chipdatdjeffB, is it possible that at the outer limits of space-time that the actual essense of space is stretching or expanding faster than C but within the contents of small areas at that outer limits C remains constant. Thanks for the reading material. Oh by the way it's my understanding that gravity is the force that affects matter on the large and super large scale of things but compressed into a singularity from a SMBH with millions or billions of solar masses wouldn't the gravitional energy accumulated break down sooner or later into something stronger that is capable of holding that amount of mass into a singularity. Lets say STRONGE  force. How can gravity have an affect on something so small. Could the great amount of gravity collapse into itself and under the massive pressure of a billion solar masses become STRONGE force on a large scale. I can't see gravity alone being capable of holding that much energy together without exploding. Got any ideas? Brooksquest, Primoridal or Harry Costas you are included in this discussion. 

Buckzumoff:

chipdatdjeffB, is it possible that at the outer limits of space-time that the actual essense of space is stretching or expanding faster than C but within the contents of small areas at that outer limits C remains constant.

The currently prevailing view is that nothing is actually moving faster than C, but that the redshift that gives that appearance is the result of the expansion of spacetime itself. This is an important distinction for one of the following points. However, there are also hypotheses about the curvature of spacetime being greater at distant epochs, which also makes a certain amount of sense depending on what you think the initial conditions were. Einstein's view of C is that it is locally constant -- which means from the viewpoint of a local observer, not from the viewpoint of a photon, for example. That would imply that C is universally constant -- or perhaps in better words: locally constant throughout the universe.

Thanks for the reading material. Oh by the way it's my understanding that gravity is the force that affects matter on the large and super large scale of things but compressed into a singularity from a SMBH with millions or billions of solar masses wouldn't the gravitional energy accumulated break down sooner or later into something stronger that is capable of holding that amount of mass into a singularity.

I see what you mean. However, a lot depends on what you define gravity to be. An emerging trend among cosmologists is to treat gravity as equivalent to spacetime itself. If Einstein was correct in saying that gravity bends spacetime, it is not much of a leap to suggest that the fabric of spacetime is gravity and that mass and energy interact with it to give it the properties we observe. That is covered in Patterns in the Void very well.

Lets say STRONGE  force.

There already is, or was, a strong nuclear force but what you describe seems different. If STRONGE is not just a typo, but could mean something like "strong E (for Energy)" then that works for discussion. However, remember that gravitons (the hypothetical particles that "carry" the gravitational force) have not yet been detected and are only postulated. So current thinking is not that gravity is a force transmitted by particles, but that it is a gradient like a field or a curved surface, its curvature or degree determined by the effects of mass and energy. How a force can act at a distance has always been a problem for theorists, whereas a gradient or "fabric" created at t=0 could more naturally be thought of as all-pervasive.

How can gravity have an affect on something so small.

The problem for gravity versus the other forces isn't the size of the particle acted upon, but the distance over which gravity acts. Only gravity acts on particles (of any size) at cosmic scales. That doesn't mean it doesn't act at local scales (e.g., molecular, atomic, or subatomic), only that it is overpowered at short scales by the other forces. Black hole theory addresses this by saying that beyond the event horizon of a singularity like a black hole, the curvature of spacetime (caused by gravity, equal to gravity) is so great that there is no distance over which the forces can act -- only some weird form of spacetime (where time itself is altered).

Could the great amount of gravity collapse into itself and under the massive pressure of a billion solar masses become STRONGE force on a large scale.

The emerging view of gravity as equivalent to spacetime itself avoids this conundrum. That is, it just "keeps on bending" as mass is added. The physics of the interiors of black holes, and of singularities, are at present only mathematically observable ... so ... who knows? String and M/Brane ideas are equally non-observable, but in what must be the extreme weirdness of those conditions who could say?

I can't see gravity alone being capable of holding that much energy together without exploding.

I could be wrong, but I think where our current observational abilities break down is well before neutron degeneracy. That is, we can theorize from demonstrable bases (nuclear physics) but once we get into the regime of neutron star core material we're at the limit of what we could observe at any proximity. So, while we can't demonstrate in a verifiable way that things break down further, we could postulate it. Hence black hole theory and beyond. However, gravity is completely capable theoretically of operating to close off a black hole beyond the event horizon. If it can close it off, then it could bottle it up. One of the things to understand about physics beyond an event horizon is the difference in time ... the current theories have time changing radically, which leaves plenty of room for gravity to close things off permanently (or until the black hole spins down and evaporates.

But my view is that beyond an event horizon things are just too weird. I can't say anything about such a regime since I don't have the math for it. Just because it's on my bookshelf doesn't mean I can understand it!

Got any ideas? Brooksquest, Primoridal or Harry Costas you are included in this discussion. 

chipdatajeff or brooksquest, somebody help me understand at a lower level the term glactrocentric periodicity. I need to understand that term before I can continue reading a paper presented by a group of scientists on anomalies in galatic redshifts recomended by Harry Costas. I think I'm in over my head on this one fellas. Can this be explained in simpler terms? 

Redshifts of galaxy clusters and some quasars exhibit a statistical "clumping" with an identifiable period. It's as though some force or oscillation of spacetime expansion is at work grouping these redshifts. Statistical studies have shown the effect exists and is not consistent with the CDM (cold dark matter) hypothesis.

It has been demonstrated in data sets for what are called local clusters (out to about 10 megaparsecs).

Galactocentric means "as viewed from our galaxy, i.e., from Earth" and periodicity means having a regular, repeating frequency. In the statistical studies, the components of motion of the Earth through the Milky Way, and of the Milky Way through the Local Cluster, and of the Local Cluster toward the Great Attractor have been taken into account.

If you were to measure the redshifts of galaxies in a distant (but observable) cluster, the accepted models of cosmology would lead you to expect some randomness in the distribution of the redshifts superimposed on a common redshift. In other words, the cluster as a whole would be at some cosmological redshift, and motions of the individual galaxies within the cluster would be at various rates in different directions.

What is observed in some cases (based on three primary data sets -- hardly a sweeping generality) is that the distribution of redshifts plots like a histogram with clearly defined "brackets" or "clumpings". These periodicities are superimposed on the general expansion, sometimes called the Hubble flow.

 Interesting point about expanding space time and whether anything is moving faster than c. If space time is expanding then "time" is not constant. If time is not constant then c isn't either. If you were to observe light within the expanding field it would appear to be constant. But, if you observe from outside the field of expansion you would see a change.

Space is space and time is time. The limiting speed of light allows us only to look back in time with distance. Space itself has nothing to do with time. Too bad we can't see into the future.

If space itself is expanding, then it either has anti gravity characteristics or it is expanding into emptier space. This all seems very difficult to accept if we take the time to put ourselves at other places of observation.

This of course leads back to the modeling problems of which way anything is actually moving based on a universal data reference (stationary) point. without knowing our actually motion is it very unlikely that we can produce a good model and a theory (such as BBT) to try to explain it.

Without considering what others, elsewhere might observe we are limiting our concept of the universe.

BQ 

brooksquest:

 Interesting point about expanding space time and whether anything is moving faster than c. If space time is expanding then "time" is not constant. If time is not constant then c isn't either. If you were to observe light within the expanding field it would appear to be constant. But, if you observe from outside the field of expansion you would see a change.

Space is space and time is time. The limiting speed of light allows us only to look back in time with distance. Space itself has nothing to do with time. Too bad we can't see into the future.

If space itself is expanding, then it either has anti gravity characteristics or it is expanding into emptier space. This all seems very difficult to accept if we take the time to put ourselves at other places of observation.

This of course leads back to the modeling problems of which way anything is actually moving based on a universal data reference (stationary) point. without knowing our actually motion is it very unlikely that we can produce a good model and a theory (such as BBT) to try to explain it.

Without considering what others, elsewhere might observe we are limiting our concept of the universe.

BQ 

This argument is basically Newtonian. That doesn't mean it's bad, just limited. Newtonian (and older classical viewpoints) start to break down at very large scales and lookback times, and in relativistic regimes. Light exists in a relativistic regime.

When we say C is locally constant, that means from the viewpoint of the photon, and in the photon's reference frame. If we observe that frame at another velocity that is very different from C (e.g., in Einstein's thought experiments concerning light "passing" another observer), then we are dealing with a relativistic regime.

The relativistic viewpoint is that space and time are different aspects of the same thing. An emerging view is that spacetime exists within some kind of fabric (or field) and that gravity is that fabric/field.

If space had nothing to do with time, we might very well be able to look into the future ...

As to "absolute" reference points, or the lack thereof, that is not a problem if you think relatively (not necessarily relativistically) ... another way of saying the same thing is that we can easily point to an object in space, give it coordinates, and even locate it in time, if we think relatively. For example, we can say that Sirius is about 8 light-years' distant, which places it at about 48 trillion miles from us and, at the same time, says that the light we observe right now from Sirius is 8 years "old".

What we can't do is say that Sirius (or any other object) is at such-and-such a location relatively to the universe as a whole. The best we can do in that regard is to say that the object lies with our observable horizon. We can't say where we are, in relation to an absolute reference point.

We can DEFINE a reference point, to our heart's content. We just can't demonstrate that it is located at a specific place relative to a universal data reference (stationary) point. In fact, we can't demonstrate there is such a stationary place.

We can demonstrate that we have actual motion which includes several different components. We can do the same for a great many other objects. As far as I know, the only objects for which this becomes a problem for current theories is those which lie at cosmological distances (where the measurement uncertainties are likewise greater than at local scales). You can certainly say there are "edges" to our understanding and that these limit our understanding, but it doesn't mean we can't work quite well within those limitations. And new methods, technologies, and observations continuously expand those boundaries.

 Wouldn't it be great if "light" was instantly seen everywhere without a speed limit? Newton thought gravity was instantaneous but we have applied c to it as well. I really do wish we could confirm that the only possible reason for red-shift at cosmic distances is due to recessive motion. I am sure that even you will admit that there might be other causes for what we observe.

I had an idea about freezing an object to see if its gravity changed. This would help tell us if gravity is some type of wave form. Freeze the molecules, freeze the wave activity. I have read about molecular levitation during freezing experiments. Any thoughts?

Cosmology is a great place to think and imagine as well as observe. Kool stuff!

BQ 

brooksquest:

 Wouldn't it be great if "light" was instantly seen everywhere without a speed limit? Newton thought gravity was instantaneous but we have applied c to it as well. I really do wish we could confirm that the only possible reason for red-shift at cosmic distances is due to recessive motion. I am sure that even you will admit that there might be other causes for what we observe.

Well, we have measured gravitational redshift and it agrees almost perfectly with predicted rates versus mass and circumference of the star. So, there certainly could be a gravitational component, though very small in comparison to recessional velocity redshift at cosmological scales.

I had an idea about freezing an object to see if its gravity changed. This would help tell us if gravity is some type of wave form. Freeze the molecules, freeze the wave activity.

This already has been tried. You could probably Google up  a link to the experiment.

I have read about molecular levitation during freezing experiments. Any thoughts?

I don't see how that would have an effect. Temperatures near absolute zero abound in space and don't seem to have that effect. The only freezing that I'm aware of in levitation experiments is the freezing of the superconductor materials which allow "frictionless" current that powers the levitating magnets. Perhaps the levitated material's characteristics are enhanced by freezing, but I haven't read of it.

Cosmology is a great place to think and imagine as well as observe. Kool stuff!

Indeed. Not a bad pun, either.