Re: Books
- From: Half-Nutz <3t3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:59:15 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 21, 6:44 pm, BottleBob <bottl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
m wrote:
The Law of Conservation of Energy.
Martin:
Now while the Law of Conservation of Energy is sort of a sacred cow in
science circles, let's take a look at a possible violation of that law.
In the standard model, the Big Bang is presumed to have started a
finite amount of time ago. Let's just call the start of the big bang
T0. Now at T-1 nothing existed, and at T+1 everything (energy at
first), that was going to evolve into our universe existed.
Does that qualify as a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy?
One possible minor local violation that supposedly happens constantly
are vacuum fluctuations - where virtual particles (which may become
real particles under certain conditions) just POP into existence in the
vacuum of space.
--
BottleBobhttp://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Bob,
Think about these few things....
The observed "red Shift" of distant objects.
The observed "Gravitaional Lensing" caused by the mass of Galaxies,
and photoans passing near them.
The idea that a photons energy is determined by it's frequency.
Lets derive a few things from these "observations"
In order for the photon to be "deflected by the mass of a distant
galaxy, it is interactng via gravitation.
Therefore the photon must also deflect the distant galaxy by a however
infinitesimal amount.
In order for the photon to emit that gravitational wave, it must
expend energy. Varius explanations for relativity talk about a photon
losing frequency in a gravitational field. Nothing nwe here...
A the photon interacts while running various "gravitational gaunlets"
it is forced to lose frequency in order to emit gravitational waves.
IOW, passing through the gravitaional wells if interspersed galaxies,
celestial objects, it is forced to lose energy (frequency) and thus
red-shift.
Now, red shifting gives the "illusion" that the distant emitting
object is traveling away from us.
From our vantage point we cannot distinguish redshift from a recedingemitter, or a "gravitational gauntlet" the photons must travel
through.
If we could somehow track a string of photons from that distant
emitter, say the stream of photons represented a distant radio
transmission, the red shift would indicate that the distance to the
emitter is increasing. Realtivity teaches us that we could not
determine that the distance between us and the distant emitter was NOT
increasing.
In fact, if get into our space ship, and head out towards the distant
source of photons to investigate, we will be subjected to the same
forces as the arriving photons. Every observation we make will
indicate that the distant object was in fact, receding.
Now, we have a puzzle.
Suppose we are able to build our own model universe, and populate it
with residnets, and watch them as they observe some distant star.. We
have a "static" universe, but our inhabitants will observe it as
expanding..
Everything they do to observe their universe, indicates it is
expanding. When it was designed to be static.
We can then observe from the "outside" :
That the universe is not expanding, but that space is being generated
from gravity. ( !! )
Can we take this a bit further?
How long has the "apparent" expansion of the universe been caused by
gravity?
Is gravity a weakly repulsive force at right angles to it's
interaction?
If the universe was infinitley dense before the "Big Bang", did it
ever really "expand" or does the addition of gravity, and other forces
give the "illusion" of expansion to it's residents?
Does it occur to you that i might have tricked you into conceiving
yourself to be in another set of dimensional frames than the
"occupants" of our model universe?
Conventional theories tell us that the additional six dimensions, are
extremely small... all curled up in the confines of Plank space..
What if our dimensions are in fact the tiny ones?
If we are willing to follow this line of thinking a little farther,
perhaps the universe, is still in fact, infinitely dense. All the
distances are merely "illusions" to the residents, space is
"arbitrary". Since we are bound to our reality by the speed of light,
our entire concept of time and space are inseperable. If the Universe
is possible still infinitely dense, all we see are and live in are
dimensions that are infinitely curled up inside that infinitely dense
universe, and outside of our observation are dimensions that connect
the farthest points of the universe, since theyare still touching.
It gives us an opportuinity to think that there are dimensions outside
of ours, they connect distant points of the universe, and we in fact
DO observe that sort of thing!!
Look into the double slit experiment. That sneeky little photon
"knows" how many possible paths it could have taken, and interacts as
if it had taken them all.
That is Imposible if it is travelling through our dimensions, and
travelling at the speed of light. It cannot try all possible paths,
and do each one at the speed of light.
However, if the universe is infinitely dense, it does in fact travel
all possible paths, since it is touching both the source, paths, and
destination all at the same time. The fact that it takes a finite
amount of time to "arrive" at the destination, is an artifact of us
being trapped in our tightly curled up dimensions. Our sensation of
space, is what creates our sensation of time, and vise/versa.
All of this goes back to the thread drift, the conseravtion of
energy..
Maybe it is true locally. But when we get into Quantum effects, things
get a little bit less reliable.
When we get into celestial distances, we have (as I've theorized)
intermediate/local gravity "creating" vast quantities of space. It is
inconceivable to genreate enough power to hurl Trillions of distant
galaxies and celestial objects away from us at inconceivable speeds
and accelerations, but we can generate space, it has a mass of zero
after all.... The observed effect is the same, but the source of the
"power" is quite different.
Remeber all of this sprung forth from:
Red Shift
Gravitational Lensing
Photons energy is tied to it's frequency
Speed of light is constant, due to relativiy.
None of those ideas seem to currently be in dispute.
What they might possibly imply taken all together is very
interesting.
Martin,
Sorry for the thread drift..
I'll second Peter Smid's books.
Machineries Handbook, for general use.
Bob,
Is this too wrong to be wrong? Or am I not able to explain it with too
few words, there are a LOT of leaps of logic, that I've worked out
over the years, it is difficult to realize what I leave out as I go
through an explanation of something I've been over many times.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: CENSUS, Please leave your mark all lurkers and posters!
- Next by Date: Re: nice site bottlebob
- Previous by thread: Re: Books
- Next by thread: Re: Books
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
