RedShift Reprise - Expansion, Pro & Con

[RascalPuff]

"Also, would the variable decay rates or conversion of mass to energy relate to the observed spectral shifts?"

Hey Nobody that is really a Somebody interrogative - the crux of the matter.

Best regards,
- RP

[Graybeard]

If a trillion tons of mass can be condensed within a point of matter or dispersed throughout an infinite field, how can they be consider the same if a point or infinite field aren't necessarily equal to a trillion tons?

I see one as a generic description and the other as a measurement so they can be applied to a point or a large dispersion. But what they describe and what they measure ..... there's the mystery.

IMO Daves posts are the best

Click on the gray arrow

Click on the gray arrow

Click on the gray arrow

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Your vigilance on Dave's posts are truly commendable, Greg.

What I especially like about them is that Dave is dealing non mathematically about what it is you're highlighting from his posts - en conversant with Nobody (is Somebody).

Kudos to Dave for his ability to do that.

I hope others tune in to what you just posted.

It's a lot to think about.

Kewl Kewkumbers,
- RP

[Graybeard]

Thanks Rascal ... but I am only the messenger ... Dave is the author.

I PM'd him the link to your much appreciated post .. but I think he must be on holidays as I haven't seen him on for a while.

When he is back it may be that he will show us where we are all wrong ..... LOL

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

Yes, I love Dave's rendering as well, Greg, but as RP points out the crux of the matter may be the point in question, in this case the equivalence of matter and mass which Dave also adheres to.

In science there is no such reality as empty space, and therefore all space must be completely full of some hitherto unknown substance, with no holes allowed unless we use a holy god of the gaps and even then the result is still fullness. So, if space and matter can be equated, then mass and/or energy must be quantitative(partial) motions of matter - inwardly for mass and outwardly for energy.

Eventhough G=mc^2 may be so far off the wall as to imply there is no distance at all between distant galaxies and your eyeballs, if you had to come up with a process rather that would allow light to propagate through time instead of space - for instance, considering time dilation, light propagating solely as scalar densities, which would naturally have corresponding spectral shifts according to the particular density of the media at a given time - what would you hypothesize?

[Graybeard]

So, if space and matter can be equated, then mass and/or energy must be quantitative(partial) motions of matter

Nob .... I have a very bad hangover from last nights work Xmas party. I seem to remember dancing on the tables and giving a loud, cracked, and off tune rendition of David Bowies 'Diamond Dogs' using a banana as a microphone. Got home at 03:00. Had to start work today (sun) at 07:00.

Your question hurts ... LOL ... But I think I agree ...

G=mc^2

I take E = mc^2 to be a QM equation ... not related to SR or GR. Are you saying here that Matter (or mass ... lets not quibble today ) is capable of curving Spacetime (acceleration or gravity) by a factor of the speed of light squared ??

I am not sure I can fathom the implications of your formula.

for instance, considering time dilation, light propagating solely as scalar densities, which would naturally have corresponding spectral shifts according to the particular density of the media at a given time - what would you hypothesize?

Let me think on this further .... I do have some crazy ideas of my own which I am extremely hesitant to voice. My ideas are linked in the form of a network which does not lend itself to the linear and sequential nature of text.

But basically I see the fuel that drives the increase in (relational ?) mass, when it is accounted for, as creating an increase in the resource called space, and an equal decrease in the resource called time. But Spacetime remains in balance.

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

Welcome to my universe in a nutshell, nut's hell, Greg. I'm constantly hanging over something too, but I'm not sure what yet. It could be a banana too.

Yes, to your assessment of G=mc^2, with mass being exactly inversely-proportionate to energy in the observable universe, but exactly proportionate to energy in the omniverse.

I'm really looking forward to your ideas. I love considering many new views on this stuff, eventhough I may seem to have an overbearingly authoritative attitude. I'm achin for someone to explain how space can move, if other than separate particles or waves moving relative to absolute space which I would agree with mechanically. If space can move other than in that scenario, I want to know if there is any pressure involved in the process that would then lead up to the degree of freedom necessary for QM to function.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

If a trillion tons of mass can be condensed within a point of matter or dispersed throughout an infinite field, how can they be consider the same if a point or infinite field aren't necessarily equal to a trillion tons?

It is, Nobody... It's just the scientists forget to figure the infinitesimal masses of photons, after a model of total finiteness decay, to pure photons. Gee, ain't that something, it fills in the Yang/Mills mass gap... Go figure...

Yes, to your assessment of G=mc^2, with mass being exactly inversely-proportionate to energy in the observable universe, but exactly proportionate to energy in the omniverse.

And what's wrong with this statement, if you picture an infinitesimal photon, as an infinitesimal mass, instantly entropizing, expending energy, then flying through primordial space? First, it takes in the expended energy/matter from other photons, in different phases, through the edge of its micro black-hole state, since all other photons would be able to survive a chiralling path through the event horizon of other photon black-holes, if having enough escape angle, since a photon's black-hole gravity, only reaches to the event horizon___the real particle nature of the photon's mass, being at its center. Of course, all straight on collisions would enter the event horizon, never to escape to their own soveriegn paths, yet would soon be ejected, as the photon's mass entropy energy cycle. So, this is exactly as you describe, and as other physicists have described, by asking what happens to an exploding micro black-hole of zero mass, when just such a process happens. Of course, to make it real physics, an infinitesimal amount of mass is required, for all photons, to create the true physics of the real primordial universe, before the finite universe's big pop...

So much for physics,
Lloyd

[Graybeard]

I'm really looking forward to your ideas. I love considering many new views on this stuff.

Nob .... my ideas are not as exciting as you might think.

I tend to follow the Standard model and Classical Maths. I realise their incompatability. I am self taught and I also realise that Scientists are professionally trained and have a much better understanding of the data than I do and therefore it would be presumptious to break from their opinions in the majority.

But I do develop my own concepts, because I have difficulty with the maths, and test my concepts against these two theories. If the concept is not disallowed then I tend to continually refine it.

Everything I see in the world around me points to a discrete form of matter and not a continuous form .. so I favour QM as the best fit. My major breakthroughs ( ... LOL ... for me) was the full understanding of the mechanics of Bell's Theorem, the practical inplications of General Relativity, and the peculiar, seldom perceived, double twist in the mechanics (morphology) of evolution.

This triad did not so much kill God, as make all forms of superstition irrelevant forever. When the paradigm shifts everyone returns to the starting line.

My main interest is Evolution as I have yet to find a puzzle that, given time to think, it is unable to answer. I mean this literally.

cool bananas ... greg

[dleviwing]

Imagine starting a sound wave of about 1000 Hz in a cold gas that progressively gets warmer and thus less dense over a distance; this is the same effect caused by expansion on electromagnetic waves. Doppler shift is associated only with velocity of the emitter, collector or both. Let's not confuse the two!

Here is a good QM link for you Greg: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/


PS: I tend to view EM wave as moving through the same quantity of substance /space for any given increment of time; it helps to alleviate the confusion.