[guest39538]

If there was no other matter beyond the earth, the radius between the Sun and Earth would be the visual size of the Universe and the minimal size of the universe?

[puppypower]

The energy that had come from the sun would be moving at the speed of light, beyond this matter and would also be part of the substance of that minimal universe. That universe would have a tight matter core and a dilute energy halo that extends beyond it. In some respects it would look similar to an atom with a dense matter nucleus and an airy energy cloud.

[guest39538]

The energy that had come from the sun would be moving at the speed of light, beyond this matter and would also be part of the substance of that minimal universe. That universe would have a tight matter core and a dilute energy halo that extends beyond it. In some respects it would look similar to an atom with a dense matter nucleus and an airy energy cloud.

Interesting you relate this to being like atoms, which gives me an idea of a quantum-quantum infinite universe, Thanks.

What we observe as atoms, our universe from a forth observer outside of our visual universe could perceive our Universe to be atom like, a nucleus with an airy energy cloud that contains energy and dare I say it , information.



Maybe  our universe and knowledge is just the culmination of our scaling boundary limit and our visual Universe is a very small scale of the bigger picture.

[evan_au]

If there was no other matter beyond the earth, the radius between the Sun and Earth would be ... the minimal size of the universe?

If this was the size of your universe, you would be dead within a few hours.

This is because the light from the Sun takes about 8 minutes to reach the Earth. If there were nowhere else to go outside this tiny universe, the light from the Sun would quickly raise the entire universe to the surface temperature of the Sun - and that includes the surface of the Earth.

But in reality, there is lots of space for the Sun's light to expand into - and the amount of that space is increasing at an accelerating rate.

It is expected that the Earth will eventually be baked by the Sun, but maybe not before the Sun turns into a red giant.

[guest39538]

If there was no other matter beyond the earth, the radius between the Sun and Earth would be ... the minimal size of the universe?

If this was the size of your universe, you would be dead within a few hours.

This is because the light from the Sun takes about 8 minutes to reach the Earth. If there were nowhere else to go outside this tiny universe, the light from the Sun would quickly raise the entire universe to the surface temperature of the Sun - and that includes the surface of the Earth.

But in reality, there is lots of space for the Sun's light to expand into - and the amount of that space is increasing at an accelerating rate.

It is expected that the Earth will eventually be baked by the Sun, but maybe not before the Sun turns into a red giant.

I think you missed the point entirely.

I am not talking about an enclosed Universe, I am talking about a  visual universe inside of a universe.   Light diminishes at a radius to the observer in compliance with the inverse square law.

A minimal universe is the radius of the distance you can observe/see.

In example if you was to remove all the distant galaxies, we would only perceive the size of the universe to be the size of the milkyway. 


Matter reflects light, if there is no matter there is no light reflected, space does not reflect light, science does not observe space expanding , space does not red-shift, science observes red-shift of distant matter not of space.

''But in reality, there is lots of space for the Sun's light to expand into''

yes


'' - and the amount of that space is increasing at an accelerating rate. ''


No, the amount of space already exists and goes beyond the last matter that reflects/emits light.   There is no edge.

Consider it this way, If the sun was an observer, the sun could only see so far by its own light.

[chiralSPO]

If everything we saw in space was the light of our own sun reflecting off of other objects, we would not be able to see very far.

With the naked eye, we can see mercury, venus, the moon, mars, Jupiter and Saturn. With reasonable telescopes we can see a little bit farther away, to pluto.

Three parameters will determine how bright an object appears based on reflected light:
-how far is it from the source of light (sun)?
-how shiny is the object?
-how big is the object?

Venus appears very bright because it is so close to the sun, but Jupiter appears almost as bright because it is so much bigger than venus.

Some of the stars are as bright or brighter than Jupiter, and we can tell from parallax that they are many light years away. So either these objects are enormous, or they are extremely shiny. Unfortunately even if they were the most reflective surface possible, it wouldn't help much. I haven't used any equations yet, but if you try to calculate how big these objects would have to be to be so bright, they would end up being lightyears across themselves. This is unreasonable. The other potential explanation is that these stars produce their own light.

This is backed up by the fact that the spectrum of light given off by each of the stars is different from the spectrum of our sunlight.

[puppypower]

We measure the universe based on energy signals, from gamma to radio waves, from which we infer the properties of matter. We can't measure the matter directly, in real time. We measure the energy emitted from matter, that has traveled for long periods of time.

One concern I have with this approach is since energy is transmitting information about the matter, what about information entropy? How do we take onto account information loss, change and noise? If we send a signal of information into deep space, we don't expect this signal to stay perfect forever?

As an example of possible information entropy, even sparse matter in space, between a distant source and us, will follow the second law and need to increase entropy. An entropy increase will need an energy source, which is lacking locally in deep space, except for the various faint energy signals coming through from other locations. The energy information will cool or red shift as entropy absorbs it.

How does energy from 1 billion lights ago, avoid being altered by material entropy for billions of years? Is the vacuum of space a true vacuum? What about other forms of information entropy that distort the source signal?

In the case of the minimal universe, once the energy leaves the solar system, since all there is, is a vacuum of empty space without material, the signal will not have any material entropy based loss. The outsider will see a cleaner picture of us, than we can see, due to sparse materials that causes noise, between here and there.

[guest39538]

If everything we saw in space was the light of our own sun reflecting off of other objects, we would not be able to see very far.

With the naked eye, we can see mercury, venus, the moon, mars, Jupiter and Saturn. With reasonable telescopes we can see a little bit farther away, to pluto.

Three parameters will determine how bright an object appears based on reflected light:
-how far is it from the source of light (sun)?
-how shiny is the object?
-how big is the object?

Venus appears very bright because it is so close to the sun, but Jupiter appears almost as bright because it is so much bigger than venus.

Some of the stars are as bright or brighter than Jupiter, and we can tell from parallax that they are many light years away. So either these objects are enormous, or they are extremely shiny. Unfortunately even if they were the most reflective surface possible, it wouldn't help much. I haven't used any equations yet, but if you try to calculate how big these objects would have to be to be so bright, they would end up being lightyears across themselves. This is unreasonable. The other potential explanation is that these stars produce their own light.

This is backed up by the fact that the spectrum of light given off by each of the stars is different from the spectrum of our sunlight.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there is not other stars each with there own boundary radius.


''Three parameters will determine how bright an object appears based on reflected light:
-how far is it from the source of light (sun)?
-how shiny is the object?
-how big is the object?''


Yes

''With the naked eye, we can see mercury, venus, the moon, mars, Jupiter and Saturn. With reasonable telescopes we can see a little bit farther away, to pluto.''

and from the centre of any galaxy we would observe the same relative to that particular galaxy and what it contained.

[evan_au]

Matter reflects light, if there is no matter there is no light reflected, space does not reflect light, science does not observe space expanding

Even in this mini-universe with initially no matter beyond the orbit of the Earth, the solar wind is streaming past the Earth at 400-750km/s.

In just 1,000 years that will expand to a radius around 150,000 times greater than Earth's orbit. This is a considerable volume in which there is light absorbed, emitted and reflected, and science would observe matter expanding into space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind#Components_and_speed

space does not red-shift, science observes red-shift of distant matter not of space.

I agree that when we observe the red shift of galaxies we are observing the expansion of matter through space.

• But we also measure the expansion of light through space when measuring the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).
  
• Scientists have been trying to measure the expansion of gravity waves through space by its imprint on the CMBR (so far without success).
  
• Scientists would love to measure the expansion of Dark Matter through space, but unfortunately we don't know what it is, yet.
  
• Scientists would love to measure the expansion of cosmic neutrinos through space, but unfortunately it doesn't seem possible with our current technology.

Some astrophysicists consider that the expansion of matter (and light and neutrinos and probably gravity waves and dark matter and...) is carried along by the expansion of space.

In general relativity, mass bends spacetime. As mass spreads out, the bending of spacetime changes.

[guest39538]

In general relativity, mass bends spacetime. As mass spreads out, the bending of spacetime changes.

Your post was worded well with only truths of things  ''we are observing the expansion of matter through space.''


I am aware of general relativity and the rubber sheet analogy, however mass bends space-time! Minkowski space-time is xyz and t, it is not defined to be made of substance, and we know there no known aether, so what exactly do we presume is bending exactly?

I observe the wording is being bent to suit a purpose?

[alancalverd]

If there was nothing else, as you initially proposed, we could still send a rocket away from the sun, and thus expand the radius of visible objects, indefinitely. Or at least up to the Schwarzchild radius of your very small universe.

[guest39538]

If there was nothing else, as you initially proposed, we could still send a rocket away from the sun, and thus expand the radius of visible objects, indefinitely. Or at least up to the Schwarzchild radius of your very small universe.

Yes indeed sending a rocket away from the Sun would indeed expand the radius of observation , but only up until a point of vanishing point of the rocket as like used in technical drawing and perspective view or until a point where as light diminishes and the rocket no longer reflects light at a magnitude that we can observe.

If the Sun was a candle for example, the diminish of light at a radius would be before the perspective view loss.

[Colin2B]

I am aware of general relativity and the rubber sheet analogy, however mass bends space-time! Minkowski space-time is xyz and t, it is not defined to be made of substance, and we know there no known aether, so what exactly do we presume is bending exactly?

There is no presumption that any 'thing' is bending.
As you say spacetime is just a set of coordinates, the rubber sheet is an analogy, an illustration, it doesn't imply a physical thing - there might be a physical thing, there might not, but GR does not assume either way it just describes what happens.
Imagine the rubber sheet, usually shown with a square grid indicating x,y,z,t points equally separated, insert the earth the grid is distorted - the distances/time separations change, take away the rubber sheet and those separations are still there showing the distortion.

[guest39538]

I am aware of general relativity and the rubber sheet analogy, however mass bends space-time! Minkowski space-time is xyz and t, it is not defined to be made of substance, and we know there no known aether, so what exactly do we presume is bending exactly?

There is no presumption that any 'thing' is bending.
As you say spacetime is just a set of coordinates, the rubber sheet is an analogy, an illustration, it doesn't imply a physical thing - there might be a physical thing, there might not, but GR does not assume either way it just describes what happens.
Imagine the rubber sheet, usually shown with a square grid indicating x,y,z,t points equally separated, insert the earth the grid is distorted - the distances/time separations change, take away the rubber sheet and those separations are still there showing the distortion.

A parlour trick, Sorry Colin there is no rubber sheet, there is no shapes in space, shapes are just human definitions, you can fit any shape in space, you can put any idea into space, I.e a rubber ball let alone a rubber sheet. 


We are all inside a rubber space that bends and stretches, just because it extends the rubber sheet idea it does not  make it so.


We could just say there is invisible rods adjoining all mass, I need no sheets or rubber balls to say that.

So you are admitting I am correct and space-time is simply virtual vector space?


The single manifold is the xyz and t of mass in a 5th dimension of n-dimensional space?

In simple terms ,  space-time travelling through no time.

And if you admit that, then I have to admit a real time dilation of the 3rd state of time.



added- I do not go off topic, it is all linked therefore discussed.

[Colin2B]

A parlour trick, Sorry Colin there is no rubber sheet, there is no shapes in space, shapes are just human definitions, you can fit any shape in space, you can put any idea into space, I.e a rubber ball let alone a rubber sheet. 

Did you actually read what I said.

So you are admitting I am correct and space-time is simply virtual vector space?

Did you actually read what I said

The single manifold is the xyz and t of mass in a 5th dimension of n-dimensional space?

In simple terms ,  space-time travelling through no time.

And if you admit that, then I have to admit a real time dilation of the 3rd state of time.

Why do you always avoid discussion by introducing all these disconnected meaningless phrases eg "space-time travelling through no time".
Sounds like new theory to me, so let's keep it in your constant constant or whatever.
I don't intend to get involved in a meaningless discussion.
Im out of this one.

[alancalverd]

Yes indeed sending a rocket away from the Sun would indeed expand the radius of observation , but only up until a point of vanishing point of the rocket as like used in technical drawing and perspective view or until a point where as light diminishes and the rocket no longer reflects light at a magnitude that we can observe.

If the Sun was a candle for example, the diminish of light at a radius would be before the perspective view loss.

Apologies. Delete my previous! There is no outer limit beyond which the rocket would fail to reflect light. You would just have to wait a very long time between photons. The Schwarzchild radius of the sun is well inside the radius of the sun!

[guest39538]

Yes indeed sending a rocket away from the Sun would indeed expand the radius of observation , but only up until a point of vanishing point of the rocket as like used in technical drawing and perspective view or until a point where as light diminishes and the rocket no longer reflects light at a magnitude that we can observe.

If the Sun was a candle for example, the diminish of light at a radius would be before the perspective view loss.

Apologies. Delete my previous! There is no outer limit beyond which the rocket would fail to reflect light. You would just have to wait a very long time between photons. The Schwarzchild radius of the sun is well inside the radius of the sun!

We are talking from observation perspective , relative to us the object we can not see is not reflecting enough light or is past its vanishing point. 


scenario - candle in the center of huge dark warehouse, you can not see the walls, relative to you it would look a small universe.

[guest39538]

A parlour trick, Sorry Colin there is no rubber sheet, there is no shapes in space, shapes are just human definitions, you can fit any shape in space, you can put any idea into space, I.e a rubber ball let alone a rubber sheet. 

Did you actually read what I said.

So you are admitting I am correct and space-time is simply virtual vector space?

Did you actually read what I said

The single manifold is the xyz and t of mass in a 5th dimension of n-dimensional space?

In simple terms ,  space-time travelling through no time.

And if you admit that, then I have to admit a real time dilation of the 3rd state of time.

Why do you always avoid discussion by introducing all these disconnected meaningless phrases eg "space-time travelling through no time".
Sounds like new theory to me, so let's keep it in your constant constant or whatever.
I don't intend to get involved in a meaningless discussion.
Im out of this one.

Sorry.

[puppypower]

If you look at a star, its space-time well contracts as we move to the core of the star, due to GR/gravity. If you look at matter of the star, as we move to the core the matter gets closer/denser, consistent with the contracting distance in the space-time well. However, the energy and material frequencies will get faster as we head to the core; time speeds up. The distance variable of the matter parallels the distance variable of the space-time well, but the time element of matter goes in the opposite direction of the space-time well. 

In the core, time should be moving the slowest if we base time on space-time. However, the core is where we have the fastest matter and energy frequencies; fusion transitions and gamma frequencies. With respect to time, matter moves to the beat of it own drum.

As we move to the surface, space-time expands and time speeds up. The material gets less dense, which is consistent with space-time. However, now we have slower material and energy frequencies; IR. Matter/energy and space-time go in the opposite directions with respect to time, but in the same direction relative to distance.

There is a simple logic for this. If you look at acceleration; d/t/t, it is one part distance and two parts time. The second aspect of time is independent of the time in space-time. With Special Relativity, we are only concerned with velocity, which is d/t therefore you don't get two layers of time like we do with GR. From this one might conclude that the extra time, due to gravity, is connected to the mass, apart from space-time. 

A connection between mass and time can be demonstrated with a simple thought experiment.

Picture two space-time references, one is moving faster in time and the other is moving slower in time. I am on the faster reference dribbling a basketball. In this thought experiment I walk through a barrier and enter the slower reference. Since time is moving slower, I notice it takes longer for the basketball to bounce. Since I want to maintain a consistency, I decide to push the ball harder with extra force to compensate of the time lag. When time runs slower we need extra force to create a normalized ball movement.

After the ball hits the floor and rebounds back to my hand, I now notice the ball now appears to have more inertia for what appears to be the same normalized speed. The difference in time, if I try to normalize references, appears as a difference in force and inertia. Mass does not increase, therefore the extra inertia/force is connected to the time difference. The time connected to mass, adds to space-time, allowing time go opposite the space-time well.









 

[evan_au]

In the core, time should be moving the slowest if we base time on space-time.

Yes, this is my understanding of general relativity.

However, the core is where we have the fastest matter and energy frequencies; fusion transitions and gamma frequencies. With respect to time, matter moves to the beat of it own drum.

I disagree; this is my understanding of a kitchen oven:

• In the center of an oven, the electrical element (or gas flame) produces heat, in the form of visible red frequencies.
  
• On the outside of the oven, the temperature is lower - closer to room temperature. There is no visible radiation emitted, just infra-red with a much lower peak than the infra-red inside the oven.
  
• The oven is surrounded by layers of insulation, which keeps the heat in. The temperature inside is high (as are the frequencies emitted inside), and the temperature outside is low (as are the frequencies emitted).
  

The structure of a star is analogous to a kitchen oven:

• The heat-generating nuclear reactions occur in the center, at temperatures of millions of degrees; these high-energy nuclear reactions emit high-frequency gamma rays and high-energy particles.
  
• The light-radiating surface of the star is much lower in temperature, and emits photons of much lower frequency, mostly in the visible and infra-red regions of the spectrum.
  
• In between are layers of gas which insulate the inside from the outside, slowly transferring the energy by conduction, convection and radiation.
   

In the core, time should be moving the slowest if we base time on space-time. However, the core is where we have the fastest matter and energy frequencies; fusion transitions and gamma frequencies. With respect to time, matter moves to the beat of it own drum.

I think that this attempt to disprove general relativity is flawed, because it confuses the structure of a star with the structure of a kitchen oven.