One of the problems here is that descriptions using everyday language do not
offer good insights into what is a primarily mathematical description. Asking
about what we expanding into is like asking what is North of the North Pole.
😎
offer good insights into what is a primarily mathematical description. Asking
about what we expanding into is like asking what is North of the North Pole.
😎
Hubble was able to see to the end of the universe.... that past the universe there was no more 'stuff' to be seen. The universe is still expanding however but will stop and then the size of the universe will be larger and fixed (unless it begins to collapse ---- until the next Big Bang).
-RM
Hubble did not see the end of the universe.
It is not possible using line-of-sight techniques to see past a certain distance, simply because there will always be something blocking your view. Forest for the trees.
Whatever distance Hubble measure, it is less then half of the distance that light has traveled in the opposite direction.
Also I don't even think it is possible to view light traveling away from you.
You need to have something to reflect it back to your photo-receptors.
Hence the furthest viewable item being an object.
It is not possible using line-of-sight techniques to see past a certain distance, simply because there will always be something blocking your view. Forest for the trees.
Whatever distance Hubble measure, it is less then half of the distance that light has traveled in the opposite direction.
Also I don't even think it is possible to view light traveling away from you.
You need to have something to reflect it back to your photo-receptors.
Hence the furthest viewable item being an object.
Doesn’t matter (pun intended) as soon as SWMOB finds out about it she's going to find a way to use it for storage space.... 😀
To quote Linus Torvalds, "He's so wrong, even if he was right he'd be wrong."
Doppler shift is proportional to velocity, not acceleration. If a wave source is approaching an observer, the apparent frequency of the wave is increased in proportion to the relative velocity. Acceleration is not relevant to the Doppler shift. If an approaching wave source is accelerating wrt the observer then the apparent frequency would be changing. This is NOT what happens when a car approaches at a fixed velocity.
Now, even if you weren't wrong about Doppler shift, you would still be wrong, because it still would not support your conclusions about Hubble.
I do not think you grasp the concept.
Hubble's conclusions directly relate to an object's acceleration/deceleration, not a static speed measurement.
In my explanation I demonstrated that a perceived frequency can be altered in conjunction with the Doppler shift, to alter a measurement.
Ultimately the car's engines RPM dictates the origin of the Doppler shift. It directly controls the Doppler frequency. Change the RPM, you change the measurement. Time it just right, and the frequency does not seem to change at all, even though in fact the occupant in the car experiences these changes.
If you are going under the assumption that the velocity is proportional to the Doppler shift, you have to remember that the atmosphere on earth in conjunction with the shape of the car determine the sound heard. This is relativity static measurement useful on earth because the air is static with the exception of some frequency skewing from wind.
So much for your obscure Linux reference.
Hubble's conclusions directly relate to an object's acceleration/deceleration, not a static speed measurement.
In my explanation I demonstrated that a perceived frequency can be altered in conjunction with the Doppler shift, to alter a measurement.
Ultimately the car's engines RPM dictates the origin of the Doppler shift. It directly controls the Doppler frequency. Change the RPM, you change the measurement. Time it just right, and the frequency does not seem to change at all, even though in fact the occupant in the car experiences these changes.
If you are going under the assumption that the velocity is proportional to the Doppler shift, you have to remember that the atmosphere on earth in conjunction with the shape of the car determine the sound heard. This is relativity static measurement useful on earth because the air is static with the exception of some frequency skewing from wind.
So much for your obscure Linux reference.
You demonstrated no such thing. Are you suggesting that all radiating bodies in the universe are somehow altering their radiation frequency in such a way as to make it appear that their velocity wrt us is other than it really is?
"retort"? I am asking you to clarify what you are saying. I guess you are right, I don't grasp your concept. I do not understand what you mean by your reference to acceleration and Doppler. Your example seems to say that if a body's velocity is changing, but the frequency of it's emitted radiation is also changing in such a way as to offset the change in apparent frequency due to changing Doppler shift, then... What exactly? And what does this have to do with the observed red shift of stellar spectra?
Right, if the universe is defined as everything, in the literal sense of everything-ness, it can only be expanding into itself, if anything.
If the stellar-verse, a finite number of stars at 10^24 or so, is expanding into an infinite universe, then the universe is not expanding at all, so the question itself is in error.
Like "What is the merry-go-round spinning into?"
Just my view.
Anti-matter emitting anti-photons would look pretty dark, in the sky.
Maybe that's the "dark energy" which is pushing stars away at acceleratory speeds.
It could also explain why most of the sky is dark looking. Just kidding.
I think we need to play with our DNA until we are 50% taller with 25% larger cranial capacity, then maybe it will all make sense.
According to Michio Kaku we have "stopped evolving".
" Dark energy" and "anti-matter" ?
You mean here ...in Iraq....and other similar places ? 😱
Originally Posted by RNMarsh View Post
IMO --- the universe is expanding into a void or empty space.
But weren't we just told that "empty space" isn't empty. It's FULL of energy. That's were the free energy source is !
You mean here ...in Iraq....and other similar places ? 😱
Originally Posted by RNMarsh View Post
IMO --- the universe is expanding into a void or empty space.
But weren't we just told that "empty space" isn't empty. It's FULL of energy. That's were the free energy source is !
Only particles with a charge have a corresponding anti-particle, photons have no charge, they are just photons
Just a thought,
If empty space exists it must be made of something or it couldn't exist. ie it has size for want of a better word..(something can move in it).
So here is a thought, before the big bang (assuming it happened) what existed for the big bang to happen in?
Or can something exist without energy..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Here is one for the Oxymoron thread,
In the beginning there was nothing...😕
If the singularity existed did it have everything in it that can exist or will exist and limited by the energy available? Or is the mass changing and energy increasing within it?
From another point of view, is the universe a construct? How can that be. it would have to be constructed on or by something..A bit like a dream is in the mind of the individual.
Regards
M. Gregg
In the beginning there was nothing...😕
If the singularity existed did it have everything in it that can exist or will exist and limited by the energy available? Or is the mass changing and energy increasing within it?
From another point of view, is the universe a construct? How can that be. it would have to be constructed on or by something..A bit like a dream is in the mind of the individual.
Regards
M. Gregg
Precisely. The structure of every day language is premised on a classical domain, i.e., objects of moderate size and moderate velocities.
In physics, no.
If total complete nihilistic nothingness 'existed' prior to the big bang (i.e., not even time existed), then it couldn't have happened.
You need time for an event to happen. Without time, nothing can ever happen, nothing at all.
Thus the fact time exists, is evidence it has always existed, at least in some form - any form at all - except zero time.
It's not a null hypothesis like SACD in audio waiting for evidence so to speak, it's self-contained evidence. "I exist now, therefore I am eternal".
You need time for an event to happen. Without time, nothing can ever happen, nothing at all.
Thus the fact time exists, is evidence it has always existed, at least in some form - any form at all - except zero time.
It's not a null hypothesis like SACD in audio waiting for evidence so to speak, it's self-contained evidence. "I exist now, therefore I am eternal".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.