1

New Theories / Re: I Know How Big The Universe Is! It Is Simply The Speed Of Light.

« on: 16/03/2016 22:56:34 »

LesleySchultze, that is a lot of heavy duty deep thinking you engage in. 
All I can say to all of that is that theoretically, the Alcubierre warp drive traps your local spacetime within the bubble.  So time inside the warp bubble runs at the same rate as the origin. So if you initialised this bubble here and then travelled at whatever speed, you would age at the same time as Earth no matter your bubble's speed of travel. 
Anyway that is the way I understand it. 
Your thinking sounds like a lot of fun though..

2

Just Chat! / Re: For space flow

« on: 05/02/2016 11:21:36 »

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
OK I admit defeat. You sir have an impregnable force field against facts, logic and common sense.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is black-holes preventing our "bubble" from POPPING?

« on: 04/02/2016 07:29:35 »

All too complicated. It appears to be a long standing human habit. When we don't understand something we make as complicated a story as possible about what might be. Whether it's religion or science the pattern is the same.
Quantum Physics leeds us to a singularity of infinite Mass and no Space.
General Relativity, dealing with Gravitationally Curved Static Spacetime, dumps us at the Event Horizon, with no further hints to an explanation.
Nature on the other hand tends to prove time and again that it likes the simpler paths.
So how about we face these Black Stars from basic principles.
One interpretation of General Relativity does give us an insight. That is "Space Flow" Theory. It removes the totally unjustified restriction so far put on Spacetime to be a static set of coordinates and in the process creates a better fit for all available data.

We have some very good theories backed up by observation of the way Matter behaves as pressure increases.
We can pack just under 1.4 Solar masses into a small space and have it get no smaller, as the strength of the EM field maintains a certain amount of space between a nucleus and it's associated electron/s. (Electron Degeneracy Pressure)
When that compact mass reaches 1.4 Solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit), the inward pressure overcomes the Electro Magnetic force's ability to maintain that spacing and forces the electrons to recombine with the protons in the nucleus, forming just Neutrons.
Spacetime very rapidly crushes in till the whole thing gets compressed further until it tries to compress the Neutrons. We now have a neutron star. Tremendous pressure inwards being held at bay by Neutron Degeneracy Pressure. In other words by the Neutron's need of personal space. The radius of the Neutron star is not very much greater than that Star’s Event Horizon
If the mass is or builds to a couple of solar masses, the inward pressure becomes so massive that the "Pauli Exclusion Principle", the requirement by every Neutron to maintain a certain amount of personal space, is overcome.
Neutrons in giving up this space can no longer exist as Neutrons.
A Black Hole is born.
Now we can't see anything. An event horizon is thus formed for all Electromagnetic radiation.
The equations without any knowledge to mediate them will of course run to infinity leaving us with an incomprehensible singularity.
Now the obvious logical question seems to me:
Why can't a Black Hole be a Quark compact Mass?
So let's look at the pattern of behaviour developed above.
We overcame Electron Degeneracy Pressure, to come up against Neutron Degeneracy Pressure. We overcame Neutron Degeneracy Pressure, and even though we now can't see the result, why shouldn't we follow the pattern to it's next logical stage and stop further collapse when we hit Quark soup.
After all a Neutron was not a fundamental particle. The 3 Quarks in each Neutron are the Fundamental Particles.
All 3 forces are a part of Quarks and their heavier cousins. Just because they are inside their event horizon, is no reason to believe that all the forces concentrated within elemental particles, (Matter/Energy) are not an equal match with anything Spacetime could give. I not for an instant can bring myself to believe matter/energy can be pushed into a singularity.
An Event Horizon does not have to be an arbitrary point in space around a singularity.
It can be an actual surface of a body made entirely of Quarks, rapidly spinning and so compacted that Electromagnetic Radiation (If Quarks alone produce any) can't leave the surface.
Movement is Temperature, and no Matter can reach absolute zero.
All and any movement by Matter uses up space, even the vibration of a Quark. That space must be replaced for the Quark to keep vibrating.
In a Black Hole we therefore have a balance between Quarks demand for more space, and Space's flow and compression (density) limits. This balance point is what we see as an Event Horizon. The point in space that represents the maximum compression (density) and Flow rate of Spacetime, at any one moment. And also the Quark surface of the Black Hole.
We can't see it by Electromagnetic Radiation, but it is wrong to say No Information leave's a Black Hole. By the amount of demand on Space it is telling us exactly how much Mass it represents.
That is information from the other side of the Event Horizon.
If we were to believe the Quantum point of view and have everything at a point in the centre, then we don't only have to deal with infinity, but with different Black Holes, we would have different infinities.
How ridiculous is that?
In the absence of observational and experimental data, all hypothesis have to carry the same weight.
But. Occam's Razor states...
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Which has a stronger gravitational force, a red giant or a neutron star?

« on: 31/01/2016 22:18:44 »

The simple answer is that Gravity is defined by the amount of mass within a given radius.

It doesn't matter what form that mass takes within the specified radius. Gravity doesn't care how compact or diffuse that mass arranges itself in or even how many separate bodies go to making up the total mass inside the specified radius. Just the total amount of mass enclosed.

So as presented your question has no way to an answer as the right data is not provided.

You need a figure for Mass and a figure for radius or you can not ask the question; "How much gravity"

That should also answer the second part of your question as to how a Neutron star can have a higher gravity than a more massive Red Giant.
It is all about Mass inside a radius.
By packing more Mass inside a smaller radius you end up with a higher surface gravity.
Just remember Mass and Radius.

5

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Re: Is my niece/nephew a closer blood relation to me than my male/female cousin?

« on: 25/01/2016 22:19:38 »

This is one tough question.
The answer is that you are a closer blood relative to a niece/nephew than to a first cousin.
Why?
A niece/nephew is the product of a sibling. As such he/she would share the genes of both your parents plus one other (your siblings spouse).
Where a first cousin is the product of the sibling of only one of your parents and one other (the spouse of your one parents sibling).

Clearer if we reverse it and look at it from the niece/nephew's point of view.
You as the auntie are closer genetically than the first cousin you are going to produce for that niece/nephew by diluting the blood line with your unrelated spouse.

6

General Science / Re: How can you step outside the ISS at 18000 mph?

« on: 18/01/2016 00:11:44 »

I understand outside the ISS I will be stationary relative to it. Can I just clarify that, floating outside the ISS, I AM also traveling at 18000mph as is the ISS?

Exactly.
While outside and if not attached you and the ISS can be considered as two separate satellites having the exact same orbital characteristics.
You do have to be careful of space junk with different relative velocities to yourself though.
I believe there's a lot out there and the ISS regularly gets it's outer skin punctured. The forward facing part of the ISS has been designed to absorb most of those punctures without affecting the inside.
A spacesuit offers no such protection.

7

General Science / Re: How can you step outside the ISS at 18000 mph?

« on: 17/01/2016 04:17:50 »

But ... the ISS is being propelled along at 18000mph. You step outside, what is propelling you along?

The ISS is not being propelled along at all unless it is in the middle of making an orbital adjustment, which is the only times it is under any acceleration. The rest of the time there is no force acting on it. It is what is called Geodesic. It will continue being Geodesic and as such in free fall and so will you whether you are floating on the inside of it's walls or the outside. The station and you are at rest relative to each other. You are both following a Geodesic that has the same angular momentum.
It would take an input of energy to change the parameters of that Geodesic for either the ISS or you or both.

Stepping out of a train at 100 mph, you immediately encounter an atmosphere that is not moving with you or the train. Your 100 miles an hour even without that atmosphere, is not even a very small fraction of the speed you would have to have to maintain your height above the ground, so your Geodesic intersects the ground not far from your stepping out point. The Ground from your and the trains perspective is traveling at 100 mph towards the back of the train. The combination of all those things leeds me to suggest that you should not step our of this train, and although outside the ISS is not the safest situation to be in, it is many orders of magnitude safer than stepping off a moving train.

Hope that helps.

8

New Theories / Re: I Know How Big The Universe Is! It Is Simply The Speed Of Light.

« on: 17/01/2016 02:46:57 »

Lesley, Any answers or explanations I have previously given you before this all reflected the accepted views of our commonly accepted Universal models.
However, the questions you are asking in your last post, are the same questions that all of science is currently struggling with. As such there is no clear consensus on the appropriate answers.
As you rightly pointed out that is part of the motivation for these very forums. Where there is doubt, there is a door open for ideas of all sorts.
There is a huge variety of conflicting answers to choose from. However I can only give you mine.

1: If space, dark matter and so on is being created in the voids, what is it being created out of?
You cannot get something from nothing after all - and how can this force of nothing push the universe apart? 

First we have to differentiate between "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy".
Dark Matter if it exists at all, would be part of the Matter/Energy budget of the Universe and as such would be a conserved quality. It could neither be made or destroyed. You can not get something from nothing as you say.

On the other hand, what is referred to as "Dark Energy" is the creation of more nothing that stands in-between the somethings.
It is more Timespace. And is simply a geometric result of the passage of time.
When the Universe was young, not much time existed, so Time and Space being one and the same thing, we can rightfully say that the Universe was smaller. As more Time passes, so there has to correspondingly be more Space again because they are one and the same thing, so the Universe is growing bigger. It is simply the geometry that the arrow of time dictates.
The more Time that passes the more Space there has to be. It can not be otherwise.
So where time is running faster, (the Voids) Space is correspondingly being created faster.

2: If space time is simply the flow towards gravity and matter, where does this go, and come from? And is it consumed, transferred or recycled into new space time or what?

Again there is no scientific consensus on any of this, so I can only answer it in my own view.
The answer that I would give is far too long to put down here so here is a link to it;
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65064.75

3: If the universe is expanding only in matter free areas such as the voids between galaxy's, and the areas with gravity and matter are virtually unaffected, do we end up with an increasingly spread out universe? If so eventually it will be a cold and empty place, all matter in the universe will be evenly distributed?
My thoughts on this are that everything in nature, (that I have observed) is looking for balance, (osmosis, electrical discharge, nuclear reactions ending in noble gas or lead for example, oxidation of metals, burning of fuels and so on all bring you closer to being inert) these are all examples of things that are non reactive and basically do nothing in the known world, I assume all matter will eventually reach this point.

So, is the expansion simply the universe trying to balance the equation perhaps?

One of the common scientific views is exactly what you say. However, there has been and continues to be studies that are 3D mapping our observable Universe and they are painting a different picture entirely.
Yes the average density of the Universe always has been and continues to go down. The mathematics of that can not be denied. Matter is conserved so the amount remains the same. Time is not conserved as it continually moves forward. So for every moment that passes anywhere and however you wish to measure it, there is correspondingly more Space then there was before. Simple math, same amount of Matter, in more Space, "Average" density has to go down.
The important factor in that equation is the word "average".
What observation is showing us is that places of Matter are in fact getting denser. Places of no matter (Voids) are in fact getting less dense. So average is not a good representation of reality. Check this bit of mapping out;
https://www.facebook.com/595088680534432/photos/a.999377016772261.1073741826.595088680534432/999376806772282/?type=3&theater

Lastly, is the universe actually expanding in all directions at the same time, as I have read some posts that say it may not be, if so we really have no clue whats going on, unless we are simply moving through an infinite space forever aimlessly.

Either war, I am assured that I no longer am a factor in the grand scheme of things, (thinking VERY big here) so we may never be able to figure this one out in my lifetime.

I do agree that if you have more gravity and so as a rule more matter time will run slower.
I agree that light moves at a constant speed, the only variation being the wavelength.

Given the 2 points above, how does a black hole suck light in / prevent it from escaping the gravity, please clarify as in my mind this means the light either moves so slowly we cannot see it, remains static forever or moves backwards relevant to our space time, but at light speed in its own space time 'bubble' .

With this in mind, is gravity a brake to space times expansion?

I'm hoping that the link I posted to "Space Flow Theory" above has given you one way that your questions may be answered. Is it the real way things work? That I can't answer. There are many other Hypotheses and theories. That one is my own. Make of it what you will.

Personal thought, the big bang is not possible as the universe would all be sourced from a central point, so will all be moving from that location, (explosion happens, stuff moves away from that point) and as this is not the case the words 'big bang' may need to be revised to 'the event' to avoid confusion.

You are making an anthropomorphically common mistake of taking the words "Big Bang" and visualising an explosion. The "Big Bang" if it is a real representation of what happened was and is a lot more subtle than that.
For a start, the view that is sometimes put forward of a singularity, is a mathematical one, but is not and never can be a scientific one. Science just by the principles it operates and defines itself, can never have anything to say about any question that tries to address a concept of before time. Such things belong in other human fields of understanding.
Science therefore starts it's description of the Universe after the first moment of time has happened. Planck time 1.
At this point, every fundamental particle that exists in all the Universe, already has one unit of Space separating it from every other fundamental particle. The Universe when science can start to describe it is already "HUGE".
So from this planck moment 1 start, we move to planck time 2. There are now 2 planck units of Space separating every fundamental particle from every other. Planck moment 100, there are now 100 planck units of Space separating every Fundamental particle from every other. All of this is making more space that these particles can vibrate, rotate, move in. we are describing an animated rapidly expanding Universe. No particle has actually had to move away from where science found it at that first instance of existence, yet for every tick of every clock that can exist, there is the equivalent of that much more space separating one from the rest.
Every particle remains in the centre for ever. No matter how much the Universal expansion separates them all.
Therefore everywhere was is and always will be the centre of the Universe. Of course if that was all there was to it then we would not have the complex Universe we have now. It would just be a homogeneous soup of Fundamental particles with ever more space between them.
Fundamental particles though have some other features. They come into play when enough space comes into existence. They are the carriers of Force. A force that has different manifestations, that are very Space dependent. They first split this Force into the "Strong" and "Electroweak" Force, at the point that enough space has become available through the passage of enough time, for structure to appear in the form of "Neutrons".
From that point enough time has to pass to create enough Space so that the "Electroweak" force can be further split into the "Electromagnetic" and the "Weak" forces. This happens when the Space is available for an Electron to be separated from the Neutron dividing it into that electron, a Neutrino, and the remainder of the Neutron, Now a charged particle called a Proton. To give you an idea of the proportions involved, if this proton was the size of a pea, there would have to exist a football field's worth of space for this division to happen.
All this activity sets up anisotropies in the distribution of matter. We no longer have the even distribution we started with. The initial release of electrons forming the first Atoms doesn't last as the pressures and temperatures of this dense environment ionises everything. They don't get to recombine again for 380,000 years by our reckoning of time.
I notice I've run off on a tangent from your question so I should stop now.

Hope that helps...

9

New Theories / Re: Theory for planetary origin .. supplemental to Nebular Hypothesis

« on: 14/01/2016 03:04:29 »

You have to play with us for a while to get the privilege of posting links..

I suggest the Waterfall Nebula image shows the creation of planet/moon size globs of water which are then ejected into space by the pulsing red star at bottom right.  I think those globs under their own gravity become spheres which as their plasma envelope subsides are enclosed in an ice shell. I suggest phase transition, then biological processes, then geological processes create worlds and moons as we know them today. 

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1110/waterfall2_kpno_900.jpg

For those who say water cannot exist in space:  a new discovery finds a huge cloud of water vapour around a Black Hole. 

http://www.space.com/12400-universe-biggest-oldest-cloud-water.html

Hope that helps

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could be black holes source of a dark energy?

« on: 13/01/2016 07:50:49 »

Welcome to the forum.

Black holes consume a lot of matter and energy, but where does it go?

This answer is to say the least a bit obvious but where does it go? To the other side of the event horizon.
It makes the event horizon proportionately bigger and it also makes anything orbiting at a certain radius go around that little bit quicker.

Is it possible that a black hole generates somehow a dark energy and distributes it around itself?
If this is the case would we be able to detect faster space expansion around these black holes?

Our current understanding which stems from observational data, describes the exact opposite scenario to the one in your hypothesis. No Universal expansion at all can be measured within a gravitationally bound system. That translates to all the expansion happening where there is very little matter density.

The Voids between matter are getting bigger and they are getting bigger at an accelerating rate.

11

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?

« on: 05/01/2016 03:56:27 »

I like the way you approach issues like "low pressure area".  I agree, and wonder if there may be weather-like phenomena, due to the fluid dynamics of spacetime.  Are there phenomena that are roughly equivalent to 'hydrophobic' or 'hydrophilic'?  Etc. 

Like Douglas Adam once said: "eddies in the spacetime continuum"!

Matt, I am still pinching myself. In the years that I have been making a nuisance of myself by badgering family, friends, workmates, and acquaintances, with this concept, to finally find someone who not only get's it but then immediately  applies it as a thought experiment to come up with almost exactly what has gone through my own head.
Absolutely mind blown.
It has been my assertion for a long time now that to properly model flows, currents, eddies, etc in spacetime, we already have super computers, running the right software. Those are the systems we currently use to model the atmosphere for weather forecasting.

As to your speculation on Hydrophobic qualities, about this time last year I spent a bit of time thinking about that. I came to the obvious conclusion that applied to spacetime that would ascribe "Anti-gravitational" qualities to anything that could display hydrophobic like behavior to ST. I therefore dismissed the idea that such a substance could exist.
However at that time it sent my thought onto an idea about anti-gravity. This idea should be very close to your initial thinking on spacetime as well as my extended flow theory. It relies on GR Frame Dragging coupled with our idea that spacetime can have movement relative to spacetime.
Spacetime as far as we know so far can only be manipulated in any way by matter. The way that matter moves dictates the way that spacetime moves and vice versa. So I thought what if we set up relativistic Gyroscopically moving superconducting plasma. We set this plasma spinning with the spin access horizontal to a massive compact objects spacetime flow, and we set up a number of these devices so the plasma going upwards is facing the inside of a ring formed by these devices. That should create a spacetime flow through the agency of Frame Dragging in the centre of such a ring flowing upwards from your compact Massive object. If you then stacked a couple of these rings on top of each other you could in theory fall off this massive body just by stepping into the ring, with absolutely no acceleration. Of course such a device can't be used on a body that has an atmosphere as you would just pump it out into space.
I don't know if I painted that picture coherently enough for you to visualise it. If not I suppose I will have to draw it.
Such a thing could of course work both ways and give a smaller mass traction on spacetime itself, just like wheels give cars traction on the ground. The only requirement is electricity.
Don't take this too seriously of course but there have been some experiments with gyroscopic devices that have allegedly shown differences in weight dependant on orientation. I don't think any of those claims have been officially confirmed, but allowing spacetime movement coupled with manipulation through frame-dragging could certainly make it possible.
All that from considering impossible seeming hydrophobic-like behavior of spacetime.

As to Hydrophilic-like behavior; Perhaps I should be asking you about that. How would you describe the interaction layers of differently (Speed wise) rotating layers within a Galaxy? There would surely have to be interface regions where strange mixing patterns would occur. Which leads me on to your Douglas Adam reference to eddies. These can and do exist all around us. We don't have to go very far to closely analyze them, and in fact we are making extensive use of such eddies at the moment. That is what La Grange points are. The differences in shape between them can best be explained hydrodynamicaly, when considering them as interfaces between the moving frame-dragged vortices that represents the planetary flows interfacing with the frame-dragged Solar flow.
If we also take the obvious different flow rates of spacetime in a galactic disk as a model and apply it at solar system level, "yes" the effect may be extremely small but it may be enough to explain part of the Pioneer anomaly, and the extra speed gained by several craft on gravity assists past the Earth. They have accounted for everything they can think of under current understanding of physics and still end up with a small extra speed component that remains unaccounted for. Could it be a difference in spacetime flow compared to ambient spacetime? Eddies caused by the Earths passing? Apparently it only shows up on certain approach angles.
Could this turn into a modelled prediction of SpaceFlow that can't be made by curvature theory?
Just speculation.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens to light as universe expansion slows down?

« on: 03/01/2016 05:25:19 »

Is everything in the universe moving away from the big bang in relatively straight waves?

Harri I have never come across any reference to a wave nature to expansion.
In fact The universe in every direction we look on the largest scales appears totally flat. The only deviation from that flatness attributable to the vicinity of matter.
There are speculations that the expansion rate has gone through a couple of changes in 13.8 Billion years. Exponentially fast at the beginning, (Inflation)
Steady expansion for about 7 Billion years,
Accelerated expansion for the last 7 billion or so years.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of those speculations but if they are true that could be seen "maybe" as a 7 billion light year wavelength?
Maybe a bit of a stretch?

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens to light as universe expansion slows down?

« on: 02/01/2016 11:36:59 »

To pedal a bicycle faster we have to use up more energy. The energy must be there in the first place to be used. It just means the bicycle will come to a standstill earlier than if we hadn't increased the acceleration.
Can't the universe just be utilising energy what is already there/here?

Harri, there is certainly nothing wrong with your logic.
apart from the fact that your logic and everyone else's at the moment does not match observations.
The main problem arrises out of the fact that the Universe is supposed to be everything that is.
Yet the part of the Universe represented by spacetime is continually getting larger at an accelerating rate.
There is no energy that we can account for anywhere inside the Universe to power this.
Yet there is no outside of the Universe. It is giving a lot of our heaviest thinkers a continuous headache.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are these the 8 reasons why people from the future have not come back in time ?

« on: 01/01/2016 02:48:50 »

Can you think of a 9th reason.

They created time travel lots of different times in the future, but no one ever got back to tell them it worked.
even if you go back to yesterday you would find yourself in empty space as yesterday the Earth was in a different set of cosmic coordinates than it is today. Even if they tried to return within one second of arriving in the past, by the time you account for all the relative movements through space, that is exactly what would meet them. This planet when all is said and done has a phenomenal combined orbital speed around the "Great Attractor".

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are these the TWO main reasons why we cannot build a man made neutron star ?

« on: 01/01/2016 02:30:17 »

For neutrons to be stable they need to be in a minimum spherical mass of around 0.09 solar masses.

Good question.
Gravity needs to be acting on 1.4 solar masses of confined matter to keep neutrons from decaying into atoms.
A neutron on your lab bench is an unstable particle. If left alone it would decay into a proton an electron and a neutrino with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes.
So you are limited in the time available for your neutron generator to produce the equivalent of 1.4 Solar masses worth of neutrons.
You may be able to achieve it if you can keep the time down to about 1 to 1.5 minutes per 1.4 Solar masses.
If you can do that then the Gravitational pressure would make sure that your Neutrons did not have the space to decay into and you would have your Neutron star.
This by the way is an amazing neutron generator. What are you using to feed it as raw material?
I suppose if you could somehow quickly funnel a large molecular cloud into it's intake....
I want to see this machine..

If we could make a 0.09 mass of neutron star material we could just park it next to a star, and the neutron star would attract the material from it with gravity, and add the material to its own mass to increase in size, and collapse into a black hole.

O.09the mass of a Neutron star partly because of the decay reasons above and partly because of the Electromagnetic forces that come into being when a Neutron decays into a Hydrogen atom, would within about 10 to 15 minutes of being made, turn into a rapidly expanding Hydrogen cloud.
The rapidity of the expansion would probably be strong enough to blow the outer layers of the companion star that was going to play the part of mass donor.

Are there any other reasons stopping this from working.

Probably..

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens to light as universe expansion slows down?

« on: 30/12/2015 20:10:20 »

Acceleration? Is the universe accelerating away from the point of the big bang? Are there any theories I might understand to explain this acceleration?

Harri, unfortunately it classifies as one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of the Universe.
There are some hypothesis popping up, but the truth is, we don't know why or how this is happening. Hence the placeholder name "Dark Energy" for the cause of this. "Dark" because we don't have a clue and "Energy" because work appears to be done in accelerating expansion.
I think one of the current most popular hypothesis, is that somehow vacuum energy is involved. We are observing the continuous creation of more and more spacetime at a current calculated rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kms per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years).
If current theories are correct and spacetime contains this vacuum energy, then the vacuum energy of the Universe is continually increasing.
I at one stage a couple of months ago, had the opportunity to ask Brian Schmidt, why this does not constitute a violation of conservation laws. The answer left me not been able to formulate any further question on the subject.

Brian Schmidt;  There are no conservation laws that apply to Spacetime. If there were such laws you would be right and the accelerated expansion would be violating them. But they do not exist.

I mean what do you say to that?
Convenient??

There is a ton of material on the subject both on uTube and elsewhere on the Net. Unfortunately at this stage it is all conjecture. There is nothing I can recommend as an avenue to real understanding.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens to light as universe expansion slows down?

« on: 30/12/2015 04:38:12 »

The speed of Universal Expansion is not only not slowing down, it is in fact accelerating in it's expansion.
That is the reason we have a placeholder name "Dark Energy" in our modern scientific vocabulary.
We do not understand what the cause of this acceleration is but acceleration is what observational evidence seems to be showing us.
We were all expecting it to be slowing down.

In 1995,Brian Schmidt led the High-Z Supernova Search Team from Australia to measure the expected deceleration of the universe using distances to Type Ia supernovae and in 1998 in the HZT paper, the first evidence was presented that the universe's expansion rate is not decelerating; it is accelerating.

The discovery of the accelerating universe was named 'Breakthrough of the Year' by Science in 1998, and Schmidt was jointly awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics along with Reiss and Perlmutter for their groundbreaking work.

The speed of light under any circumstances whatsoever can never be seen to be anything other than the speed of light.
It is a constant.
The frequency of light is affected by a variety of things including Universal Expansion, but the Speed of light remains constant for all observers all of the time.

Hope that helps..

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: QotW - 15.08.18 - Where are we within the universe?

« on: 24/12/2015 22:26:55 »

Ron, Any analogy can only carry an explanation so far. In the Balloon analogy the Balloon surface represents everything that is, was and ever will be.
You have to imagine the balloon doing something that balloons can't.
That is see the deflated balloon as all the surface shrinking evenly and maintaining it's shape as it is deflated. Rather than the limp wobbly thing that it does look like deflated.

So with that in mind, when it is totally deflated all the dots on it's surface are touching each other.
If we say the dots are elemental particles rather than the normal galaxies, we have the start of spacetime. The instant the first bit of air goes in, and the dots (our fundamental particles) have their first separation from each other.
None of them need to physically move from where they are.
The surface is a representation of the Universe's timeline. As it expands, it leaves the past behind. an observer can look into the centre of the balloon and see the past, but that same observer can only move in one direction in time. The expanding surface does not represent movement away from the physical centre of the Universe for any particle. Only movement in time. The extra space growing between the dots is a byproduct of "Time also being Space".

Another way that the balloon analogy fails is that we are considering the surface and the dots we see on it. We are therefore assuming a reference frame outside the Universe.
In reality there is no such reference frame. There is no outside the Universe.
In reality this surface is the Universe's timeline and not ours.
From the reference frame of any one of the dots, that view of the other dots is not available. No dot can look across the surface of the balloon. Because of the limited speed of light, the only direction viewable is towards the interior. (The past) Every dot can see where part of the surface of the balloon analogy was when the Universe was younger, but nothing can see the present in the present. Not even you reading this screen.

You see Ron, it is my opinion that because of our nature,(developed through evolving and surviving on the surface of a planet) we tend to think in material things, separated by Space. We have come to know that Time and Space are the same thing, but the Human mind tends to attach Time to Space as an add on and then promptly ignore it.
This very Human way of thinking leaves us asking questions like where does the Energy come from for this continuous Spacial Accelerated Expansion. We come up with misleading concepts like Dark Energy, because we can not see how more and more Space is always coming into existence. We ignore the Time component because we view it as an add on to Space. You will hardly ever see anyone referring to it as Timespace. Only as Spacetime. It's a subtle thing but it is important in that it directs our enormous imaginative and creative powers towards half the picture.

We are made of Timespace; with a sprinkling of Stardust..

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can space-time be detected?

« on: 21/12/2015 03:17:20 »

Can Spacetime be detected?

Yes in a huge variety of ways. It's physical position can be defined by any coordinate system. If it was undetectable then we couldn't see any distance from anywhere to anywhere else.
It not only has a physical presence that can be detected, measured and mapped, it contains energy that can also be measured.
It can be compacted by traveling at it with speed and stretched by traveling away from it at speed.
According to Einstein, it can be bent and twisted and we have done any number of experiments that confirm this view.
As I said at the start, it has physical attributes that can and have been detected, and defined.

Do we know what it actually is?

It is the partner to matter that together gives us an animated Universe. It is the "yen to the yin"

Either one by itself can't do that.
Matter can not be defined without spacetime, and spacetime has nothing to define it without Matter.
On their own both cease to exist, and leave us with pre Big Bang.

Hope that doesn't confuse you even further..

20

General Science / Re: force btw 2 diametrically magnetized magnet & that of 2 axially magnetized same?

« on: 15/12/2015 02:10:03 »

I am certainly no expert and can conclusively tell you nothing on this subject but you invited ideas as well, so I offer this.
A permanent magnet has it's electrons arranged so that each of the electron magnetic moments will be, on average, lined up. Then the material can produce a net total magnetic field.
As the strength of that magnetic field is dependant on the number of atoms available to have their electrons so arranged, I can see no reason for a difference in field strength in the same size material, between axial or diametric alignment.

Not Guarantied correct but it makes sense to me.

Hope it helps.