Quote:
|
Originally Posted by baudrunner I understand what you're saying Lloyd, that in essence the Universe is expanding uniformly and this effect is observed from any point of reference within it. I don't argue with that, but if reality is limited to this analysis wherein the rate at which anything can travel is limited by the rate of the propagation of light then you must acknowledge that the size of the universe could not be calculated to be around 156 billion light years in diameter if it is only 13.5 billion years old! Read this article to find out how in reality this is actually the case.
from the article (with reference to the expansion rate of the Universe): |
Baud, I calculated the above for myself, back in the early eighty's, and found all numbers being used by accepted science and physics to be false. They are still false, period. The universe is not limited by the propagation of light, as new light is eternally propagated, so your statement doesn't apply. I simply and logically accept only a finite matter and infinite space universe. Anything else is outside of logic, including Einstein's GR and SR, when bound by the false concept of space-time. Logically, space is a concept and time is a percept. The two can never be joined - tis outside logic. In other words, the last 100 years of physics' guessing is outside sound logic, period. It has been proven so by many recent physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, and astronomers, as recent pbs shows, i.e., Nova have clearly shown.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by baudrunner We are observing superluminal (faster than light) effects elsewhere in the Universe. This article describes the case of the blast wave left by a gamma-ray burst. The expanding ring does not observe limitations of the rate of propagation of radiations in the optical spectrum produced by simple excitation because of the intensity of the shock wave front produced by the blast wave, which exceeds the rate of light propagation.
from the article:
In other words, if you throw a ball at thirty miles an hour while on a train moving at one hundred miles an hour the ball is actually moving at one hundred and thirty miles an hour. |
Again here Baud, you are talking outside the bounds of observable logic, and so is the article. No velocities can be observed beyond the speed of light, because we are using light speed instruments and natural light speed eyes to observe, and also because we are trying to observe electrons with electrons, thus the uncertainty principle still holds. I admit super-luminal makes all theories very easy to show all the answers we strive for, but not the logical answers we want and need. I'll take logic, as I myself, tried this shortcut in the early and mid eighties, and then abandoned it as non-logical and unprovable. Great idea, but blind logic, no-good. You, or no one else, have or ever will, prove anything beyond the speed of light, other than the simple idea of space distance shrinking between two galaxies' light beams approaching each other. We are locked in a light bound logic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by baudrunner If you are unwilling to consider my theory of the nature of the propagation of light, which effectively explains particle-wave duality as well, then you will have trouble accepting the evidence for superluminal phenomenon. The community in general is averse to accepting that the "speed of light" represents merely just another barrier to be broken as evidenced by the cautionary approach of any discussion pertaining to phenomena which display superluminosity where words like "apparent" are routinely employed. My Universal wave theory to which you are referring is a postulate of what might be the case in reality, and I am not breaking any laws in describing it. It represents a good case for the existence of dark matter as well. Not only that, to describe the Universal front of creation to be occurring as a wave is natural and elegant. |
Again Baud, the problem is super-luminal. Super-luminal is and always will be outside sound logic. I discovered a similar super-luminal theory in the early eighties, as I have mentioned, so I am well aware of all the hypothesising. Just to let you know, I thought up a psychological cyclotron so my mind could exit the entire known universe, to look back at it, and asked where was I and what was I withnessing? I saw the same super-luminal expansion, but instead of "crust", I saw it just shrinking into nothingness at the speed of light plus one[even Newton's mass theory requires this]. When I turned the theory around to go backwards, I saw it all collapse into the big crunch. So you see, I could play this theory over and over to create any number of big bangs and big crunchs, or shriking universes into new creative energy. The only trouble was, it was super-luminal and unprovable - elegant yes, but outside of logic. This is when I started working on pre-big-bang ideas, yet inside of logic possibilities[luminal].
Sorry, but I can't accept beyond the luminal,
Lloyd