Re: Maybe you should...

Posted by Pasti on May 04, 2003 at 04:54
(64.10.130.149)

Re: Maybe you should... (Mike Kremer)

"You are welcome to consider ammendments, Pasti I am sure you realise more than most, that it is extremely difficult not to think Newtonian."

I am aware of this problem, you are right, it is difficult not to think Newtonian.But on the other hand,in order to explain new things, it is necessary to break up but the "comfortable" picture and think outside of the box.At least this is what history (of physics) tells us.We had to give up the classical theory to get quantum mechanics, or relativity.This is the point that I was trying to make.

"That is because, so far, we have got it wrong.
Even if a dozen Einsteins working together with todays sparse knowledge, had that flash of inspirational genius to fit together the mystery of the universe, its still unlikely to be proven."

I wouldn't venture that far,that we got it wrong.I personally don't think that "we got it wrong".I think we just reached again an edge of our present knowledge.And that we need more info before we can make good sense (or new sense) of what we "see".

"We only assume there is invisible matter or dark energy out there, since our Newtonian physics tells us that Black holes do not possess enough
mass to hold the spiral galaxies together."

You are right, this is pretty much the picture, with the only difference that it is general relativity and not Newtonian physics that give us this picture.And you may believe it or not,but it makes a big difference.

"Even my own personal simplistic theory can account for the distant speed up and dissapearence of the galaxies, when we look out into the far reaches of the universe. I won't invoke Quantum theory or the production of particles that pop-in-an-out of our universes existence, to expand it apart."

Not quite.Spacetime expansion and curvature are pretty much incompatible with Newtonian mechanics.Newtonian mechanics can only offer you the ideea of Hubble recession in space, and not the ideea of Hubble recession as a result of spcaetime expansion.

"Try my idea for size.... Our galaxy is a particle, that is travelling along ONE external magnetic field line of a bar magnet. Other galaxys, some in front of us, others behind us... are not only travelling along the same magnetic field line as us ......but this is repeated with millions of galaxys all travelling along, all the other field lines...all around the bar magnet. All travelling in the same direction."

Well, the model you create is not exactly right.Aside of the existence of the magnet,it does not explain the expansion of the universe.The universe expansion seen from any point is radially outward, while your field lines would introduce a polarized expansion(preponderence in one direction).And this because the magnetic field lines are closed loops.

"And where-abouts are we along our field line?
Lets say we have not long been extruded from one of the poles (a big bang?).....The field lines naturally expand as we travel."

Of course they do. In front of us, but not behind us.

"We look out and see that ALL the other visible galaxies are moving away from us, in what-ever direction we look....even if we look BEHIND us, they/we are moving away."

Nope.You would see them moving "away" all right, you won't see the the radially uniform expansion that is observed. You would see the preponderence along the front-back direction (the direction of the field line.

"Why? Because field lines expand."

OK...

"And now we (telescopes)look out even further, but forward along the line of 'light sight' (that curves exactly matching the magnetic field line)
and we find that Those very distant galaxies are red shifting out of existence.Why? Because they are speeding up as the magnetic field lines again come closer together before entering the opposite pole of the bar magnet."

Nope.Again, it is the radial uniformity of the expansion that won't show in your observations.The gallaxies in front will have a larger velocity than the galaxies behind, and therefore (except a very particular one point case) the front redshift will be different from the back redshift at the same distance.And the left and right redshifts will also be different one from the other, and different freom the front and back redshifts.

"Why does light match the magnetic curve?
How can galaxies speed up?
Because I now want you to forget about my analogy of a bar magnet...and think Black Hole. ONE B hole.Only my Black hole is a googaplex bigger than all the matter plus black holes in the universe combined. My black hole is the biggest granddaddy from which all matter is produced.

Black-holes do not produce matter!They just "eat" it.

"It is the grand gravitational field that controls the spin and movement of all our known Universe. Our Universe is all around it.We are born from it, and we will ultimately die within it, after travelling billions of years along the flux from its pole to its other pole."

This picture still does not fit the homogeneity and isotropy of the today's observed universe.It has sperical symmetry, but NOT AT EVERY POINT in the spacetime.

"In what ever direction we look we see exactly the same as we do today."

Nope, we don't.

"Everything is moving apart as the flux lines expand. The few galaxies that are blue shifted are prehaps travelling a flux line alongside (and slightly behind us?)Or prehaps exploded out at a greater velocity than us?"

Again, this does not mean homogeneity and isotropy.

"The interactions of galaxies that we see, are the result of local gravitational interactions with those galaxies that are nearer to each other.
Everything is balanced, including the missing gravity, since everything is locked to travelling the flux path. Like a magnet a Black holes flux path is fixed as far as matter is concerned. Therefore holding a galaxy together does not depend any more upon talk of missing matter, or the Newtonian lack of gravity to provide that hold."

This "frozen picture" in which everything is predetermined t the degree you mention is not quite accurately fitting the picture of the universe as we see it today.

"Nor can we never hope to see or detect Universes on the other far far far far side of this googoplex sized black hole of mine, but they must exist, in the same way as a galaxy exists around
a known black hole."

I am afraid that you kind of lost me here.

Nothing "must exist" for one reason or another,and as a hypothesis,what is the principial difference between a part of the universe that we cannot see but explains what we observe and the dark matter/energy which again, we cannot see, but "explains" what we see?

What is your point?Your analogy, although principially along the "right line" gives you a picture that is different (observationally) from the "real McCoy".
Moreover,simplistic analogies do not exactly offer future/deeper insight into a problem.What classical analogy would you use for quantum mechanics, or to explain the perihelion precession of Mercury?Analogies always come after the real explanation is known, and are not a tool for finding the real explanation.
So again, what was the point you wanted to make?

Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]