pasala and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Let's try to compare the Newtonian mechanics with Minkowski spacetime:http://einsteinrelativelyeasy.com/index.php/special-relativity/11-introduction-to-spacetime-diagramsNewtonian mechanics - "In Newtonian mechanics, events are described using a three-dimensional Euclidean space time plus an independant scale of absolute time."

it is described by the spacetime interval ds2 = c2Δt2 - Δx2 - Δy2 - Δz2It also seems to me that the formula looks different from the four dimensions sphere (but I'm not sure about it.)

However, as it is stated - the Minkowski spacetime is a mathematical structure which set the time as one more dimension in space,

therefore - it is unreal universe structure.

Our real universe is represented correctly only by Newtonian mechanics.

Do you agree with that?

Quote from: Halc on 07/05/2019 14:06:04A 3D infinite universe is a valid philosophical interpretation of the universe, but not the only valid one.I think that A 3D infinite/finite Universe which is based on Newtonian mechanics is the ONLY valid universe.

A 3D infinite universe is a valid philosophical interpretation of the universe, but not the only valid one.

Quote from: Halc on 07/05/2019 14:06:04A 3D sphere is a finite thing. Arbitrarily large, sure, but if it is infinite, it is no longer a sphere. So this contradicts one of the other things that is clear to you.Do you mean that if you take X,Y,Z to the infinity - then we get an infinite 3D universe, (but it isn't a sphere).

A 3D sphere is a finite thing. Arbitrarily large, sure, but if it is infinite, it is no longer a sphere. So this contradicts one of the other things that is clear to you.

If so, I agree with you.I claim the following:1. The Universe is infinite 3D2. There is no curvature in our real universe.3. The CMB is a direct product of our infinite 3D Universe.4. Its age is also infinite

So, how can I prove it:

Based on black body radiation. This is the ultimate prove that our universe is infinite. I claim that if we set our galaxy under insulated enclosure - we should get the following:All the radiation from the galaxy will stay under this insulated enclosure.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body"Suppose the cavity is held at a fixed temperature T and the radiation trapped inside the enclosure is at thermal equilibrium with the enclosure. The hole in the enclosure will allow some radiation to escape. If the hole is small, radiation passing in and out of the hole has negligible effect upon the equilibrium of the radiation inside the cavity. This escaping radiation will approximate black-body radiation that exhibits a distribution in energy characteristic of the temperature T and does not depend upon the properties of the cavity or the hole, at least for wavelengths smaller than the size of the hole"So, if we will measure the radiation under this insulated enclosure, do you agree that we should get a perfect black body radiation?

Now, let's set 10Mpc of our universe under this kind of insulated enclosure.If we do so, I'm quite sure that the energy radiation should be in the range of 2.7K and it should also carry a black body radiation. So, we should get almost the same CMB that we measure (with one exception - redshift)

So, if we look at X dimension - there will be infinite 10Mpc insulated enclosure cube which are connected to each other.That will be the case also for Y and z dimensions.Now, what would be the impact if we eliminate the insulated enclosure between two nearby cubes?

As each one of them has a temp of 2.7K with black body radiation - it is quite clear that the two will keep the same temp and the same black body radiation.

However - now as the radiation comes from far locations - we should see the some redshift in the CMB.

Never the less, even if the value of a galaxy which is located at a distance of 13 BLY is 10 (for example), it doesn't mean that we should get all of this redshift in the radiation. It should represent the impact of all the galaxies/matter in that sphere.So, I can just assume that we might get all range of redshift up to 10, but the average should be much lower.

With regards to the redshift -As it comes from a galaxies which are located at the infinity - we should get wide mix of redshift up to the infinity.

However, the average should be exactly 1100.

Our real universe is represented correctly only by Newtonian mechanics. In Newtonian mechanics there is no curvature in the sphere. Therefore, in our real Universe there is no curvature.

If we do so, I'm quite sure that the energy radiation should be in the range of 2.7K

QuoteHowever, as it is stated - the Minkowski spacetime is a mathematical structure which set the time as one more dimension in space,In addition to the 3 spatial dimensions. It doesn't put time in space, but rather orthogonal to it.

Newtonian mechanics gives an incorrect prediction for the amount of gravitational lensing of light around the Sun. Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time around the Sun, does give the correct prediction for gravitational lensing.

There are no black holes under Newtonian mechanics. That requires curvature of space.

QuoteNow, let's set 10Mpc of our universe under this kind of insulated enclosure.If we do so, I'm quite sure that the energy radiation should be in the range of 2.7K and it should also carry a black body radiation. So, we should get almost the same CMB that we measure (with one exception - redshift)The temperature would be more uniform, but still hotter where galaxies are near.

You've not computed the temperature at all, but rather asserted it, which is hardly proof of anything.

QuoteI claim the following:1. The Universe is infinite 3D2. There is no curvature in our real universe.3. The CMB is a direct product of our infinite 3D Universe.4. Its age is also infiniteThe last one is on shaky ground since it seems to contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but there are those who hold such a view and attempt ways to get around that.

I claim the following:1. The Universe is infinite 3D2. There is no curvature in our real universe.3. The CMB is a direct product of our infinite 3D Universe.4. Its age is also infinite

However, the average should be exactly 1100.In an infinite universe, the vast majority of galaxies would have a redshift higher than that since only the ones within 45 BLY would exhibit that shift, and that's less than 1% of the universe.

Shell theorem should make radiation look isotropic even if your model of a finite, spherical universe is used. Shell theorem is normally used to describe gravity, but it should work here too because radiation intensity falls off at the exact same rate as gravitational strength does (the inverse square law): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theoremhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/sphshell2.html

QuoteAs each one of them has a temp of 2.7K with black body radiation - it is quite clear that the two will keep the same temp and the same black body radiation.I see what you're describing and there would be a background radiation something like that if everything stood essentially still relative to us, but that's not what we see. Your model does not account for the observed recession of all objects.

Quote from: HalcIt doesn't put time in space, but rather orthogonal to it.The idea of spacetime is brilliant with regards to the mathematical concept/structure. However, Minkowski have never ever claimed that in our real universe the time is orthogonal to the other 3 spatial dimensions.

It doesn't put time in space, but rather orthogonal to it.

So, Minkowski spacetime is a brilliant idea to set a calculation with regards to time/space for special cases.

We can't just take it to the extreme. As we do so, we get unrealistic results which set our universe as unreal universe based on that spacetime.

Quote from: HalcThere are no black holes under Newtonian mechanics. That requires curvature of space.Yes, I fully agree with that.

Therefore, there is no curvature in our real Universe

Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time, is a perfect solution for the gravitational lensing of light around the Sun and black holes, but it gives an incorrect prediction if we try to set it at the extreme and verify with it the whole infinite universe.

Why don't we use Einsteinian relativity to calculate the gravity forces between stars and planets? Why do we prefer Newton law?

Einsteinian relativity, which assumes a curved space-time is the ultimate tool for a special cases

and it gives the best perfect prediction for those cases. However, if we use that curved space-time as a module for our whole universe we get unrealistic results as it gets to the extreme and therefore, the predictions are incorrect.

Newtonian mechanics is the only ultimate tool for the prediction of our whole universe!

As in our real universe the time isn't orthogonal to the other 3 spatial dimensions

Any radiation that had been emitted from point A should move to the infinity and never ever come back!!!

However, we need to think about a galaxy as some sort of heat element in an oven.Once the oven is closed, and there is no heat loose, then the temp in the oven might go up to almost the temp of the heating elements.

In the same token, if we set the galaxy in insulated enclosure/oven - the temp in that oven should go up and meet almost the temp of the galaxy.

I didn't set the calculation for the expected temperature in 10Mpc insulated enclosure as I have no clue about the density of galaxies/satrs/matter in that size.

However, it is clear to me that if we do so, we should get exactly that 2.7 K temp.

Quote from: Halc[Infinite age] seems to contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamicsThe age of the Universe in infinite. Why do you claim that it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

[Infinite age] seems to contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Is it because you reject the idea of constant mass creation in the excretion disc around the SMBH.

This idea is much more stable and solid than the shaky ground about the curvature universe based on the mathematical structure of spacetime.

I know that it is very difficult for you to accept the idea of new mass creation.

Once you agree with that - you get full answer to the enigma of our universe.

Quote from: HalcIn an infinite universe, the vast majority of galaxies would have a redshift higher than that since only the ones within 45 BLY would exhibit that shift, and that's less than 1% of the universe.I agreeThe ultimate answer for that is the Shell_theorem as explained by Kryptid

In an infinite universe, the vast majority of galaxies would have a redshift higher than that since only the ones within 45 BLY would exhibit that shift, and that's less than 1% of the universe.

If we set the Shell_theorem on the infinite universe it is clear to me that the average impact of the radiation should be exactly at a redshift of 1100 (although this redshift represents a distance of only 45 BLY).

Quote from: HalcI see what you're describing and there would be a background radiation something like that if everything stood essentially still relative to us, but that's not what we see. Your model does not account for the observed recession of all objects.ThanksSo we agree that there would be a background radiation something like that, if everything stood essentially still relative to us.That's all I ask.

I see what you're describing and there would be a background radiation something like that if everything stood essentially still relative to us, but that's not what we see. Your model does not account for the observed recession of all objects.

The whole idea is that if we can hold the galaxies/matter in each 10Mpc cube, we should get that background radiation.My modeling gives a perfect solution for the observed recession of all objects/galaxies.

As both Andromeda and Triangulum are Spiral Galaxies, with rotational suppermassive black hole, they should have the requested power to generate Hydrogen Atoms in their core.

There is no possibility for animal to be created out of a dead body!

In the past, it was believed that the life on Earth had started in some sort of a blast or divine power.

We don't know how the first "living" spiral galaxy (or BH with excretion disc) had been created.

3. Acceleration of far end galaxies...Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec)

This also show why galaxies are moving in all directions while the furthest galaxies have the most recession speed.

but it gives an incorrect prediction if we try to set it at the extreme and verify with it the whole infinite universe.

However, if we use that curved space-time as a module for our whole universe we get unrealistic results as it gets to the extreme and therefore, the predictions are incorrect.

there is no curved space-time in our real universe.

Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec)

Quote3. Acceleration of far end galaxies...Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec) Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity. Newton would do it that way, but without relativity, you have no black holes, and you seem to require them for your beliefs.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:31:09Therefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec)Galaxies can't move at the speed of light, so your model breaks yet another law of physics.

Not 2.7K, but sure, there would be one.

The temperature of the heating elements is thousands of degrees. Why are you proposing that the 10 Mpc enclosure only gets to 2.7 then? To get that, energy would need to leave the box at a greater rate than it comes in from the outside. Your assertion describes a universe of infinite age, which is a steady-state model of sorts. In a steady-state model, the box argument works, but it predicts the wrong temperature. Are you asserting that stars burn at about 2.7K? If not, where is the heat going?

The shell theorem concerns being off-center in a shell of a uniform field or continuous radiation.It does not concern anything about more distant things being equally redshifted, something empirically shown to be otherwise. That difference is how they measure large distances.

A universe with infinite age predicts no redshift at all.

Quote from: HalcQuoteTherefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec) Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.I fully agree. We need the relatively in order to measure the speed between galaxies.

QuoteTherefore, theoretically, if all the new galaxies will move in one direction than after 1370 generations, the last one will move at a speed of light (1370 x 220 Km/s = 301,400 Km sec) Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.

I have used Newton in order to prove that based on "galaxies generations idea" we would get the real view that we see from our galaxy

We can't see galaxies at further locations, as they are moving away from us at a speed which is higher than the speed of light.

No, my model doesn't break any law.

Yes, based on Newton - they can move further away from each other at higher speed than light, if the distance is long enough.

In my explanation I have used 1370 generations of galaxies which are all moving in only one direction.

till the last one which moves away at 301,400 Km/s. (based on Newton)

Quote from: HalcSpeeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.I fully agree.

Speeds don't add that way, at least not under relativity.

If for example we will stay at galaxy at the middle - (galaxy no 685), the furthest galaxy in one direction is moving at 150,700km/s

while on the other side, the furthest galaxy also should move away at the same speed of 15,700 km/s.

However - I fully agree that we need to measure the velocities between the far end galaxies based on relativity.

At some point of distance, the relative velocity is almost the speed of light.

If we monitor the speed between two galaxies with a separation of 100,000 generations, we should find that based on Newton they are moving away from each other at 220,000,000 Km/s.

I'm quite sure that if we will set this modeling in a computer

It is clear to me that all the nearby galaxies around the Milky way had been created by the Milky way.

So we agree that infinite Universe with the same density (as we see) should get a CMB.

I hope that we also agree about the black body radiation in the CMB.

Quote from: HalcIn a steady-state model, the box argument works, but it predicts the wrong temperature. Are you asserting that stars burn at about 2.7K? If not, where is the heat going?The heat of the stars and galaxies are going to the infinity,

In a steady-state model, the box argument works, but it predicts the wrong temperature. Are you asserting that stars burn at about 2.7K? If not, where is the heat going?

while the heat of the CMB is coming from the infinity of all directions.

Therefore, the balance should set the CMB temp at 2.7K.

I agree with Fred Hoyle concept: Fred Hoyle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle"Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949.""Hoyle, unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe"

Hence, Fred Hoyle had estimated that galaxies have the ability to produce new matter

http://www.space.com/22586-milky-way-giant-black-hole-food.html"The new findings show definitively that most of the matter in the gas cloud surrounding the black hole is ejected out into space, which explains why it doesn't release light on its way in to be eaten."This is an indication that new matter is ejected from the Milky Way supper massive black hole.

it is clear that the supper massive rotatable black hole is the ultimate natural accelerator which can produce infinite quantity of new matter.

In any case, I agree with you that 10Mpc might be too small for the calculation.

So, how can we calculate the CMB in our infinite universe with infinite galaxies which are moving away from each other, while new born galaxies/new matter pop up everywhere in order to compensate (and therefore, the density is kept forever).

Quote from: HalcA universe with infinite age predicts no redshift at all.Can you please explain why you don't see a possibility for redshift in the CMB for infinite Universe with infinite age

with far away galaxies that are moving away from each other at a speed which is much faster than a speed of light (based on Newton)?

thanks for this information.

According to Einstein, they can't. It takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass up to the speed of light. How do you propose to give a galaxy more than infinite energy so that it can go faster than light?

Based on my theory, any baby galaxy is ejected from its mother galaxy at only 220Km/s.

So, I assume that Einstein has no problem with that.

Let me use the following example-Let's assume that we can create a rocket with 1370 stages.So, the main rocket carries 1369 rockets. The second rocket carries 1368 rockets,.... the last one doesn't carry any more rockets. It works as follow:We launch the main rocket from a fixed point in space. As it gain a speed of 220Km/s, it launches the second rocket. As the second rocket gain a speed of 220Km/s with regards to the main rocket, it launches the third rocket.So, let me ask you the following: Do you agree that the speed of the second rocket (at the moment of launching the third rocket) is 440 Km/s with regards to the fixed starting point?

What is the relative velocity between the fixed point in space to the last rocket?

What Einstein might say about it?

Why can't we add all the velocities?

I really don't see any violation in law.

Einstein is very clever and he is fully correct.I fully agree with him that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass up to the speed of light.However, he didn't consider the scenario which I have offered.

Based on my theory, any baby galaxy is ejected from its mother galaxy at only 220Km/s.This is very normal as most of the stars are ejected from the galaxy at that range of speed.So, I assume that Einstein has no problem with that.However, I discuss about ejection over ejection over... ejection.Each ejection represents a speed of only 220 Km/s.Let me use the following example-Let's assume that we can create a rocket with 1370 stages.So, the main rocket carries 1369 rockets. The second rocket carries 1368 rockets,.... the last one doesn't carry any more rockets. It works as follow:We launch the main rocket from a fixed point in space. As it gain a speed of 220Km/s, it launches the second rocket. As the second rocket gain a speed of 220Km/s with regards to the main rocket, it launches the third rocket.So, let me ask you the following: Do you agree that the speed of the second rocket (at the moment of launching the third rocket) is 440 Km/s with regards to the fixed starting point?

If so, let's continue with the launching process with the 4th 5th and the other entire rockets till the last one.So, do you see any violation of law in this process?

He would say that you always get a total velocity less than that of light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

ThanksIn the article it is stated:"According to the theory of special relativity, the frame of the ship has a different clock rate and distance measure, and the notion of simultaneity in the direction of motion is altered, so the addition law for velocities is changed. "So, they discuss about the "frame of the ship". It is clear that for local aria those formulas are perfectly OK.However, we discuss now about the infinite open space and therefore It is totally different scale.

Einstein didn't know the total size of our Universe.

Let me ask you the following based on the following example:We stay at galaxy BIf we look to our left side - we see galaxy A at a distance of 13 BLY that is moving away at almost the speed of light. If we look to exactly to the opposite side (right) - we see galaxy C at a distance of 13 BLY that is moving away at almost the speed of light. Therefore -The relative velocity between A to B is almost the speed of light, the relative velocity between B to C is also almost the speed of light - and A B C is located on the same direct line.Hence, the distance between A to C is 26 BLY.What is the relative velocity between galaxy A to galaxy C?

Let's make it more difficult:If we jump to galaxy C, I assume that we should see a similar view.If we look ahead at the same ABC line we see a galaxy D at a distance of 13 BLY which also moving away at almost the speed of light. Let's continue to jump from D to E and so on till the 11th galaxy - K. Hence, there are 10 segments of 13BLY between those 11 galaxies.The distance between galaxy A to galaxy K is 130 BLY.In each segment we see that the relative speed between the galaxies (on that segment) is almost the speed of light.So, what is the relative velocity between A to K?Is it still " less than that of light"?

QuoteThe distance between galaxy A to galaxy K is 130 BLY.In each segment we see that the relative speed between the galaxies (on that segment) is almost the speed of light.So, what is the relative velocity between A to K?Is it still " less than that of light"?Yes, it's still less than the speed of light and for the same reason that the speed of C relative to A is below the speed of light. It gets closer and closer with each galaxy, but never quite gets there.

The distance between galaxy A to galaxy K is 130 BLY.In each segment we see that the relative speed between the galaxies (on that segment) is almost the speed of light.So, what is the relative velocity between A to K?Is it still " less than that of light"?

The relative velocity between A to B is almost the speed of light, the relative velocity between B to C is also almost the speed of light - and A B C is located on the same direct line.Hence, the distance between A to C is 26 BLY.What is the relative velocity between galaxy A to galaxy C?

If galaxy A is moving away from galaxy B at 90% the speed of light to the left while galaxy C is moving away from galaxy B at 90% the speed of light to the right, then the speed that galaxy C looks like it's moving from the reference frame of galaxy A would be 99.45% the speed of light (based on the calculator I posted earlier).

Let's make it more difficult:Hence, there are 10 segments of 13BLY between those 11 galaxies.The distance between galaxy A to galaxy K is 130 BLY.

In each segment we see that the relative speed between the galaxies (on that segment) is almost the speed of light.So, what is the relative velocity between A to K?Is it still " less than that of light"?