Re: Books
- From: BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:07:35 -0800
Half-Nutz wrote:
Bob,
Think about these few things....
HN:
Jeeze, that's too much data in one post. LOL
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 general relatively I believe gravitation is defined as a bending/warping of space-time by mass. So a photon is not necessarily "deflected" from its straight path, it's still going straight but following a gravitational geodesic or curvature in space-time itself.
In order for the photon to emit that gravitational wave, it must
expend energy.
As far as I know photons don't emit gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are supposedly created by very massive objects on the order of neutron stars and such.
Varius explanations for relativity talk about a photon
losing frequency in a gravitational field. Nothing nwe here...
While traveling through a gravitational field (curved space-time) light will seem to experience a time dilation to an outside observer. Also it should appear to change frequency, that's a gravitational red shift. But after the photon exits the warped space-time it resumes its non-time dilation speed and frequency.
A the photon interacts while running various "gravitational gaunlets"
it is forced to lose frequency in order to emit gravitational waves.
I don't believe the gravitational wave emission by photons is a correct interpretation.
IOW, passing through the gravitaional wells if interspersed galaxies,
celestial objects, it is forced to lose energy (frequency) and thus
red-shift.
Light "can" lose energy while traversing a gravitational field by interacting with debris in the field. Just as there may be inter-galactic dust to "scrub" off some energy.
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 receding
emitter, or a "gravitational gauntlet" the photons must travel
through.
I don't think that's a correct conclusion. Once beyond out local group of interacting galaxies the farther galaxies show a red shift that increases with distance. And the phenomena is the same every direction we look, plus note that there are no galactic objects in the path of every single one of these galaxies to create gravitational lensing and frequency reduction. It does really seem to be Doppler dependent. Now, much further away I believe there could very well be some frequency reducing debris to pass 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.
The Steady-State theory had many proponents for decades. Trying everything they could do to keep the theory alive. But the evidence for a Big Bang expanding universe was just too overwhelming and the Steady-State theory just faded away.
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?
I think it's healthy to posit alternate explanations, but in this particular case I believe there is currently too much evidence supporting the standard model.
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?
You don't really want me to get all mystical on you, do you? LOL
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!!
Well, there ARE seemingly irreconcilable discrepancies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That's why the Super-String & M theory variants are so popular for trying to devise a theory of Quantum Gravity.
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.
I always thought the Many Worlds interpretation was cute, where ALL the paths happen, just that each path happens in its own split-off universe. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I thought it was cute just the same. LOL
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.
I think if the universe were infinitely dense there wouldn't be any spaces for things to move in, it's be like one solid mass with no moving parts.
All of this goes back to the thread drift, the conseravtion of
energy..
This is certainly thread drift cubed. I don't think anyone will have read this far. LOL
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.
Ahh well, theoretical physicists have some new toys to play with in Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Very convenient for inserting in places where there are gaps in our knowledge.
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?
I don't know, my eyes glazed over about half way through......... Just kidding.
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.
Actually, I think you explained your position quite clearly. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but it's interesting just the same.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: disk errors
- Next by Date: Re: CENSUS, Please leave your mark all lurkers and posters!
- Previous by thread: Re: Books
- Next by thread: Re: Books
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
