OK ... on my way into work today ... listening to baba o'rielly by the who on 104.3 a big ? popped into my mind. Again my wording of these things are not the best so please be patient.


1) Gravity is the curvature of space-time- the way I envision it is that space time gets compressed near a massive object ( I know this will be argued against and I am not sure that we need to argue this here as it is not the main part of the effect that I am going to show. ) If we picture a straight line through space, the line would curve towards a gravity source.

2) lets for a moment picture an anti-gravitational source ( I will remove it in a second but it helps me describe what I am saying ) the straight line would move away from the anti-gravity source.

3) Lets remove the anti-gravity reference and say that the natural curvature of space time is similar to a constant anti-gravitational source at all points that does not have gravity ( there are other ways of looking at this but again this helps me paint the picture that I am trying to paint ). So at all points of gravity a line will be curved towards the gravity source and everywhere else there will be a tendency to curve away from the net of all gravity sources, and at certain points we would be in equilibrium.

4) Now this is where interesting thoughts appear in my mind as the song blasts through the radio :
Teenage wasteland
It's only teenage wasteland
a) Could the curvature of the universe be slightly curved to produce a constant redshift and illusion of constant universal expansion.
b) Could the "normal" state of the universe be slightly different than what we are seeing. this thought is a little difficult to explain but could light have a tendency to go towards 0 energy with 0 amplitude ( I keep getting this term wrong ) and infinite wavelength? Thus when we see the redshift this may be because we are in a unnatural state either from gravity or other forces that cause us to see an illusion of redshifting light? Now what makes us think that this light is redshifted? Is it because close light is more blue? Could the natural state be at red-shift at the edge of our visible universe ... and the only reason that we see the light within our visible universe is because we are in a blueshifted state ? I know this wording sticks but lets discuss.

Also I am equally ballanced between a and b at this point.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

I am impatient, to put it mildly.

You have given us a blizzard of questions over the past few weeks, many of which seem like paraphrases of one another. There is so much clutter that I cannot remember what you said about your background, if any, in basic math and physics. Many of your questions are about things that are at the Ph.D. level of study. My personal experience is that mathematics and physics courses are brutally unforgiving of missed prerequisites.

OK thanks!

But without any detail ... could either A or B be possible? and if so which one would seem more likely.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

A does not match observation and B does not match physics.

Regarding A, how would one go about observing this? And are you referring to that we see the universe as being flat?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Hey, you said no detail!

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Exactly!

Hah ... but I never said that I wouldnt follow up. I just asked for an answer without details ... he gave it ...
and now my follow up is about the details.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Quaternion Physics and Redshift Revealed
Follow Fortis in This Thread.

I will be interested to see what details are posted, and then how you reject, accept or perceive those details! I'll grant you, one thing about your postings Tommac, your determination!
keeps me entertained even if you do loose me most of the time! good luck m8

OK I will give a full read of this before posting anything else.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

OK I read this whole thread. Some of the math went over my head but I get the main idea of what was being said. I think Fortis made some good points and probably won the debate. ( and as a true ATMer myself this is a powerful statement )

However, I am not sure of the exact correlation to that thread with regards to 4a of my proposal.

I guess what I am asking is .... Could the state of the universe be in a constantly expanding state. I think where I am going with in this but am not sure how to work mathmatically is:

In 4 dimensional space-time ( hah ... or 5 dimensional space-time-contraction kind of joking here ) could expansion be constant? Could space be shaped in a way that in a field of low gravity that space time expands. Is a mathmatical solution possible where all points in a 4 dimensional geometry that there is expansion in all directions.

Like the ant on a baloon ... since the outside of the baloon has convex curvature the farther one goes on the baloon the more evident is that the universe is expanding for the ant ( who is used to flat geometry and is now using very high tech devises to measure distances along the surface ).

I do not see the reference to this approach in the thread you posted.

The point is of a convexly ( I am sure this is the wrong terminology but I am meaning that the curvature due to gravity is concave and this expansion is the opposite of the curvature due to gravity ) curved space-time.

I think mathmatically this would be hard to prove, as the expansion of 4d space-time is real in the same way that the curvature of space-time near gravity is real.

If I missed this can you please point me to the exact quote?

Neverly, I read your reference and am asking you politely to not be a wiseguy on your response here. I will read stuff and I am trying to understand but to some extent it is distracting when there are responses that do not have the answer, I would prefer that you not reply if your only reply is to tell me that someone has already answered this question. However if it is with a reference I will read that.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Don't you need to know what the Mainstream is before you can be ATM?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Not if general relativity is correct. Redshifts induced by curvature are gravitational redshifts. We can observe the gravitational redshifts of Sol (i.e., Lopresto, Chapman & Sturgis, 1980), and of Earth (i.e., Cranshaw, Schiffer & Whitehead, 1960), and we can compare the observations with direct calculations from general relativity. Gravitational redshifts are miniscule, except in the close vicinity of a large mass. Cosmological redshifts, on the other hand are huge by comparison, with the largest galaxy or QSO redshifts around 7. A curvature redshift that large would require a gravitational field of truly immense proportion throughout the universe, which would make itself dynamically obvious. There is no such field. Hence, there can be no such curvature redshift.

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

Well it seems to be his habit of not actually answering a question but just posting a wise RTFM remark. He posted for me to read something ... out of respect and desire to learn I read it and I had a question but was worried all I would get is a distracting post telling me that someone has answered me already.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Thanks Tim ... but just one more question about this ... is gravitational redshift small becuase it is created from and near a gravitational source?
What we see from gravitational redshifting is when we are in a gravitational well right? That is not what I am talking about.



What I am suggesting is that it is not us in a gravitational well ... but that the universe is curved in such a way that it has the oposite effect ... This could cause much larger redshifts because of the constant shifting over long distances.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

again ... what 4a states is that there is a 4dimensional curvature such that at all points in space-time there appears to be an expansion.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.againstthemainstream.com/

"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Which has nothing to do with Rule 3 Language. Read it... now.
Rules For Posting To This Board

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov