Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 208 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 8 of 20 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 19 20 >
Topic Options
#33533 - 03/03/10 11:09 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Momos]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 206
Originally Posted By: Momos
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
[quote=Momos]1) Why should the stars on the inside of your postulated shell be deceleration? It can't be gravitational pull.


I don't have any stars inside the shell, the stars are the shell.


Quote:
I know, but in your example with the cars, you explain the apparent expansion of the visible universe by galaxies on the "inner surface" of the shell decelerating and stars on the "outward parts" of the shell still accelerating.


No. No no no no no.

There is no acceleration, the only acceleration was the initial big bang blast.

Quote:
The point is: there has to be some force which is causing this velocity difference.


(sighs) Yes, the fact that the matter closer to the outside edge of the universes shell is farther away from the mass of the universe than the matter on the inside of the shell.

Quote:
Why are some stars, NOW (Billion of years after the Big Bang) decelerating faster then others?


Because they are closer to the rest of the matter in the universe and therefor that matter has a greater pull on them.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
2) The speed of galaxies is measured by their redshift.
As far as I know the redshift of distant galaxies shows a velocity of much more then lightspeed (several times of c).
Conventional this ist explained as not beeing the real velocity.


It doesn't show light speed as far as I know.


Quote:
So I guess you are right.


Yea me.

Quote:
Nevertheless aren't we measuring distant objects moving away from us with velocities at least up to 1/2 c?


I don't have a clue. Don't matter.

According to your idea we are living in the middle of the shell of an expanding sphere.

Quote:
Since we can observe distant object in every direction moving away from us with 0.5 c, this leads me to the conclusion the inner part of your shell is standing still, the middle part (including ourselves) is moving with 0.5c, the outer part is faster yet, moving with 1c.
Otherwise you can't explain the difference in velocities.


No, go back to the car anology. The inner part is decellerating faster than the outer.

Quote:
Furthermore in your hypothesis we should observe a universe with different velocity distributions to each side. Objects at the same distance to the "point of the BigBang" as us should be moving with the same velocity?
So we shouldn't see any movement of them at all?
(apart from movement due to stretching of the "shell" over a larger amount of space).


Yes.

Quote:
In any case, I think your idea is scientific, in the sense that your idea is falsifiable. Your hypothesis makes some observable predictions which don't fit the actual observations.




Quote:
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
Expanding space will lead to the same observation *in every place* in the universe: all distant objects are moving away, the more distant they are the faster they move away.This explains why it seems like we are the center of universal expansion and yet we don't have to assume we have any special position in the universe.

Your theory at least requires a careful arrangement of acceleration/deceleration and positioning of our place (roughly in the middle of the shell)?


Actually I would say we are closer to the inside or outside edge of the shell as evidensed by eh "hole in the universe" measurement that was taken. It's around here somewhere.


I would guess the size of this "hole" is wrong.


Depends on how far we are form the inner or outer limit.


Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
4)
In you hypothesis this [background] radiation should be non-existing (moving faster then any other object it would surround the matter-sphere in an expanding light shell moving through the empty pre-existing-space), or it should be anisotrop, coming from the direction of the "Big-Bang-Point"?


400,000 years after the big bang my universe shell would have been still expanding. I guess the radiationhad to come from somewhere so it stands to reason that it came from all matter so it could be coming from the opposite side of my universes shell which would be 800,000 years worth of travel away from us at the time of it's beginning to radiate.



Quote:
A shell of matter sending out radiation, would be clearly visible. We should have a clear anisotropy with most of the background radiation coming from one side of the universe.
Actually at any point X in time (years after the explosion) we should see only the radiation emitted by the parts of your shell in exactly X - light years distance. I would assume we would measure a circle of background radiation (The intersection of your universe-shell and a sphere with a radius of X light years.


it all depends on how thick the shell is, doesn't it? At this point I can guess that it is at least 27.4 billion light years think.
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
.
#33734 - 03/26/10 05:26 PM Swing blocks. [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 206
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33923 - 04/13/10 05:10 AM Yea me! [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 206
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33924 - 04/13/10 05:14 AM More... [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 206
Just look at the general science discussion page.


Edited by Marchimedes (04/13/10 05:17 AM)
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33934 - 04/14/10 02:12 AM Jeez... [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 206
What? No "way to go Marchimedes, nice job gettin 100,000 views there" or nuttin?

Man, what a bunch of stiffs. you'd think this site gets a 100,000 view thread everyday, is it any wonder I had to throw my own party? And you know how shy I am and all. Does this site have many 100,000 viewss threads?

Does this site have 100,000 views on any page?

It tell ya, a guy friggin busts his hump day and night and this is the thanks I get? I mean would buying me a beer friggin kill ya? Maybe a nice card or sumpin? A plaque? A PM telling me I don't suck? Have you been to other science sites? Seen what they have? I tell ya what they don't have...Marchimedes. (So they always ban me, doesn't count)You could go there and taunt them, "na na na na na, you don't have any 100,000 view threee-eads, we do and you don't". And then link to here.

This is an advertising dream. Or as I like to call it "smackvertising".

I think you should make me an honorary moderator or sumpin. You know, put "hero moderator" under my name. Don't actually give me mod powers or anything, but let me say I'm a mod, chicks dig that.

You know, this is the perfect opportunity to throw off the yoke of "geeks" and "nerds". I could be the sites Bluto, we'll have Toga parties and I'll get you guys laid, finally.

I'm gonna go home now and pout.
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#34201 - 05/05/10 01:42 AM A favour... [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 206
My baby sister of 8 years, Stacy June, Mother of Mckenzi and Nick, suffered a stroke today on her right side. They got her to the ER quick, don't know much right now, but those of you that do would you do that? Pray?



Please.
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#34202 - 05/05/10 02:44 AM Re: A favour... [Re: Marchimedes]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Granted; best intentions and prayers are coming your way. Good luck to you and all. Eighteen hours/day of rehab. is a goal to work towards. Hope you have that opportunity! Good going on the 100k too. Keep on.... ~SA
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#34204 - 05/05/10 04:23 AM Re: A favour... [Re: Marchimedes]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Thoughts are with you all, Marchi. May your sis recover quickly. All the best to you and yours.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#34214 - 05/05/10 04:39 PM Re: A favour... [Re: redewenur]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
I hope your sister recovers. She will be in my thoughts. May the best outcome prevail.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#34217 - 05/05/10 05:24 PM Re: A favour... [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Sorry to hear it. I hope things get better for you all.

Top
#34219 - 05/05/10 07:53 PM Re: A favour... [Re: Marchimedes]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Marchimedes

I think your sister should get well soon because you had
the faith to ask for others to pray.

believing that prayer will help.

and I hope she does have a speedy recovery.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#34221 - 05/06/10 04:27 AM Re: A favour... [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
It helps is his sister knows about all that praying, and believes in it too!

Top
#34957 - 06/14/10 06:17 PM Re: A favour... [Re: paul]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 206
Originally Posted By: paul
Marchimedes

I think your sister should get well soon because you had
the faith to ask for others to pray.



Can't prove that, but I'll take it any day, the kid is doing fine, full recovery so far.

Originally Posted By: samwik
Granted; best intentions and prayers are coming your way. Good luck to you and all. Eighteen hours/day of rehab. is a goal to work towards. Hope you have that opportunity! Good going on the 100k too. Keep on.... ~SA


Thank you everyone for your thoughts and prayers.

(observes minimum necessary time before reverting back to usual humble polite self)

Well lookie there, actual mention of my wonderful accomplishments, the 100k view mark. Why thank you samwik.

See, it won't crash the server to come out and tell me good job.

Ah, a problem perhaps with the theory of relativity as I understand it.

So as you approach the speed of light time slows down for the traveler. The way I've read it any object or person at speed has time pass slower than a stationary object of person.

For instance, two men born at the exact same time, slated to live for the same amount of time exactly...

One is a Concord pilot of many years, the other a snail herder, the snail herder is gonna die first.

Now I understand that this phenomena has been so-called proven, with clocks on space ships and what not. I still don't get it.

Say I get in my spaceship, The USS Blowme, and take off at c, the speed of light, and travel for 1 year. I should have traveled one light year. For you here on Earth the theory of relativity states that a greater amount of time has passed, lettuce call it 10 years.

From your perspective I should have traveled 10 light years.

But in the USS Blowme I've only went 1 light year.

Or does your time apply to me and I've traveled 10 light years? In one year, which would make my speed 10c? Which means I've passed the universal speed limit of c.

See what I'm getting at here?

Has this paradox been addressed by the the so-called scientists?

The way I look at this there is a major flaw in the theory of relativity.

What gives?
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#34976 - 06/15/10 04:41 AM Re: A favour... [Re: Marchimedes]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Marchimedes

Quote:
the kid is doing fine


congratulations on everything.!!
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#34982 - 06/15/10 04:46 PM Re: A favour... [Re: Marchimedes]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

Ah, a problem perhaps with the theory of relativity as I understand it.

So as you approach the speed of light time slows down for the traveler. The way I've read it any object or person at speed has time pass slower than a stationary object of person.

...

Say I get in my spaceship, The USS Blowme, and take off at c, the speed of light, and travel for 1 year. I should have traveled one light year. For you here on Earth the theory of relativity states that a greater amount of time has passed, lettuce call it 10 years.

From your perspective I should have traveled 10 light years.

But in the USS Blowme I've only went 1 light year.


What you're referring to is commonly called the twins paradox.

Relativity is not exactly a intuitive thing. The point you are missing is in relativity, not all observers are created equal. Its explained far better in the twins paradox page I've linked to then I could possibly hope to explain myself. It all has to do with who is under acceleration - acceleration puts you into an "inferior" reference frame.

Long story short, for the person on the space ship traveling near C it will seem to take less than a year to travel 1 light-year, while for an outside observer it will appear that the ship takes a year to go one light year.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#34984 - 06/15/10 06:10 PM Re: A favour... [Re: ImagingGeek]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 206
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
[quote=Marchimedes]
What you're referring to is commonly called the twins paradox.


Ah, wikipedia, what a virus laden Hell hole that place is, might as well link me to barnyard porn sites with down loadable "games" and "click here for a free prize" icons.

But I searched the twin paradox and I see it's just the name of what I've seen all these years.

Quote:
Relativity is not exactly a intuitive thing.


You're telling me, but what I'm striving for here is to understand it intuitively and then splain it in simple terms.

Quote:

The point you are missing is in relativity, not all observers are created equal. Its explained far better in the twins paradox page I've linked to then I could possibly hope to explain myself. It all has to do with who is under acceleration - acceleration puts you into an "inferior" reference frame.


Ah, derrrrrrrr...
Quote:

Long story short, for the person on the space ship traveling near C it will seem to take less than a year to travel 1 light-year, while for an outside observer it will appear that the ship takes a year to go one light year.

Bryan


Right. My problem is me in my ship going balls and "seems".

If the clock in the good USS Blowme says I've been on board for, say, 1/2 a year and I've traveled light year that would seem to me that I've been going at 2c.

Which would to me invalidate the concept of c being the universal speed limit.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that either there is a problem with relativity or the idea that c is a speed limit. I can't see both holding true.
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#34989 - 06/16/10 02:45 AM Re: A favour... [Re: Marchimedes]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
ImagingGeek,
When I click on your link to wikipedia I get a "server not found" error. Do you have another link?
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#34991 - 06/16/10 03:26 AM Re: A favour... [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Amaranth, ImagingGeek's link fixed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#34994 - 06/16/10 08:26 AM Re: A favour... [Re: redewenur]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
Thanks, rede. I appreciate that.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#35793 - 08/20/10 07:38 PM Outstanding... [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 206
125k+ views.

I do believe I'm starting to warm up to you kids.

Listen, I need a 360 degree dispersal map of all these super novas that we use to determine that the universe (visible universe I say, visible) is expanding. You know, which directions they are and how much they are red shifted.

I figured maybe I go go to a big science type site with lots of interesting, intelligent folks who know their bidness.

But I came here instead.

Does anyone know where to find a map such as this?
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
Page 8 of 20 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 19 20 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.