0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If you apply this idea to the universe, as you get further and further from Earth, you will see the speed of light from distant galaxy's is actually getting slower and slower from our view point.
The further from Earth you get, the faster objects are moving away from us, and when distant galaxy's reach the speed of light the radiation from them will never reach us, (effective speed relevant to us being zero) so this will mark the end of the observable universe.
Hello, My Name is Lesley William Schultze, and I have figured out how big the universe is, sort of. Our perception is the size we can 'see' by monitoring distant sources of radiation, in particular light and similar forms of radiation that travel over the universe very quickly, and this is the size of the universe that can be 'proven' but in reality the universe is far larger than is possible to conceive, I will explain further. I have recently discovered that every galaxy in the universe is moving away from every other galaxy at some considerable speed, and this got me thinking big, please stay with me whilst I explain my though process in layman's terms. If a bullet is fired from the barrel of a stationary gun at 800 Meters Per Second, (MPS) the bullet travels at 800 MPS as it falls to the ground. If this bullet is fired from the front of a train moving at 800 MPS the total speed of this bullet will be 1600 MPS as it falls to the ground. If fired from the rear of the train the ground speed to a stationery observer at the point where the bullet is fired is effectively zero, the start speed of the train and the travel speed of the bullet will cancel each other out, the bullet simply falls to earth. If you apply this idea to the universe, as you get further and further from Earth, you will see the speed of light from distant galaxy's is actually getting slower and slower from our view point. The further from Earth you get, the faster objects are moving away from us, and when distant galaxy's reach the speed of light the radiation from them will never reach us, (effective speed relevant to us being zero) so this will mark the end of the observable universe. In more detail if you are struggling with the idea - Assuming that each galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy, the combined speed of this over vast numbers of galaxy's is staggering, think of earth to Andromeda as a value of 1, then the next galaxy is added to this, then the next and so on, over thousands of galaxy's this adds up faster and faster the further away you get and this speed will eventually reach, then exceed the speed of light, so if you get far enough away the light will in fact be traveling away from us in all directions from our view point, meaning this is as far as we will ever see unless we travel closer to the source of the radiation. I have no formal qualifications or degree, this idea came to me in the shower and hope it is picked up by someone who can share the concept around, IDEALLY please call this Schultze's razor if you can, (because I am not dull but sharp!) and I would really appreciate any feedback or thoughts on this. Many thanks for your time. Lesley William Schultze. 03/01/2016 Axminster, Devon, UK
Quote from: LesleySchultze on 03/01/2016 01:19:45If you apply this idea to the universe, as you get further and further from Earth, you will see the speed of light from distant galaxy's is actually getting slower and slower from our view point. Lesley William Schultze.Congratulations.... You on obviously just the shear power of human analytical thought, (This is not sarcasm) have managed from limited information to very nearly almost come to the correct analysis of the situation.What is missing from your analysis is the fact that the speed of light is always the same for all observers no matter what their state of motion.When you shine a torch forward from the front of a train travelling at 800 MPS, the resulting light from your torch does not travel forward at the speed of light + 800 MPS, for any observer anywhere in the Universe. That light will always be seen to travel at the speed of light, no matter what your reference frame.Similarly, if you point your torch out the back of a train traveling at 800 MPS, the resulting light will still be seen by any and all observers to be traveling at the speed of light. Not more and not less.So you can never see the light from distant Galaxies getting slower and slower. In this Universe that is not allowed. That's why the speed of light is a constant.Yet despite those misconceptions your analysis came to a correct conclusion, as is understood by modern popular cosmology.Quote from: LesleySchultze on 03/01/2016 01:19:45The further from Earth you get, the faster objects are moving away from us, and when distant galaxy's reach the speed of light the radiation from them will never reach us, (effective speed relevant to us being zero) so this will mark the end of the observable universe. Change that to the further away you "look" rather than the further away you "get"and that statement is considered correct. Just not by the description you gave. You see the reason I change "get" to "look" is that the effect you describe is not attributed to Earth. It is attributed to the Universe. Where ever you may be in the Universe you will see the exact same effect centred on you. Everywhere is the centre of the Universe.With that cleared up, what we actually see when we look at Galaxies further and further away, is not the speed of light getting slower but the frequency carried by the light getting longer and longer.When we get to the point of Expansion that Galaxies are moving away at the speed of light, then the last of their light that can have any causal influence on our observable Universe will have a wavelength the size of our observable Universe. Whether we are capable of detecting it or not. More likely the wavelength would have stretched out of our detectable range long before light speed separation was achieved, and that Galaxy would just fade out of existence to us.But even the very last bit of light we ever detect from it will come to us at the speed of light. No slower.Well that is the current accepted view, and has been for the last 100+ years.There are no absolute truths in science. Just the closest approximations that fit all available data.Hope that helped..
.....I would really appreciate any feedback or thoughts on this.
PS - That doesn't mean I agree with everything he writes
If a train was traveling at the speed of light towards you with a light on the front, a light on the side and a light on the rear you would not see the train approach, you would see the side light as it passed then see the rear light as normal? And and if so why?
If the wavelength from the rear of the train is longer, (assuming it is visible at all) then does the light on the back of the train appear as a different color - by extension actual radiation from the rear of a very fast moving star with a longer wavelength have entirely different properties possibly from light from the front or sides?
Additionally, if the speed of light is fixed and cannot be compressed or stretched what happens to all the build up of light at the front of the train - an ocular / solar boom at some point if going faster than the light speed as the train passes you?
My mind tells me that the lights on the train should act the same way as a bullet fired or a sound wave, (twice the speed at the front, zero at the rear and normal from the side as it passes) but all seem to say that light has its own laws and its speed is constant, appearing as if from a static object where ever it is emitted from in relation to an observer regardless of the speed of the object that made the light.
On a tangent - could this also explain why no light escapes a black hole, the light is sucked in at equal or higher than light speed so the light remains static or trapped or possibly even moves backwards through space towards the black hole, and never escapes the gravity - so this is an example of light not moving at light speed relevant to an observer, even though the light is moving at light speed from the point of view of the light itself, from the point of the black hole it is stationery and invisible.
So as I understand it, sound is a wavelength, (compression waves) and can be compressed as it approaches, then correct as it passes and finally lengthened as it moves away - know as the Doppler effect and is well documented. yesThis basic wave structure is the same in all known waves that I can think of, the amplitude of the wave will reduce over distance, (for example sound volume reduction, pitch remains the same if source and destination are static) but the length of each wave will be the same at the source until this is no longer detectable. yesAs I understand from your comments light and all other forms of radiation in space do not follow the same rules, noIf a train was traveling at the speed of light towards you with a light on the front, a light on the side and a light on the rear you would not see the train approach, you would see the side light as it passed then see the rear light as normal? And and if so why? you only see light that directly comes to youIf the wavelength from the rear of the train is longer, (assuming it is visible at all) then does the light on the back of the train appear as a different color - by extension actual radiation from the rear of a very fast moving star with a longer wavelength have entirely different properties possibly from light from the front or sides?only if the train is travelling away from you and the light source is directly behind you.If this is the case, then all of the current thoughts on the universe structure, density, spacing and so on is potentially incorrect as all our current thinking based on the fact that light is a constant speed. light is a constant speed but a variable wave
My issue is that if all the points in the universe are moving away from all the other points at some speed, eventually, (maths again cannot lie as far as I know) if enough material existed the actual speed of the matter would have to exceed the speed of light for this rule to continue working. To explain further, if you had 10 galaxy's in a line, each evenly spaced and each moving away from each other at 10 miles per hour, you would see from left to right, (assuming the left galaxy is static in space for ease of maths, and my maths may be wrong here by the way but it shows the idea I hope) as below: 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 As you can see, if this carried on over millions of galaxy's your speed will add up to a number that would inevitably reach light speed, and keep going? This would be impossible by all accounts, but the maths points to it being likely.
I am struggling with the concept, it goes against logic, but agree that this seems to be the current idea of how this works.
You have assumed that something made of matter (like Galaxies) is actually moving through space away from other galaxies.There are two defined kind of movements so far in the Universe.
You correctly deduced that if more space is being created between Galaxies than they are either being pushed apart, or the density of space between them is increasing.
Space itself has nothing to expand
I don't know why links aren't allowed here as links support statements.
Then how can it bend? If it can bend, it can stretch, it can compress. Gravity Probe B proved space does distort, even to the extent that the spin of the earth drags space behind it.
So for every moment that passed there was now twice as much space as there was before. None of the quarks need have moved from where they found themselves in that first moment but after by our reckoning 13.82 Billion years that time translates into a hell of a lot of space. And whoever heard of the existence of space that does not exist between matter.
I remember reading about a theory a few years back originated by a fellow named Mark McCutcheon where he claimed that the acceleration of gravity was produced by this expansion. Does your theory recognize this expansion as a possible cause for gravity?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
If all the universe matter is consuming space time, and this pulls matter together as it 'eats up' all the space time between the 2 galaxy's, (demand and consumption is greater than the supply) I assume eventually all the material in the universe will group into larger and larger groups, eventually being only a handful of exceptionally dense and space time hungry black holes, these will then pull together over billions of years making all the matter in the universe into 1 big ball? If so at this point do you get another 'big bang' where it all kicks off again?
By extension - rather comically - if this is correct then Issac Newton's apple was actually thrown at him by space time, rather than falling on him.
"Isaac Newton (1675) and Bernhard Riemann (1853) argued that aether streams carry all bodies to each other. Newton (1717) and Leonhard Euler (1760) proposed a model, in which the aether loses density near the masses, leading to a net force directing to the bodies."
One point remains however that I am still not clear on - faster than light travel. If you are moving through a perfect vacuum with no gravity or other influence acting on you, then in theory you should be able to speed up indefinitely as there will be no resistance to counter this - so why would you be limited to light speed?
I assume eventually all the material in the universe will group into larger and larger groups, eventually being only a handful of exceptionally dense and space time hungry black holes, these will then pull together over billions of years making all the matter in the universe into 1 big ball? If so at this point do you get another 'big bang' where it all kicks off again?
If we are in a space time bubble, could we create one that is portable, and take it with us on long journeys, like an anti space time magnet - or warp drive, bend space time to travel in the gaps between fast and slow space time fronts possibly?