instance, takes rather longer: five hundred thousand years.
The record for hitch hiking this distance is just under five years, but you don't get to see much on the way.

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy says that if you hold a lungful of air you can survive in the total vacuum of space for about thirty seconds. However it goes on to say that what with space being the mind boggling size it is the chances of getting picked up by another ship within those thirty seconds are two to the power of two hundred and sixty-seven thousand seven hundred and nine to one against.

DK

Loose rivets
30th Jul 2006, 05:59
Decreasing

G-CPTN
30th Jul 2006, 06:06
The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book.

Indeed, indeed. Douglas Adams was also a remarkable man. RIP

For those unfamiliar with THHGTTG, it is available from the BBC as an audio book (it's actually a recording of the whole radio series).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/
http://www.bbcshop.com/icat/101&source=839

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
30th Jul 2006, 13:46
I'm looking for #2, the Restaurant at the end of the Universe I've got #3, #4 and #5 lined up, but I have to listen to them in order :8

For some reason you don't see this one often on ebay :(

Loose rivets
30th Jul 2006, 17:46
Indeed, indeed. Douglas Adams was also a remarkable man. RIP

He certainly was. When he gave a book signing speech here, [[email protected]] we went along imagining a dozen or so people round his desk at any one time. When we reached the car-park I knew something was wrong with my popularity forecast.

Hundreds of people were trying to get into a large hall and the fire chief said no more at around 300. Speakers were hooked up, and folk sat on the lawns outside listening to the proceedings.

AntiCrash
31st Jul 2006, 04:19
So, pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space 'cause there's bugger all down here on earth...

ORAC
31st Jul 2006, 04:57
I heard that, in space, nobody can make icecream, or somethng like that... :(

maybe it was yoghurt......:confused:

arcniz
31st Jul 2006, 05:34
It's dri sho that's near impossible to find, because there are not yet any yaks in space.

I hear the Tibetan Space Program (OM) is working on this, even as we speak.

Loose rivets
31st Jul 2006, 06:53
I'm getting an uneasy feeling that this science-fest is not being taken seriously. Nothing obvious mind, but just a hint now and then of frivolity.

I blame Einstein. :8

ORAC
31st Jul 2006, 07:35
I blame Heisenberg, probably.....

arcniz
31st Jul 2006, 08:08
We haven't heard from Occam for a bit... he'd add an edge to the discussion.

MyData
31st Jul 2006, 08:27
Back on topic, and the question of what does our expanding universe expand into...

I had it explained to me by an astrophysicist (or some such). The point is to not think in terms of our universe, the boundary, and then space beyond that to expand into. Instead, make use of the space-time concept and it all becomes clear.

As we all know, time is passing by, the seconds, minutes, days, years all make time 'expand' in its dimension. We know that time will expand into the future, but we also know that the future doesn't exist as anything tangible. In terms of 'boundaries' the 'now' is the time boundary which is moving into the future (which doesn't exist).

Turn this around to look at the space dimension and the universe is expanding into 'more space' but there isn't actually anything there at this time for it to expand into. It just does, just like time expands into the future.

All clear? You can sleep soundly at night now knowing that the conundrum of 'what is beyond space' is neatly wrapped up.

It makes one wonder just what was going on in Einstein's head!

ORAC
31st Jul 2006, 08:38
It makes one wonder just what was going on in Einstein's head And even more disturbing, in his boots, since he refused to wear socks..... :ooh:

arcniz
31st Jul 2006, 09:06
And even more disturbing, in his boots, since he refused to wear socks.....

No socks would sure have kept him hopping during those cold winters in Zuri and Bern. Perhaps this was his muse? A pedestrian avenue from pondering those chilly toes to the warming fusion between time, mass, energy and space.

planeenglish
31st Jul 2006, 09:48
My guess is evryone's got it all wrong.

Space is shrinking. We think it is expanding because we mere mortals are discovering its bits, but little-by-little it's all shrinking. If space stops stretching and springs back on itself, it will shrink until galaxies start colliding in the Big Crunch - terminating in the mother of all black holes.

PE

arcniz
31st Jul 2006, 10:01
If space stops stretching and springs back on itself, it will shrink until galaxies start colliding in the Big Crunch - terminating in the mother of all black holes.

Based on Dr. Draper's interpretation, she would also be the sisters and daughter(s) (of all BH) as well. Reminds one of the complexed relations among William Faulkner's characters in Yoknapatawpha County, non e verro?

Cheerio
31st Jul 2006, 11:37
Without coming over all L Ron Hubbard, I agree with something Herr Woo said some time ago, along the lines that we have built a set of laws up like a house of cards, the search for a unified law is causing several compromised laws to be force fit together.
The chances are we are misunderstanding something beyond our current comprehension in a big way. Anything an idiot like me cannot understand is probably wrong. The universe should be a simple thing really, if you look at it on a macro scale.

It seems to me instinctive that a multiverse exists whether we can prove it or not at this time. Discovering a multiverse (even hypothetically) and understanding how these universes interact with each other will be the key understanding the life cycle of our own universe. Not in our lifetime though.

G-CPTN
31st Jul 2006, 13:34
a multiverse exists whether we can prove it or not at this time. Discovering a multiverse (even hypothetically) and understanding how these universes interact with each other will be the key understanding the life cycle of our own universe. Not in our lifetime though.
Unless, of course, somebody discovers the website . . .

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
31st Jul 2006, 13:39
terminating in the mother of all black holeshow can you terminante in the mother of something?

The mother should certainly be at the beginning. :confused:

ORAC
31st Jul 2006, 13:43
Not so, the father always comes first....... ;)

AcroChik
31st Jul 2006, 14:03
Perceiving the space-time multiverse...

It exists in dimensions we lack the senses and tools (currently) to perceive directly. As an example, it might be thought of like this:

Imagine that we live in a two-dimensional universe. Everything in it, including ourselves, possesses two dimensions: breadth and width, but no depth. Even our houses are flatter than a sheet of paper and our senses and tools are equipped to only see these two dimensions.

Now, imagine that a visitor from a universe we can't perceive ~ one with three dimensions ~ comes for a visit. She enters our universe and what do we see? We see only width and breadth, the slice of her that is in contact with our universe at any moment.

We wouldn't even have perceived her descent into our universe from above because that is the third and invisible dimension! She would have appeared out of nowhere in an instant as one of her surfaces came into contact with our two-dimensional universe.

There's even a book about this, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, by Edwin Abbot. Here's a link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1406503436/sr=1-5/qid=1154349891/ref=sr_1_5/104-2674309-9354345?ie=UTF8&s=books

Now, let's imagine that a visitor from space-time decides to visit our watery three-dimensional world, Earth. This visitor comes from a universe with, let's say, four dimensions, but our senses and tools can only perceive three. We can't see time in the way it is used and experiencced in this other universe. We would see her height, breadth and width, but not that part of her nature that is time.

Yet, just as we can use our imaginations and mathematics to think about and theorize about a two-dimensional universe, we can do the same to think about a universe with more than three dimensions. And while we can't directly experience the objects in either a two- or four-dimensional universe, we can see their shadows.

The shadow of a four dimensional cube is called a tesseract. This is a space-time nested cube in which it appears to us that one cube is within another cube and all corners of both cubes are attached to each other.

Yet, in what would be an impossibility in our universe, the lines composing both cubes and the lines attaching them to each other are all of equal length. In other words, two cubes of exactly equal size are nested, one within the other, separated by the distance equal to one of their sides. Obviously, this is an object that can't exist physically in our three dimensional universe as it's geometrically impossible. Yet, it would be possible in the space-time of a four dimensional universe.

Here's a pretty lucid description of the shadow of a four-dimensional object:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

Good luck :8

G-CPTN
31st Jul 2006, 14:12
What's all this 'SHE' and 'HER'?

Maybe women are not only from another planet, but from a parallel universe after all . . . ?

AcroChik
31st Jul 2006, 14:32
And from what I've been able to indirectly observe of yours, it's a far, far better place :p

Cheerio
31st Jul 2006, 16:21
All irregularities will be handled by the forces controlling each dimension. Transuranic heavy elements may not be used where there is life. Medium atomic weights are available: Gold, Lead, Copper, Jet, Diamond, Radium, Sapphire, Silver and Steel. Sapphire and Steel have been assigned. ;)

Loose rivets
31st Jul 2006, 19:30
There's even a book about this, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, by Edwin Abbot. Here's a link to the book:

Giving time to think through these concepts is very important. It allows us to ponder multi-dimensional worlds without rejecting what at first seems impossible. Imagining a ball descending into Flatland is amusing. First a dot, then a widening circle. It would reach its maximum diameter, then reverse the procedure to a dot before disappearing.

The funny thing is that Lewis Carroll was known for his ability to explain these concepts clearly. Many of them were his!

I feel that ‘we' should take Occam's razor to just about everything we know. We do not have the capacity to take into account Multi-verses and the like. One is tough enough to contemplate.

Something is terribly wrong, and it's time for a clean sheet of paper.

Just for a moment, let me remind you of Einstein's ‘My biggest blunder.' Einstein missed the fact that the universe was expanding. He even introduced a ‘fiddle factor' to get over the problem.

It's all about not seeing some fundamental and vital facet of the whole. We can't say missing the obvious, because it's certainly not that simple, but it was missed and it caused him a lot of problems.

The concept that I have pondered for years is about finding a huge, but very similar difference to the commonly understood model of our universe that we have now.

Please don't get too involved in the expanding universe model. Just register that it was a major oversight.
When Abot Lemaître went to Einstein with the concept of an expanding universe, Einstein knew that the man's mathematical abilities were very good, but he told the poor soul that his knowledge of physics was not. When he said [roughly] "My greatest blunder." It could well have meant simply not believing Lemaître's concepts.

Quote: see next para. "Lemaître's idea was rejected because it implied a creator," Singh told his audience. "People said, 'You're just trying to bring God into the picture.' " Lemaître insisted he was simply following science—he did have a PhD in physics—but it made no impression. After being dismissed by Einstein, Lemaître quietly gave up the promotion of his idea.

Quoted from http://www.nyas.org/publications/readersReport.asp?articleID=25&page=2 It gives a good overview of this storey.

Now, what if there was another major oversight?

The idea of a planetary body expanding has been around a long time. As I said, there are all sorts of problems with that idea, but when combined with the concept of gravitational inflow, we get what may be an idea as profound as the universe's expansion. The concept is so simple I can describe it in a few lines.

Matter is changing SCALE. Everything, including our rulers, is getting bigger. We can not detect this change of course.

I know this is hard to believe, but the concept is no more difficult to believe than the universe's expansion.

Now, to pay for this increase of absolute size, spacetime is flowing into each-and-every particle. The net effect is to draw any material object towards another. That, in a nutshell, is the concept that I have put to people for years.

Sometimes people smile, and even nod approval, but then put it out of mind and get on with finding more particles.

When I saw that an American university had published on ‘gravitational inflow', I wrote to the professor and asked him if he would mind considering my ideas. He had said in the paper, words to the effect that ‘he did not know where all this space-time was going' (as it flowed in) combining it with my model explains that completely. What happened next was beyond credulity.

My polite comments were met with a reaction that I might have expected from a petulant child. He misread my very short notes, an threw all his toys about. His behavior was bewildering, and more than a little disappointing, as it was the first research establishment that had done work on an idea that I had had for 40 years. I never cease to be amazed at human behavior, but maybe the fact that I said that I had written to most of the science publications decades ago, describing this model, just touched a nerve. I am monitoring his publications like a hawk.

If, at some time in the future, my ideas are found to be true, I will have no other recourse than to have my headstone updated to say.... "Told you so!"

G-CPTN
31st Jul 2006, 19:46
If, at some time in the future, my ideas are found to be true, I will have no other recourse than to have my headstone updated to say.... "Told you so!"
One of the criticisms (of me) by my wife is that I always believe that I am right. When I challenged her to give examples, she conceded that I HAD been right in each case, but that I had refused to consider HER point of view on the subject(s). :confused:
(A typical example was 'refusing' to allow the children to remain at their previous school when we moved across town. My wife would have had to ferry the children to-and-from school (at different times for each child) instead of walking a few hundred yards with the other local children). MY argument was that they would soon make new friends AND still have (some of) the old ones.)

arcniz
31st Jul 2006, 20:59
If, at some time in the future, my ideas are found to be true, I will have no other recourse than to have my headstone updated to say.... "Told you so!"

Go for it! You probably aren't 'right' in the grand sense, as likely none of us are, but with this memento you can at least go down as "Deep and profoundly enigmatic", good enough for occasional mention on a bbs somewhere.

One of the criticisms (of me) by my wife is that I always believe that I am right.

No man is ever 'right' in the presence of his wife.

ORAC
31st Jul 2006, 21:13
No man is ever 'right' in the presence of his wife. Which just goes to show that quantun Physics is right after all, men always in the position of bein Right and Wrong at the same time....time a woman opens her box and their state collapses.....

tony draper
31st Jul 2006, 22:16
One finds of late one leans toward Hoyles steady state.
:rolleyes:

Loose rivets
31st Jul 2006, 22:55
Yes, funny that he should have coined "Big Bang"!

you can at least go down as "Deep and profoundly enigmatic",

LOL I wish I'd thought of that for my personal title.

From G-C
One of the criticisms (of me) by my wife is that I always believe that I am right. When I challenged her to give examples, she conceded that I HAD been right in each case, but that I had refused to consider HER point of view on the subject(s).

Mmmm....standard format that.

This is true...In my household the word gavity is banned. Nagging GOOD. Black holes BAD.

A V 8
1st Aug 2006, 01:26
If you drove your car in space with your headlights on, at just above the speed of light, would you see your headlights in your rear view mirror?

G-CPTN
1st Aug 2006, 01:29
There would be nothing for the light from the headlights to impinge on (no refraction, no reflection) so you wouldn't 'see' any light.
As 'you' are travelling FASTER 'than light' the light will never catch-up with you rear-view mirror.

A V 8
1st Aug 2006, 01:48
Wouldn't the beams from your headlight be projected forward from the reflectors just behind the bulbs themselves?

Sorry - Bad wording on my behalf. Say you were sub speed of light, switched your lights on and then accelerated to a fraction above the speed of light, would you then not see the start of the beams?

And I've just remembered that they reckon time slows as you approach the speed of light. It's to late at night for my brain..:ugh:

AcroChik
1st Aug 2006, 01:56
As you approach the speed of light ~ you cannot reach it ~ your vision would become "tunnel" and "fisheye." What would appear in the center of the fisheye view would be what was immediatly behind you. As you look outward from the center toward the edge of this visual tunnel, those things in in the near and then far distance would appear, moving inward toward the center until, once they were behind you, they would be in the center.

I'll try to find this animation on line.

Loose rivets
1st Aug 2006, 03:09
If you drove your car in space with your headlights on, at just above the speed of light, would you see your headlights in your rear view mirror?

No, but if you put your brakes on hard, all the light that you had created would catch you up...at the speed of light...and fry you. And serve you jolly well right for speeding.

G-CPTN
1st Aug 2006, 03:12
If sound creates a shockwave when a vehicle travels 'faster than sound' which manifests itself as a bang, would a light shockwave produce a FLASH?

planeenglish
17th Aug 2006, 16:08
Has this been discussed? (http://www.here-now.org/shows/2006/08/20060816_10.asp)
Best to all,
PE

woolyalan
17th Aug 2006, 16:24
Hmmm, give me a few hours and a few beers Ill contribute something extremely intellectual to this thread. But if you were moving faster than light, and you turned on you headlamps, wouldnt the reflectors be reflecting the slower light in front of you?? So you always have a little light in front, but then if you slow down a little, but still moving faster than light, wouldnt the light you are pushing continue to move ahead of you at the speed you were moving?

Does that make any sense?

tony draper
17th Aug 2006, 16:38
No if you do manage to travel at the speed of light the world outside and all that in there dwells would appear like a donut at the edge of your field of view you would see nothing ahead or behind,all objects would appear to occupy a torus of space at ninety degrees to the direction of travel
Just as well we can never reach the speed of light then int it.
:rolleyes:

SLFguy
17th Aug 2006, 17:28
No if you do manage to travel at the speed of light the world outside and all that in there dwells would appear like a donut at the edge of your field of view you would see nothing ahead or behind,all objects would appear to occupy a torus of space at ninety degrees to the direction of travel
Just as well we can never reach the speed of light then int it.
:rolleyes:

Hmmmm....donuts...

planeenglish
17th Aug 2006, 17:50
Hmmm, give me a few hours and a few beers Ill contribute something extremely intellectual to this thread.
Don't hurt yourself. :8

Anyone care to comment on the possible twelve planet system in discussion these days?

PE

AntiCrash
17th Aug 2006, 19:04
Hmmm, neither Mrs. CJ or myself got where we are today by discussing a twelve planet system.:ugh:

Loose rivets
17th Aug 2006, 19:18
Mmmm......methinks that the FSL has been listening to that Einstein fella. He (Einstein that is) spent a lot of time imagining what it would be like to ride on a beam of light.

The strange thing is, that if you were to experience that donut, all of existence would be in it, as least as far as you were concerned. So, doubters of folded up dimensions could look at such a phenomenon as an example of....er, well, folding things up.:bored:

It's official...twelve planets. I can live with that, but I wouldn't want to live on one of 'em.

G-CPTN
17th Aug 2006, 19:21
It's official...twelve planets. I can live with that, but I wouldn't want to live on one of 'em.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

planeenglish
17th Aug 2006, 19:31
It's official...twelve planets. I can live with that, but I wouldn't want to live on one of 'em.
Actually, I believe that it will be decided upon the 24th of this month. Am I wrong?

Best,
PE

Loose rivets
17th Aug 2006, 19:36
One has erased the NY times article, so I can't check the wording, but it did sound rather as though it had been confirmed.

planeenglish
17th Aug 2006, 19:38
http://www.here-now.org/shows/2006/08/20060816_10.asp

This says differently. Can anyone confirm?

Best,
Mel

AcroChik
17th Aug 2006, 22:20
I'm not entirely disappointed to learn they're planning to name one of our (future) sister planets after a television character I used to love.

To me, this is pretty exciting stuff.

Wednesday's front page article about this in the NY Times said the vote was taking place on August 25th. Today they published a correction saying the vote would take place on the 24th. The correction's at the bottom of the article.

It's nice to know that somewhere on the planet there's a bigger nerd than I.

Text of the NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/us/16pluto.html?ref=science

CAT1
18th Aug 2006, 02:20
If the universe is infinite how can it be expanding?

G-CPTN
18th Aug 2006, 02:22
Doesn't 'infinite' mean 'not finite'?
Having no boundaries or limits.

Loose rivets
18th Aug 2006, 07:44
I have never really understood why the best minds–in universities all over the world–are so quick to dismiss, both the outer boundaries and point of origin of our universe as having specific locations. I can understand why it would be impractical to try to determine the locations of such extremes, but just to dismiss them seems strange.

While they model the first pico-seconds of the Universe's explosive unpacking, they do not want to put an address on the location. Is it just because it is impossible to calculate such a vast interpolation, or is there no way to set sign-posts that have meaningful directions when you have no starting point?

Extrapolation to the boundary carries the same logical barriers, and we suggest saddle shaped universes to explain the geometry for one model and numerous other shapes for numerous other scenarios. Nobody seems willing to point and say ‘it all started over there.'

Is it just because the mathematics are inadequate?

Of course, we are in an area that is so vast that we can not receive any data from distances that are remotely near such a theoretical boundaries, we can only work on clues. But, supposing, just supposing, we found that we could travel at many times the speed of light, or go down a worm-hole, it doesn't matter, we are in a space-ship and nearing the edge.

A vino enhanced thought experiment.

Our intrepid captain dons his space-suit and then thinks better of it, and orders his co-pilot out for a space walk. They have a lot of rope and plenty of light, but the boundary is very, very black. All the calculations tell them that the boundary is not far away and as the worried looking face in the helmet fades into the distance they see that something is going wrong. He is spreading out. Not too far off the mark, because they were told that the curvature-sheer would be extreme, and that all would be normal until a few thousand feet from the edge, but now their man was nearing that point and it looked as though it would be a one way trip. He was now very thin and hundreds of yards across. But he was still waving. He now occupied an area that was profoundly curved, but he couldn't tell the difference...until he looked back at the ship. It did look a little odd, but his thin curved body was made of severely curved space-time and it functioned perfectly well. He had a job to do and he turned back towards the edge.

To our brave man, all seemed reasonably normal, but as he reached out to feel for the very edge of the universe, his stick, which he would always carry with him on such missions, seemed to spread out. The further away from him it was pushed, the bigger it got. He drew it to him and set his jets to go nearer the edge.

The captain looked at his number three and back to the bewildering sight, his first officer was now spread over several square miles and had stopped waving....but not probing. The hero was determinedly prodding at the final address that matter could occupy.

To him, his stick was changing to a vast umbrella, thousands of miles across. If he drew it back it would take on its normal form...at least from his view-point. But, what it wasn't doing was puncturing the last membrane-thin skin of rules. The Universe didn't end there, it simply changed direction in an ever-tightening curve, and these rules, from navigational planning to the first-officer's digestive system curved with them.

planeenglish
18th Aug 2006, 08:58
If the universe is infinite how can it be expanding?
It's not, we're just discovering more. I think it's shrinking. Mr. Drapes has some nifty thoughts on this.

PE

Civis
18th Aug 2006, 10:09
Going from memory here. Seem to recall the theoretical age of universe as 13 billion something. Hubble has now poked out to 11 or 12 billion. At this point we're supposed to be seeing less definition / order and some of the primeordal soup but all is still in perfect order.

:confused: Correct the above for error and discuss please.:confused:

Edit, breaking news: Cosmologists have just upped the age of universe from 13.7 to 15.8 billion years based on new observations. Still begs the question, when do we start to see a little of the early-on stuff?

tony draper
18th Aug 2006, 12:38
Because its so far away and retreating so fast its red shifted into invisibility.
:cool:

planeenglish
18th Aug 2006, 18:10
Earth's moon could become a planet
08/18/06 12:11 PM, EDT
If astronomers approve a newly proposed planet definition next week, things could get really strange. Sure, asteroid Ceres will become a planet. Pluto's moon Charon will become a planet.

Here... (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/18/moon.planet/index.html)

Loose rivets
18th Aug 2006, 18:15
Yes that's odd, because one of the qualifiers mentioned in the NY Times was ‘not orbiting another planet.'

Despite having sobered up, things are getting more confusing:hmm:

planeenglish
18th Aug 2006, 18:17
Stay drunk Loose Rivets, my mom says its day 35 of 105° or higher... :sad:

Pe

tony draper
18th Aug 2006, 19:20
Well our moon is just a bit that broke off us a few billion years ago,not sure it qualifies as a planet in its own right,more like a cast off.
:rolleyes:

planeenglish
18th Aug 2006, 19:23
.......or the placenta?

AcroChik
18th Aug 2006, 19:58
Lightyears ago, I promised to post a link to an animation of what the eye would perceive when travelling near the speed of light.

Here it is:

http://www.spacetimetravel.org/tuebingen/tue0.html

Loose rivets
19th Aug 2006, 20:16
My guess is evryone's got it all wrong.
Space is shrinking. We think it is expanding because we mere mortals are discovering its bits, but little-by-little it's all shrinking. If space stops stretching and springs back on itself, it will shrink until galaxies start colliding in the Big Crunch - terminating in the mother of all black holes.
PE

There would be a problem with this idea if I were found to be correct. Edit: Well, not just me, because the following has been publish by real scientists. But in my model, the cessation of the expanding phase would be disastrous.

Should the Universe start to collapse, time would run backwards* and I believe, gravity would have an opposite sign. So, not only would we be repelled off the Earth, but all planetary bodies would fly apart.

*Hawking talks of time reversal, but I can't remember if the collapse of the Universe was the only factor involved.

Edit 2
It has occurred to me while writing this, that the reversal would of course be felt down to the smallest distortion of spacetime. This might mean that such distortions took on the opposite shape and perhaps become anti-matter. It would be one reason why anti-matter is naturally scarce in this universe.

Right on the point of change of direction, it might mean either that matter could not exist at all, or there would be equal amounts of matter / anti-matter. This calls for a drink.

Cheerio
19th Aug 2006, 20:59
What would happen if the speed of light shifted? Sort of like a quantum jump? Or how about if it were gradually decreasing in a linear fashion? We have only been measuring it for a very short time.

tony draper
19th Aug 2006, 21:37
Asked a similar question as to why the speed of light was what it was and not some other number and got a comprehensive reply from our own resident astophysics expert at the time Mr Slasher(yer he was a real astophysicist as well as a Pilot) and a extremely erudite chap re cosmology when not posting norty posts,anyway one cannot remember the reason now why the speed of light is what it is,but perhaps a search would reveal it that particular thread,although one has also forgot what the thread title was now.
:uhoh: :rolleyes:

tony draper
19th Aug 2006, 22:01
Eureka!! search has indeed revealed The venerable and much missed Mr Slashers reply as to why the speed of light is what it is.

Drapes I think old man Planck's quantum Constant h/2Pi (where h = 6.626 oo 10 to the -34 power Js) could help answer that.

Planck in effect says Matter is like 'frozen' energy. Energy is like 'gaseous' matter. Matter and Energy are related and Einsteins proofs are concluded in E = MC2. Throwin old Planckey into the works gets us an absolute speed of light in terms of quantum pure wave theory (particle wave theory isnt so absolute!) . This leads on to the much-sought after (as yet incomplete) Unified Field Theory which would make things a lot clearer to you, but Im not writin the math here as it wrecks too many of my precious remaining brain cells and I dont have the geek keys to type it!)

Suffice to say this absolute speed is because TIME is the variable here. Light f**ks with Time, and vv. Thats why theres no absolute frame of referance to measure the speed of light. If I was doin .9C headin away from Earth and you shone a torch at me, Id see the light hittin me eyes EXACTLEY at speed C. For this to happen TIME must have slowed down relative to the wave itself. In fact a ray of light takes 4.25 years from Poxy Centauri as measured from Earth, but as far as the light itself is concerned it got here instantaneusly! So speed C is dictated by matter. Matter defines Energy. Energy defines Light. Light defines Matter. Ad infinitem. Yeh Gravity is in there but lets not bloodey complicate things more than they alreadey are huh?

This speed by human convention is measured in terran units of dist/time (186,304sm/sec or 399,972km/sec etc). Whatever the equivalant in Klingon kallikams is I dont know.

As far as your speed of light speculation is concerned in the other 7 mathematicaly-proven dimensions, speculation is all we can do. Id say if the quantum propertys of matter followed the same as it does in ours (a photons energy E = h f, h f = Eu - E1, electron orbit radii rn = (n2 / Z) r1, and electron orbit energys En = (Z2 / n2) E1)), and if for those dimensions any math contains diferent elemental units (but within the same quantum equations), then C might vary in speed in proportion to the matter existing in that dimensional universe. Quantum physicists are presentley engaged in calculating the result of what would happen if 2 Black Holes collide. I think once thats done itll provide better answers to your question than mere guestimations.

Can I take a rest now Drapes? My friggin head hurts!
Slasher is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote

See? very erudite,but then what would I know, one stopped reading when one reached "Planck's quantum Constant h/2Pi (where h = 6.626 oo 10 to the -34 power Js)"
:uhoh: :rolleyes:

singaporegirl
19th Aug 2006, 23:42
No matter how hard Mr Draper's brain cranks,
It still feels thicker than two short Plancks.
:rolleyes:

Cheerio
19th Aug 2006, 23:49
But it has been suggested that a change in the 'fine structure constant' (which is inversely proportional to C) may have been observed.........

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092.html

tony draper
19th Aug 2006, 23:55
One also recal a very thoughfull thread one once had with Mr S re the correct hight of water in the toilet bowl in order to prevent the nether regions being splashed by falling waste matter,much fomulae and calculations involving impact velocites turd mass viscosity and structural integrity and splash ejecta material diameters in relation to terminal velocites were involved ect we seldom seem to have threads of such depth now that are both interesting and educational for younger prooners .
:(

To bring out the best in one, one needs a foil yer see. :rolleyes:
Ah here is one of ones past expositions,is not search wonderfull,saves a lot of typing.

Turds and Gravity Fields

Mr Cuddles excellent and stimulating thread on the colour temperature of the human turd under dffering conditions has reminded Draper of thesis he submitted for one of his Phd's.
Of course one can only offer a brief glimpse of the work here.
These calculations assume a standard human male consuming a western type diet, with a digestive system
devoid of such artificial accelerants as Guiness or Vindaloo and having the same Pascal second viscosity as the human turd at at normal bodt temperature under one G
It assumes also a stardard height for the ejecting oriface of 40 cms,
Or specimen would experience some strange effects if undertakin a standard squating outdoor type bowel movement on the surface of a body with say the mass and gravity of Jupiter.
The ejected material would acheive a velociy 560 fps2 before it had travelled more than 10mm, the terminall impact velocity would be in the region of 3800fps and the resulting impact crater assuming a frozen methane suface of course,in the order of a 1mtr2 and 500cm deep,the ejector blanket would cover a area of 10mtr2, so it will be necessary to supply the subject with approx fifty standard toilet rolls.
Conversly our celestial turd merchant, doing number twos on a asteroid type body suchs Palas, would find his beard growing faster than the descending turd is travelling.
The physics of falling turds on some of the more exotic astronomical bodies would tax even Newton.
IE the Neutron star can have a surface gravity of 100,000,000 Gs and a escape velocity aproaching half the speed of light, the average human turd on the surface of a Neutron star will have the same mass and weight as that splendid aircraft carrier Enterprise,
Our subject could be in trouble here, before said turd has even reached the outside world it will be travelling thru the lower bowel at supersonic speeds, a sonic shockwave in the vicinity or the fundament must be a experience to be avoided, however it is possible our brave explorer would not have time to note this event as the exiting waste would be travelling at half the speed of light before the trailing end has been nipped off as it were, the impact with a surface of pure Neutronium would result in the trace amouts of hydrogen contained within the matrix of the dung achieving fusion temperaturesng the resulting thermo nuclear detonation and fireball would consume our happless explorer before he could even issue a grunt of relief.
We move now to even more extreme Gravity fields, what would our brave turder experience taking a dump on the event horizon of a black hole?.
The maths associated with Shwartzchild radii and singularities alas is beyond even Drapes, so one can offer only conjecture here, the effects of poo falling at light speeds and being subjected to relatavistic effects, must be awesome the leading turd red shifting into invisibility, yet at the same time, time dilation slowing them down, so it appears forever to a outside observer to be suspended from the stern of our subject, in mid flight
One could go on but there are realms of science best left to a later age.Those of a Philosophical bent may ponder that perhaps our whole universe came into exsistence because some poor octopoidal creature from the previous universe was caught short in the vicinity of a neutron star or Black Hole, thus causing the end of his/her/its cycle and the big bang that started our own.
Last

Cheerio
20th Aug 2006, 09:40
But Prof D, whilst your calculations are valid for bowel movement in a vacuum, indeed the gas trapped within the bowel would provide adequate propulsion for ejecta, this situation would be typically encountered in deep space. However celestial bodies are associated with gravity, and hence some form of atmosphere is likely. The effect of excrement passing through an atmosphere at significant velocity would be devastating to its environment.

empacher48
20th Aug 2006, 09:57
From memory, Stephan Hawking has predicted that the current Universe is about 1 X 10 to the power 146 (ie 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000 ) Light Years Across and is expanding at a rate of 1 X 10 to the power of 32 (ie 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) light years per year.

But don't quote me on those figures, I could be one or two zeros out.

Loose rivets
20th Aug 2006, 21:11
Making a quick calculation on the back of a health food packet, I would say that your figure for the size of the Universe, would mean that the inflationary period would have had to last for 14.9 out of the 15 billion years (give or take) that the Universe has existed.

Confirm light years, not miles, or even meters

Bern Oulli
21st Aug 2006, 11:21
So, do you mean that for 0.1 billion years it was/has been static? Was that at the start immediately after the singularity sprang into existence? Did it hang around like a damp firework for 0.1 billion years before reluctantly exploding? Or are you saying that it has now stopped expanding (and will therefore shortly collapse)? And are we using European billions or American billions? It makes a hell of a difference.
Once the number of noughts exceed the size of my calculator's display and my brain cell I get confused........

Loose rivets
22nd Aug 2006, 05:55
Neither. The inflationary period happed before the Universe settled down to some rate of expansion similar to the present day. During the initial stages it expanded very rapidly, and if we had to give it a speed, we might compare it to the speed of light, though really this would be just a comparison. Scientists would probably measure it by the number of times it doubled its size.

The thought of spacetime exploding out at many times the speed of light confuses some people, but the limitation of the speed light is for photons inside the Universe, not spacetime's acceleration into the void.

When I made the comment above, I was really just hinting that I thought the number of zeros to be a tad high. Almost all folks now use the American billion. The trillion being what we Brits used to call a billion.

arcniz
22nd Aug 2006, 08:05
Speed of light and GOD are not so very much different. In the appropriate frame of reference, if one may presume, each of those has last say about the rules.

Likewise, matter doesn't matter much. Take nothing....age it some and mould sets in... maldistributed nothing on one side.. slightly concentrated nothing on the other side... suddenly a rip in space-time, and some number of eternities, universes, and other flash until it grinds and settles down to moderately uniform nothing once again, with all the time that passed, entropised to zip as the cycle ends.

Choxolate
22nd Aug 2006, 08:29
Few thought provokers

The nature of 'reality' is not only stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you can imagine.

Forget cosmology, just have a little dip into quantum mechanics if you want to completely blow your logic fuses. The vanishingly small is stranger than the unimaginably large.

There is no such thing as an infinite number - infinity is the property of endlessness. There is an infinite series of integers eg 1,2,3,4,5,.... but no integer itself defines infinity (there is not the "biggest integer"). As an example a circle is an endless line whic can be travelled along for an infinite time without reaching an end. This does mean that the circle is itself infinite.

The moon is not a satellite of the earth we are a pair of twin planets - nowhere in its orbit around the sun is the orbit of the moon convex with respect to the sun. We are a pair of orbiting planets in and endless and predictable dance with each other.

The universe is itself a black hole with the "edge" being the event horizon.

Cheerio
22nd Aug 2006, 10:15
The universe is itself a black hole with the "edge" being the event horizon.

Now there's a thought! You can check in any time you want, but you can never leave.......

ORAC
22nd Aug 2006, 10:25
We are a pair of orbiting planets in and endless and predictable dance Chaos and the Solar System (http://www.geocities.com/[email protected]/essays/ChaosandSolarSystem4.htm)

woolyalan
22nd Aug 2006, 10:28
On the subject of infinity Chox, have a read of Infinity: Quest to think the unthinkable, if you have a head for numbers that is.

Has anyone else heard and/or read somewhere that the moon is actually slowly but surely moving away from earth? at something like an inch every decade or something like that?!

Cheerio, As The Eagles once said, this IS the Hotel California :}

Choxolate
22nd Aug 2006, 10:31
Now there's a thought! You can check in any time you want, but you can never leave.......
Not as ridiculous as it sounds - if the mass in the universe is enough to stop the expansion and eventually start to cause contraction then the universe really IS a black hole (at least it has all the characteristics of one and if it looks like a duck ...)

tony draper
22nd Aug 2006, 10:35
Indeed it is,in fact had you stood on the Earth a couple of billion years ago it would have appeared 17 times larger than it does now and the solid ground you stood on would have heaved up 30 feet as it passed overhead due to the much greater tidal force,said moon will eventually slow our rotation just as we have slowed its down so the same side faces us,and we will forever be stuck staring at a stationary moon in the sky.
:rolleyes:
Mr Choxolate,recent research has shown the the speed distant objects are receeding is speeding up not slowing down,thus rendering 100,000 Phd thesis worthless
:E

SLFguy
22nd Aug 2006, 10:44
Mr Choxolate,recent resear has shown the the speed distant objects are receeding is speeding up not slowing down,thus rendering 100,000 Phd theses worthless

my head hurts..:{

ORAC
22nd Aug 2006, 10:52
Holographic Universe. (http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html) Since an increasing number of theories and observations tend to portray the universe in terms of information theory, there is a case to be made that the universe is just made of information (even the basic building blocks of matter look like they are just braids of the underlying spacetime). In which case our universe may just be the thoughts of a creator.....or a simulation running on a computer in a higher dimension.

Not even lab rats....just one of a few test runs in a simulator..... :ooh:

Choxolate
22nd Aug 2006, 10:56
Mr Choxolate,recent research has shown the the speed distant objects are receeding is speeding up not slowing down,thus rendering 100,000 Phd thesis worthless
:E
Hence that little magic word in the post ...IF... who knows what the next bit of research will "prove"

Beetlejuice
22nd Aug 2006, 11:45
That the background microwave radiation is pushing all the dark matter contained within the Universe down a worm-hole in Space and is thereby blocking the sewage outlet from Thames water into the English Channel. Or something.........!