1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could dark energy simply be gravity?

« on: 02/03/2014 20:51:54 »

Of course we should all strive to keep an open mind. But, if we skip all basic physics such as the law of inertia, we may end up in a situation entirely without any undisputed facts - and that is more metaphysics or religion than science. Not that such a theory necessarily is wrong, only that it is beyond falsification.
To say that mass is not constant, energy of movement is not constant etc. is a possiblity, yes. But I think it would be more fruitful to base ourselves on observations, investigate inconsitensies and maybe reformulate theories that remove the inconsitency observed

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could dark energy simply be gravity?

« on: 24/02/2014 20:05:17 »

The model of the occilating Universe implies that the wavelengh must be at least 26 billion years, because we are able to look 13 billion years back in time and nowhere we see any sign of contraction. That is possible, of course.
We could not be moving closer to the sun while loosing mass, however. That would contradict all our knowledge on physics, because it would mean that we loose energy even faster than we loose mass, and no explanation for that has been offered

3

New Theories / Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics

« on: 19/02/2014 21:02:31 »

The statement from ScientificSorcerer needs some supplement. Because of inflation, the Universe must be minimum 27.6 billion light years in diameter but could really be any size. Inflation theory is well established and cannot be ignored. You can say that you think it wrong for this or that reason, but you cannot ignore it

4

New Theories / Re: Big Bang and First Law of Thermodynamics

« on: 19/02/2014 17:50:50 »

The BB as traditionally explained by science certainly violates the first law of thermodynamics. And what about the third law? It says that the Unirverse eventually will end up in a state where no mechanical energy can be produced. So, if masses exist at that point they must be either be collected in one point, a huge black hole, or be outside each others observation horizon. Otherwise it would be possible to create mechanical energy by mutual interaction between masses.
But a black hole would be radiating as shown by Hawking and that could in principle be utilized for mechanical energy. Same goes for any mass even the slightest above absolute zero temperature.
So, the only way to preserve the third law would be to imagine an end scenario somewhat in line with that proposed by ScientificSorcerer

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could dark energy simply be gravity?

« on: 18/02/2014 20:29:01 »

From what I read elsewhere, I understand that the model of the skrinking universe also include that the masses are reduced - not just the sizes of the object. That makes the model a bit complicated:
If the reducing is linear, you need to assume that the mass of the earth and the sun was about 10% larger 1.3 billion years ago. It also implies that the orbit of the Earth was much closer to the Sun at that time. These two effect combined means that the radiation Earth received from Sun was about 30% larger and the temperature of the Earth by simple heat balace must have exceeded the boiling point of water. However, we know that liquid water existed on earth at that time. So something need to be added to the theory in order to explain that

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could dark energy simply be gravity?

« on: 10/02/2014 21:27:59 »

I concede that if there is no absolute scale, the objects in the Universe could be skrinking rather than the total Universe expanding. In that case the Big Bang may never have happened. But would that not mean that the background radiation presently interpreted as the afterglow of the Big Bang would need an alternative explanation? And would that model of the Universe not eventually contract into a single object (the big crunch) due to the normal gravitation?

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could dark energy simply be gravity?

« on: 06/02/2014 20:20:57 »

Whicb observations or theories support the hypothesis of electromagnitism?

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could dark energy simply be gravity?

« on: 03/02/2014 08:51:50 »

Good point. However, since the remote galaxies are subject to the other relavistic phenomenas such as time dilation, there is no reason to believe that the masses will not increase as well. And the observers at the edge of the universe will of course see us as subject to time dilation and mass increase. That follows from the principle of relativity

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Could dark energy simply be gravity?

« on: 02/02/2014 15:39:34 »

The Universe is expanding. Because of the "Inflation" era, it is assumed that part of the Universe is moving faster than light and is thus outside our event horizon. However, that means that somwhere, near the edge of the observable Universe, the objects are moving very close to the speed of light. According to the theory of relativity, these objects must have a very high mass and the gravitational force of these objects must be nearly infinite. Why would this force not be sufficient to explain the accelleration of the universal expansion?

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did entropy reduce in the Big Bang?

« on: 14/07/2013 17:19:53 »

 Yes, with the formation of matter, the construction of a Catnot engine became possible. But since it was not possible before,  as far as I can see, this means that the entropy decreased during the formation of the hydrogen/deuterium. So it seems that there is a contradiction between the thermodynamic laws and the Big Bang theory here?

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did entropy reduce in the Big Bang?

« on: 14/07/2013 11:40:24 »

A Carnot machine works by taking in energy from a reservoir at higher temperature and deposing that energy in a reservoir with a lower temperature. In the process part of the  heat energy is converted into mechanical energy. In the process the entropy increases. If all temperatures are uniform, there will be no colder reservoir in which to deposit the energy and no mechanical energy can be created. This the entropy cannot increase and is thus at its maximum.

That matter can be converted to energy is an everyday experience - what is really challinging is the opposite process.

Since there is no maximum wavelength of a photon (at least what we know of) in principle you could use any wavelength for propulsion (ignoring the practical problems, of course)

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could the Moon drive Earth's magnetic dynamo?

« on: 13/07/2013 13:10:41 »

We know that the Moon drags on Earth's crust  and especially on the oceans by tidal effects and that causes the rotation of the Earth to slow down. It has been proved that the days were shorter in the distant past. Since the core of the Earth is not glued to the crust, the core can move independent of the crust.
So, in short, you must be right

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Did entropy reduce in the Big Bang?

« on: 13/07/2013 12:52:21 »

During the Big Bang, as I understand it, particles spontaneously formed when the Universe had expanded and cooled sufficiently to allow formation of matter.

On the surface this seems likely, but on second thought this scenario seems to contradict basic thermodynamics:
Before the condensation, the Universe had a high, but uniform temperature, and it would have been impossible to construct a working Carnot machine. After, energy imbalances came into existing, and the construction of a Carnot machine became possible. Thus, entropy must have decreased.

We already know that matter can convert into energy. Now my question is: Do we have any proof that matter can form from energy? If that is possible. it should be possible to construct a perpetuum mobile by compressing photons

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How are inertia and gravity related?

« on: 06/07/2013 11:10:34 »

Well, it is true that generalizing is ALLWAYS, without exception, dangerous. However, I work with scientists (ok, no physicists) all the time. Most are interested in their career and their next paper, only (generalizing again). Nice to hear that not everybody is like that. Still, I believe that amateurs are sometime better thinking out of the box, simply because they are less aquainted with the tratidional thinking pattern.
But we are drifting away from the original subject, now.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How are inertia and gravity related?

« on: 05/07/2013 06:21:54 »

[Looking for things like this is exactly what physicists do, i.e. it's their job by definition. [/quote]
Professional scientists tend to work with projects with high probability of success, even though the result might not expand our understanding significantly. To do the opposite is a sure way to put a promising career behind you.
Moreover, often amateurs, not burdened by ruling paradigms, are better thinking out of the box. Think of Albert Einstein who did the most revolutionary thinking before he turned professional scientist.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Inertia and gravity

« on: 04/07/2013 20:13:25 »

It IS easier to say than to do. But without ambition, you go nowhere. With ambition, well maybe

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Has the speed of light changed since the Big Bang?

« on: 04/07/2013 17:40:39 »

Why is it so difficult to believe that faster tahn light travel is impossible? According to the theory of relativity it certainly is impossiblem at least in space-time. Since we do not know anything about the higher dimensions, we can speculate that it is in fact possible there. But even so, we face some paradoxes, bacause faster than light travel also implies that it is possible to travel backwards in time. So you will never have to buy another burger, just go back in time and eat the same one again?
Is it because accepting the speed of light limitation, we acknowledge that there are places we can never reach, information we will never be able to extract? quite contrary to traditional scientifical thinking.
I confess that I dream of faster-than-light travel myself, but the hard facts as we know them are not supporting that dream

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Inertia and gravity

« on: 04/07/2013 17:18:43 »

My point, exactly. However, could we develop such a basic principle, we might be able to advance our understanding of Cosmos. At this stage even some wild idea would be worth considering.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Inertia and gravity

« on: 04/07/2013 05:13:56 »

What is the physical explanation for the equivalent behavior, then?

20

New Theories / Re: Can space exist without time?

« on: 03/07/2013 18:31:17 »

An interesting feature, as far as I can see, of the universe in the final stage prior to heat death is that it cannot hold  much mass. If masses are separated, the masses would reach a lower energy state by being assembled and thereby the entropy would increase. If enough mass is lumped together to form a black hole, it would emit Hawking radiation in an attempt to reach a lower energy state (and higher entropy)