Mistakes in Astronomy - Page 5

Pi Man · #**121** (**permalink**) 10-November-2003, 08:09 AM

Ummmm.... the "unobserved dimension" you are speaking of is time. The intrinsic energy you speak of is mass. The reason Einstein used the word "intrinsic" was to show that mass and energy were interchangeable.

Speeding up in our 3 spacial dimensions causes time dilation which is the slowing down in the unobserved (actually, time) dimension you speak of. It slows down in its motion through time just enough to account for it's motion through space.

As for the photon, we observe the photons time dimension as one of our spacial dimensions. As a photon is coming toward us, it percieves us as being in its future, not as "ahead" of it.

So, are you proposing that time dilation causes a loss of energy too, now?

#**122** (**permalink**) 10-November-2003, 04:10 PM

ran out of color for my 14 day cycle code so 11/10 is default
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pipingtech.com/products/
http://www.ideanrobotics.com/science.html
http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRI...&OFFID=se1
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...581352-4932852
==========================================
there are 4 LINK BOXES at the bottom
i've not seen that feature befor except today
how is that accomplished?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
actually i would prefer an explination
if you have time and patiants for such stuff
UP in the BAD BAD sector ? under new topic or LITTLE BOXES

Pi Man · #**123** (**permalink**) 10-November-2003, 06:00 PM

Hi, HUb'

The boxes at the bottom are advertizements provided by Google. Apparently the BA needs to start having a little positive cash flow coming in in order to keep the board running. More about it in this thread.

Pi Man · #**124** (**permalink**) 10-November-2003, 06:27 PM

Hey, Snowflake. You give this point at the beginning of your website:

Quote:

dS/dT = T ( Space changes, therefore time exists)

S = T^2 (The volume of a region of space S varies to the square of the age of the Universe)

You defined:
S=Volume of the universe
T=Time since the BB or beginning of time

Where did you get dS/dT=T. The only explination you give is "( Space changes, therefore time exists)." That does not mean that the change in volume relative to the change in time equals the number of seconds since the big bang.

Then you say that S=T^2. This is incorrect. If dS/dT=T, then the indefinite integral of dS/dT with respect to T is (T^2)/2 because dS/dt(S=(T^2)/2)=T.

I'll have more later, right now, I have to get to class!

snowflakeuniverse · #**125** (**permalink**) 11-November-2003, 05:42 AM

Thanks pi

You are right, the constant term should not have been left out, or a notation should have been included explaining why it was left out. You will find out later in the development of the theory that the 1/2 factor is not needed. I was wondering if anyone would catch me on this, you did.

If the equation were dS/dT= 2T. then the S = T^2 would work. Then people would ask why the 2? The truth is I am not sure what the constant should be for any of the terms. (Although I am beginning to get a good idea for a few, as indicated by the e=mcc section of the paper). It is the dimensional relationships that are important, not the specific constant in front of the terms. When you read ahead you will see that relationships are established that eliminate the need for knowing what the specific constant should be.

Eventually the constant terms will become an important part of the theory in that there is a specific constant necessary to describe different regions of space. One k will describe the expansion of space-time, which establishes the basic pattern succeeding dynamic structures are built upon. Succeeding patterns are built with the same dimensional relationships but on a smaller scale. There is a k associated with the inverse square law for celestial systems, and there is another k associated with electrons around atoms, and there is another k associated within the nucleus.

The stacking of dimensional relationships is part of the reason I call the theory the Snowflake Universe. There is an overriding dynamic structure that successively smaller, and similarly “shaped” dimensional relationships are built upon. All conform to the dimensional relationships necessary for a uniform expansion of space, but at specific scales of observation.

I really appreciate your post. I will add a change to the theory to reflect an issue that in my mind was not important yet others would probably just stop there and say “ theres a mistake” the whole thing is wrong.

Thanks.

snowflake.

You also asked where I got the dS/dT =T relationship. I debated with myself about whether or not I should include the “logic” that went into it’s development. It is kind of metaphysical, so I tend to want to keep it out, but I see from your response, I probably should include this in the theory’s development.

The idea for the basic relationship came with the thought that if nothing changed, there would be no way to measure time. The next idea was that change is not a linear event, but a spatial event. I then stated the relationship in a positive sense, space must change for time to exist, which then translates into the formula dS/dT = T. Space changes, therefore time exists.

Change is a spatial event. If space itself did not allow change to occur within it as a volume, then change would not be uniform. For me to move my hand all around, there must be “room” for me to do so. This means that there must be some kind of expansion of reality to allow change.

Again, thanks

snowflake

Pi Man · #**126** (**permalink**) 11-November-2003, 06:29 PM

I disagree with your dS/dT=T equasion, still. dS/dT (basically, change) implies that time exists, and that the variable T (seconds since the big bang) changes. So, I would state it that dS/dT => T. ("=>" means "implies"). Or, even dS/dT => (upside down backwards capital "e") T. However, that line of reasoning does not imply that dS/dT=T.

Also, if you insist on keeping the same equasion, use dS/dT=kT, where k is some real constant. That way, S=2kT. That implies the fact that you don't actually know k.

Kebsis · #**127** (**permalink**) 12-November-2003, 02:19 AM

Quote:

BTW, I once reasoned out that if one obtained the speed of light, he would have an equal chance of going foreward and backward in time. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Beats me! I forgot a long time ago!

Let me take a stab at figuring out what you were thinking.

Consider the polka-dot balloon analogy often used to describe the universe. Moving away from the center of the balloon would be going forward in time, moving toward the center would bring you back in time, assuming you could outrace light.

I know this doesn't make much sense apon deeper review but its the same logic I once used to reach the same conclusion.

Pi Man · #**128** (**permalink**) 12-November-2003, 03:50 AM

I remember that I went on the assumption that the speed of time was the speed of light (and, if you think about it, it's sortof correct, if considering a body at rest relative to your frame of reference.)

I think that the first thing I thought was that if you go faster than time, and go "ahead of the present" you end up being in the future. After that, I followed the logic of Einstein and proved to myself that if time slows until it gets to 0 at v=c, then it must be negative on the other side, but really, it would be imaginary. I~=I/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). If v>c, v^2/c^2>1 and 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is 1/(some imaginary number).

Gary Redmond · #**129** (**permalink**) 13-November-2003, 10:03 PM

snowflakeuniverse

It seems that you and I are perhaps not on the same chapter, but we certainly are in the same book. You labeled your chapter "Mistakes in Astronomy" I label mine "Errata ?".
Your argument seems to be more about cosmology than astronomy, and the first couple of pages seem to only give two views of the subject. There are those who say the universe is speeding up and those who say it is slowing down.

Of course there is always Newton's first law of motion, the same speed in circles. There is the possibility that all the galaxies in the universe are like a gigantic galaxy of galaxies. I'm not saying that space is curved, but perhaps the parts of it that we can see are moving along curved paths. If that were the case then some of those parts (galaxies) could be moving retrograde to other parts. Those counter rotations could indeed give the appearance of acceleration.
If we look out at a near-by galaxy edge wise, the majority of its stars are rotating in the same general direction so some are red shift and some are blue shift this tells us how fast it rotates thus we calculate its mass.
It is quite understandable to me that some of those stars due to gravitational interactions may be rotating retrograde to the majority. Thus a blue star on the red side or a red star on the blue side could result.

Why should distant galaxies or their supernova be exempt?

The present topic seems to be, if space is expanding does mass lose energy. It seems to me that since in excess of 90% of all mass is space and space is expanding, that if electrons must go farther to stay within their atoms new expanded space, then without an increase of speed there must be some loss of energy/mass.

If a water droplet loses energy it expands into a snowflake, if an atom expands does it lose energy?
Perhaps!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode