[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I never do, Greg, but it is a superb explanation.

Thanks for the kind comment Nob. However it is not really that superb. The Higgs Field or Higgs Sea and Dark Energy are also credible explanations for expansion.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I'm thinking of abandoning the attractive factor altogether, focusing more on that shadow gravity effect that Rascal had posted a while back - everything pushing, no such thing as a pull, or the pull is really opposing pushes.

Yes. Rascal's theory is enticing. I have been unable to fault it. My take on Rascals's theory is that everything is expanding. There is no attraction. We only perceive attraction because if we happen to be close enough to a big lump of matter (Earth) then we get stuck to it thru the acceleration of expansion.

I only have one quibble with this. If matter is expanding in proportion along with everything else then at first glance it is undetectable. Our Instruments expand as well. But overall, Mass must be increasing. If you take a 600kg mini-minor and an IVECO Truck at 6000kg and they both have the exact same Power-to-Weight ratio and line them up on a drag strip I still think the mini will be first off the mark because it has less inertial mass. Therefore if the mini expanded to the size of the IVECO, surely we would detect sluggishness as time went on and it continued to expand. I am not too sure of my facts here and so I will give Rascal the benefit of the doubt. LOL

Originally Posted by N0B0DY The other thing is how we can be sure that the mass of the galaxies are actually coming together and not only the radiation of decaying galaxies - if acceleration of energy would result in the same observed gravitational effect as the acceleration of mass?

I think we can be sure that it is the Mass of the galaxies coming together because both Energy and Pressure are negligible contributors to gravity in the presence of Matter. There total contribution is miniscule. However, over vast cosmological distances in space, where there is very little (none ?) matter they are the major contributors. They have enough negative force to drive space apart but not in the presence of matter. It takes an enormous amount of energy to equal a small amount of matter, else the atomic bomb would not have exploded. There are many photos of Galaxies colliding. I think you will find some in the archives of APOD. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Once again Nob, read with caution. Dave's blog on Toronics has a good take on how matter bonds in motion.

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by NotStein As far as exceeding 'C' and allowing forward/backward movement through time, however, haven't scientists recently been able to actually kick particles forward in time (they exit the apparatus before entering)? I could have swore I read this in a major publication, but haven't had success Googling it.

Jeff ... I think you may be referring to the 'Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment'. If this is so then you can easily look it up under that title in google. However, before I could understand it I first had to teach myself Bell's Theorem. Not any easy task for me. Wish you luck and if you pursue it I can help.

Originally Posted by NotStein Two points we might explore further from the great feedback 'yall have posted: 1) You state in your 2nd post "Current speculation is that our cosmic horizon is considered a grain of sand within our Universe." If so, doesn't this account for the "missing matter" in the Universe? Won't most matter in the Universe reside beyond our event horizon? If so, couldn't the ratio of the amount of matter we can see vs. the amount their 'should be' tell us just how much of the universe resides beyond our event horizon?

No, not in this case. The missing matter refers to the spiral arms of galaxies and their behaviour. Our planets revolve around our Sun and this can be accounted for by the laws of gravity.

When we come to galaxies however, the spiral arms are not behaving as they should. According to the laws of gravity they do not have enough gravity (only 5% I think) of what they need to revolve around the centre at their current speed and not be flung off or wound around like spaghetti on a fork. Where is the extra gravity coming from. Speculation is that this is Dark (unseeable) matter.

The reference to the cosmic horizon is thart all the light we can ever see is (whhooops Tanker just arrived gotta go.. back tomorrow ... sorry Jeff)

cool bananas ... greg

[dleviwing]

Hi Jeff;
If you read my blog (Toronics) you may be able to clear away more of the bizarre interpretations of the mathematical anomalies than you have already. The key to understanding the true laws of physics is to understand motion and its effect on the stuff of the universe. The basic thing to remember is that there are no exceptions to the true laws; if the universe expanded faster than light at the big bang event, then “c” is not the ultimate speed; it is only the maximum speed we can measure with at this time. It is the MEASUREMENT of the speed of light that’s constant; not the actual speed.

BTW: The speed of a reflected wave front is 1.72c at the moment of incidence.

[N0B0DY]

NotStein,

I was looking more for zero density, absolute speed, or something along the lines of a greater factor of 3 due to the 3 dimensions.

Greg,

I equate matter and antimatter with kinetic energy, and I equate energy with space. Where space expanding at superluminal velocities creates "photons" and photonic collisions create matter and antimatter - the energy transfers of which create time. The red/blueshifting wouldn't be due to only spatial expansion because space and matter have to expand proprtionately.

Also I think that the power, in your scenario, would increase proportionate to the weight increase - more mass and more power to move it.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I equate matter and antimatter with kinetic energy, and I equate energy with space. Where space expanding at superluminal velocities creates "photons" and photonic collisions create matter and antimatter - the energy transfers of which create time. The red/blueshifting wouldn't be due to only spatial expansion because space and matter have to expand proprtionately. Also I think that the power, in your scenario, would increase proportionate to the weight increase - more mass and more power to move it.

Nob ... Your first paragraph ...Interesting ... I have to think about it.

Your second paragraph. If you accept that space and matter expand proportionatly, then you are in agreement with Rascal. I am ambivalent about this, actually, I am unsure.

As you state the power would increase proportionatly. But this does not solve the problem.

Example:

Lets take a mini-minor with mass of 500kg and power of 500kw now we have a power to weight ratio of 1:1 (1 kilowatt to 1 kilogram) (This is going to be a very very fast mini )

Now lets take an Iveco with a mass of 5000kg and power of 5000Kw. This also gives us a power to weight ratio of 1:1 (1 kilowatt to 1 kilogram) (This is going to be a very very fast Iveco )

Now their Power and their weight are in proportion, just as if the mini had expanded to 5000kg. This is just as you have stated.

But if we line them up on the drag strip the mini will still forge ahead of the Truck because it has less inertial mass to overcome. This is not scalable. Higgs field, or whatever you accept as providing opposition to acceleration, provides less resistance to 500kg than it does to 5000kg.

This is where I have the quibble with Rascal's theory. Even if everything increases in scale, greater mass will eventually behave differently to lesser mass. ?? This is why I think only space is expanding, not matter ?

Another example would be that it is much easier to swing your arm thru the air than your leg. But proportionatly they have around the same power (muscle) to weight (mass) ratio

I am by no means sure if I am right.

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by NotStein 1) You state in your 2nd post "Current speculation is that our cosmic horizon is considered a grain of sand within our Universe." If so, doesn't this account for the "missing matter" in the Universe? Won't most matter in the Universe reside beyond our event horizon? If so, couldn't the ratio of the amount of matter we can see vs. the amount their 'should be' tell us just how much of the universe resides beyond our event horizon?

The reference to the cosmic horizon is that all the light we can ever see is (whhooops Tanker just arrived gotta go.. back tomorrow ... sorry Jeff)

Back again. Jeff, the cosmic horizon is the boundary where matter on the other side is being pushed away by the expansion of space at a speed greater than light. Therefore we can never communicate, reach, view anything outside this boundary.

Anything on this side of the boundary will eventually reach us through telescopes etc. The speed of light is not being broken here, only space is expanding, matter is not accelerating away.

Probably a bit confusing if your new to it but you can read up on it in the Wiki, etc. Imagine if you were in an immense auditorium or stadium and it is pitch black. Now the laws of physics inside this stadium are such that light cannot extend beyond one meter. You are stuck in one spot and you cannot move. The most you can ever see is one meter around you, this is your cosmic horizon

This is sometimes referred to as the “observable universe”, and it has been said that the observable universe is many orders of magnitude smaller than the greater universe that lies beyond the limits of our perception. Imagine if you will, that the entire cosmological horizon were reduced down to the size of a quarter. If Alan Guth's inflationary model of early era cosmology is correct, the universe that lies beyond this “quarter-sized” horizon would conservatively be as large as the earth itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

I think I understand the scenario better now, Greg, but not sure about the conclusion.

There is more space than matter expanding, alot of expanding space within matter to keep everything proportionate, and the, as you mentioned before, "cumulative," acceleration increases the mass and power exponentially - P = mad/t. The greater amount of negative energy within matter, overcomes gravity by a factor of 3 I think. The more mass, the more gravity, but also the much more expanding space.

This is only my interpretation of what I understand of Rascal's theory. As far as I can tell, it is identical to there being no acceleration whatsoever, like you also mentioned before, there is no change. This latter motionless concept is what my theory is based on, but I don't think you want to go there.

[Graybeard]

Actually I can see that Rascal's 'forever expanding' Universe is perfectly consistent with 'No Motion' as remarked in your last post.

To be honest, I have only glanced into the thread TON casually from time to time. Usually there are so many people in there arguing and shouting that I gave up any idea of joining that thread. LLoyd, Rascal, Michael and a few others can make an awful racket when they get together. LOL.

There was a period where you and Fredrick (I think) continued to carry on an uninterrupted dialogue while everybody was raging around the both of you. I found it really funny, especially as neither of you acknowledged their presence, just carried on regardless.

I will check and see if you have your theory on your blog. I don't really have a theory but I don't mind reading others. I am not totally au fait with your ideas, perhaps that is why we are a bit out of sync.

cool bananas ... greg

[N0B0DY]

Greg,

I don't have a blog or book or site or even what can be called a normal theory. It is a statement that somewhat correlates with Zeno's concept of motionlessness, but is absolute rather than infinite.

Rascal's forever expanding universe implies eternal motion - time, like Zeno's paradox, but absolute motionlessness is clearly just that - timeless. There is a fine line between the two, and both are commonly equated, but when pertaining to First Philosophy - as in this thread of timelessness - there are infinitely different.

It is also based on substance and void, and how they can be equated at the absolute level. You, Rascal, NotStein, Lloyd, Dave et al. seem to lean more to the logical, whereas the absolute is the point where logic ceases. So, again, it's not everyone's empty cup of tea.

I was attracted to this thread, among others, because I correlate consciousness with time and unconsciousness with no time and look for different ways to express how they are linked. It seems as though NotStein has retracted his initial statements, though.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY It is a statement that somewhat correlates with Zeno's concept of motionlessness, but is absolute rather than infinite.

I don't think that Zeno's paradoxes are really paradoxes. Its just that the Greeks had not discovered long division ?? Don't you agree ??

Originally Posted by N0B0DY You, Rascal, NotStein, Lloyd, Dave et al. seem to lean more to the logical, whereas the absolute is the point where logic ceases. So, again, it's not everyone's empty cup of tea.

Whenever you guys start arguing about the Absolute or the Fundamental Substance I get left behind.

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I was attracted to this thread, among others, because I correlate consciousness with time and unconsciousness with no time and look for different ways to express how they are linked. It seems as though NotStein has retracted his initial statements, though.

I agree that there is 'philosophical' correlation between Consciousness and Time. But unless you accept time as a total human perception I can't see any logical theory for this ?

cool bananas ... greg

PS: Nob, perhaps if you stated how you see the transition from one moment to the next it would become clearer to me.

ie:
Do you think 'time' is the perception of a change in entropy ?
Do you think 'time' is simply a quantum probability. When you leave home for work you kiss your wife goodbye. When you return you presume that it is the same wife you greet, but she is actually a version of your wife with one hair less on her head. ?

This of course is a high probability because there would be millions of billions of versions of your wife where you could not define a difference. Where as a Tyranosauraus Rex appearing in your kitchen to greet you when you got home would be a humungous improbability. And so this outcome only happens once in an eternity, as opposed to an indistinguishable version of you wife happening every day. (multiverse) (parallell universe) ?

Do you think time is a transition/measure of the 'Planck time' ?

cool bananas ... greg