Hence my question of building blocks needed for the expansion of "space"...if it isn't 'nothing', but of 'substance'. I guess my real question is if distance is increasing without movement by individual objects through the goo, is that not evidence of expansion of space? The goo must be expanding, no?
My most significant mission into the Known Universe was probably the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction.
Imagine my disgust when these complete AMATEURS found a METIORITE in their driveway:
A fireball, a driveway and a priceless meteorite - BBC News
I wonder why I bother.
Imagine my disgust when these complete AMATEURS found a METIORITE in their driveway:
A fireball, a driveway and a priceless meteorite - BBC News
I wonder why I bother.
I've seen some interesting articles and videos on time, gravity etc and the notion of the 'ether' (many quite disparaging BTW) . But I have to raise the 'time field' thing again at this point. There seems to be an insistence that there must be something - goo or special invisible particles, call it what you will - that allows energy to be transmitted through a vacuum either as a gravitational force (using Galilean terminology here - not Einsteinian space-time warping) or EMR as in light or magnetism.
Why?
If I move an object I change its time reference wrt to all other objects. There is an expenditure of energy to accomplish this and the object will experience acceleration as it moves to a new time reference. When the applied force (energy) is removed, the object continues moving, its new reference with respect to permanently in place until it is acted upon by a subsequent force.
However, exactly the opposite effect is equally valid i.e. if I change the local time of an object wrt its surroundings, there is an energy transfer to the object and as a result, it moves. So, I have not applied a force in this case, but a local time change has been imprinted upon the object, or 'washed' over it. This is what an EM or gravity wave is and it propagates through a vacuum as a change in the surrounding time. The phenomena remains completely relativistic.
So, no ether is needed and no special invisible particles bubbling into existence and then disappearing again, but just the fact that everything sits within a time field that is perturbed by the expenditure of energy may explain how gravitational waves or EMR can move through a vacuum.
There is an interesting Forbes science video on YouTube (sorry cannot find it at the minute) where the presenter explains that in some of the latest thinking on the subject, gravity is a manifestation of warpage of local time. So gravity is an emergent property of the warpage of time around a body. What causes this? Entropy. Any body will show increasing entropy and entropy produces time and that's what is distorting the 'local' time around an object. So, no special particles like 'gravitons' or anything else required. By extension, if entropy is producing time, we also then might haver an explanation for why the universe is expanding. You can exchange time and distance - the fundamental process is that distance is just a difference in time between things - and that of course only arises because energy has been expended. So we see an expanding universe, but the underlying mechanism is that time is expanding because of the process of entropy taking place across the whole universe.
I've read many articles where its been postulated that if the universe had expanding just a bit faster, it would had 'blown itself apart, and if a bit slower, it would have already collapsed. The inference often drawn was that through sheer good luck it was just right and Bob's your uncle, here we are, able to talk about it. for me, that's a red flag. There must be a better explanation. Is it expanding at just the right rate because of the entropy <> time expansion link and nothing to do with dumb luck?
Now, I'm sensible enough to know I'm not equipped to solve this conundrum, so there are purely postulations. There was a philosopher who explained the difference between Hooke and Newton. Hooke came up with the formula for Gravity, but Newton was able to correctly derive it, and this is the difference as between 'truth glimpsed and truth proven'.
So, we need another Newton or Einstein because there seems to be a groundswell of opinion that String theory and QLG don't seem to be providing the answers we need and it might just be that we have to rethink our notions of what time. We think its independent and divorced from everything. Einstein showed that it was pliable and relativistic but maybe we have to take it a step further.
Why?
If I move an object I change its time reference wrt to all other objects. There is an expenditure of energy to accomplish this and the object will experience acceleration as it moves to a new time reference. When the applied force (energy) is removed, the object continues moving, its new reference with respect to permanently in place until it is acted upon by a subsequent force.
However, exactly the opposite effect is equally valid i.e. if I change the local time of an object wrt its surroundings, there is an energy transfer to the object and as a result, it moves. So, I have not applied a force in this case, but a local time change has been imprinted upon the object, or 'washed' over it. This is what an EM or gravity wave is and it propagates through a vacuum as a change in the surrounding time. The phenomena remains completely relativistic.
So, no ether is needed and no special invisible particles bubbling into existence and then disappearing again, but just the fact that everything sits within a time field that is perturbed by the expenditure of energy may explain how gravitational waves or EMR can move through a vacuum.
There is an interesting Forbes science video on YouTube (sorry cannot find it at the minute) where the presenter explains that in some of the latest thinking on the subject, gravity is a manifestation of warpage of local time. So gravity is an emergent property of the warpage of time around a body. What causes this? Entropy. Any body will show increasing entropy and entropy produces time and that's what is distorting the 'local' time around an object. So, no special particles like 'gravitons' or anything else required. By extension, if entropy is producing time, we also then might haver an explanation for why the universe is expanding. You can exchange time and distance - the fundamental process is that distance is just a difference in time between things - and that of course only arises because energy has been expended. So we see an expanding universe, but the underlying mechanism is that time is expanding because of the process of entropy taking place across the whole universe.
I've read many articles where its been postulated that if the universe had expanding just a bit faster, it would had 'blown itself apart, and if a bit slower, it would have already collapsed. The inference often drawn was that through sheer good luck it was just right and Bob's your uncle, here we are, able to talk about it. for me, that's a red flag. There must be a better explanation. Is it expanding at just the right rate because of the entropy <> time expansion link and nothing to do with dumb luck?
Now, I'm sensible enough to know I'm not equipped to solve this conundrum, so there are purely postulations. There was a philosopher who explained the difference between Hooke and Newton. Hooke came up with the formula for Gravity, but Newton was able to correctly derive it, and this is the difference as between 'truth glimpsed and truth proven'.
So, we need another Newton or Einstein because there seems to be a groundswell of opinion that String theory and QLG don't seem to be providing the answers we need and it might just be that we have to rethink our notions of what time. We think its independent and divorced from everything. Einstein showed that it was pliable and relativistic but maybe we have to take it a step further.
Last edited:
It seems I'm not getting my point across.
The evidence for the (accelerating) expansion of the Universe is that we observe it happening.
We do not yet know why it is happening!
The "space goo" may be a useful analogy to some, but it provides neither a new insight into the expansion of the Universe nor a mathematical theory of the mechanism behind it.
Let's lighten up from the problems of Physics.
Enjoyed the Bahamian Solution:
Kristal and her students are fighting to eradicate ocean plastic - BBC News
Clear up those plastic bottles.
It's either that or WW3:
Lockheed Martin StarDrive - YouTube
Enjoyed the Bahamian Solution:
Kristal and her students are fighting to eradicate ocean plastic - BBC News
Clear up those plastic bottles.
It's either that or WW3:
Lockheed Martin StarDrive - YouTube
So a more accurate word would be "how" it's happening, no? Because the connotation attached to "why" would indicate we know 'how", no?
the last thing I need is additional confusion.
The only reference I can find to your 'time field' thing comes via Doctor Who!
Can you point me towards a proper cosmological reference?
Now you're struggling for vindication!
By "how" one means "by what way or method", and by "why" one means "the reasons need to be examined".
Like I said, just a postulate/hypothesis.
Anyway, replace distance with time and it helps shift ones perspective!
And let’s not forget that there have been some spectacular fails in all this - WIMPS for one. They even sent a satellite up to look for the stuff !
Last edited:
Honestly Galu, there's no fencing going on on my part here at all. But by your terminology it appears the "how" is established when the question clearly remains. "why" is irrelevant to this specific question about the substance of space/goo expanding and how it is able to do so without matter to build with. "Why" is a different topic, no?Now you're struggling for vindication!
By "how" one means "by what way or method", and by "why" one means "the reasons need to be examined".
Here’s an interesting piece about emergent gravity
Are Space, Time, And Gravity All Just Illusions?
Still looking for the gravity<> time video
Are Space, Time, And Gravity All Just Illusions?
Still looking for the gravity<> time video
There's an article on this very question I glossed over this morning. It's gone now and I can't find it.
That link gave me trouble. Fixed it I hope.
Plus 2 links from m'learned friend Bonsai:
(LIVE) Erik Verlinde Public Lecture: A New View on Gravity and the Dark Side of the Cosmos - YouTube
Are Space, Time, And Gravity All Just Illusions?
Give me some time. Lot to get through. Plus my daily "Klara and the Sun" robot thing.
And please, no spoilers!Plus my daily "Klara and the Sun" robot thing.
I'm going to binge listen after several episodes in.
They are stunningly beautiful under a microscope!Let's just concentrate on the carbonaceous chondrite which fell on Winchcombe!
Attachments
They are indeed, Marty!
In the chondrites, the mineral olivine forms round grains known as chondrules, which range up to one millimetre in diameter.
Some meteorites are extremely beautiful when sliced and polished, making them extremely desirable to collectors.
Top 10 Most Expensive Meteorites Ever Offered up on Earth - Catawiki
In the chondrites, the mineral olivine forms round grains known as chondrules, which range up to one millimetre in diameter.
Some meteorites are extremely beautiful when sliced and polished, making them extremely desirable to collectors.
Top 10 Most Expensive Meteorites Ever Offered up on Earth - Catawiki
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.