M.C.Malkemus:

chipdatajeffB:

M.C.Malkemus:

  it seems to be moving very slowly, or not at all.

This (the underlined part) is not observed. The frequency is shifted, but the velocity hasn't changed. Light doesn't "get tired" ... at least, it's not observed to do so.

 Agreed. I'm only referring at this point to what light looks like moving away from us, not towards us. The point I wish to make is that if light is moving away from us, it appears to move very fast when closer to us, and slower when farther away, even though it is moving at the same speed. If a light year sphere is added (increasing our depth of view by one light year) to the 10 billionth sphere from earth, it doesn't add much extra volume to what is already there, and the difference is hardly noticeable.

Then I understood you correctly. My point is that light does NOT appear to move slower when coming from a galaxy that is farther away. It is redshifted in frequency, not velocity.

M.C.Malkemus:

Oddly enough, the one thing that would support my theory more than anything else, is if a phenomenon exists that we cannot test for: atomic shrinkage.

Particle physicists can and do calculate the size of atoms. While this is not the same as measuring them directly, it can be applied to changes in radioisotopes. As far as I'm aware, the matter/energy balance in radioactive is maintained, so that changes in mass and volume are not anomalous. Hmmm ... I do not know the precision to which this is known (whether it's perfectly balanced). I know that's the principle we assume, in general. It certainly is not out of balance on a scale to equal the disparity between normal baryonic matter and observed energy versus dark matter and dark energy.

If all atoms are slowly shrinking, this would give rise to many of the known observations we see in the universe with a simple explanation. 

I suppose there would be one way to prove it. If we could observe other moons 'traveling away from thier hosts' at exactly the same rate as our moon does from the earth, this could establish a constant for atomic shrinkage.

Well, no, the rate of retreat would depend on their relative masses, which would surely be different from our system's in most cases.

chipdatajeffB : This appears to be true, Quote "It is redshifted in frequency, not velocity.", and by this effect yields energy to space-time displacement between two seperate inertial observers, right?

Primordial:

chipdatajeffB : This appears to be true, Quote "It is redshifted in frequency, not velocity.", and by this effect yields energy to space-time displacement between two seperate inertial observers, right?

Is it axiomatic that a change in frequency equals a change in energy? I pose that as a question, not a challenge.

More to the point, how would this support -- or not -- the proposed shrinkage conjecture?

chipdatajeffB:

 

Is it axiomatic that a change in frequency equals a change in energy? I pose that as a question, not a challenge.

More to the point, how would this support -- or not -- the proposed shrinkage conjecture?

Good questions Chip. I'm not sure.

If the redshift represents velocity, then space should be expanding as the current standard model says, and... we should be able to view galaxies at the distant regions of space slowly dim as they move outside of our possible field of vision (while not moving faster than light, they would in effect be moving faster than light as far as we are concerned).

If the redshift is a frequency change, then it could be support of the shrinkage idea. The frequency would change as the galaxies shrank relative to each others position in space, the space in effect would be larger between galaxies, and the light would be 'catching up' as it red shifted.

Until dark matter is proven through observation, I doubt we could nail down one redshift or the other. 

Considering how long the scientific community has been trying to prove DM without success, it does seem prudent that we should put some of our research dollars into other ideas. We might get lucky.

Chip, I think you are correct in the physics ideas. Thanks.

I recall reading that there started out to be 20 or so spheres that maintained the standard for the kilogram, and since they were made, many of them now have different weights, even though they are well protected from wear and tear. A clue to atomic shrinkage?

One thing would be certain: if in the future, as the moon continues to recede away from us; if the same relative size against the solar eclipse is maintained, we've got a sure candidate for atomic shrinkage support.

Considering the precision with which measurements of this type can be made, it shouldn't be hundreds of years... perhaps decades before this could be verified. Because if the moon is simply receding away from us, eventually the solar eclipse should show more corona, and be much less spectacular than it is today.

chipdatajeffB : Quote  "More to the point, how would this support -- or not -- the proposed shrinkage conjecture?"  answer, E=MC^2 energy shrinks with change in time mass shrinks with change in time.

Chip: I'm in the M.C.Malkemus Mode trying to picture his view. It is possible that instead of space expanding time undergoes this change and energy would take the hit. Not that I know this but just thinking about it as a concept. I sort of think of time differently than main stream. I see time of at least 3 dimensions. Much the same as space. Time must have phases or the velocity of light would not be constant relative to inertial matter.

Primo, I think of time as simply change. Since there is no change inside a black hole or a singularity (as far as we can know), there is no time either. In my concept of a big collapse, outside the visible universe, there is no time as there is no change either, just a mass of subatomic particles that remain unchanged without time, until such time as conditions are right for them to collapse into a visible universe. So time is the change of physcial objects.

If we had immortal bodies, would we think of time in the same way as most people take it to be? 

I doubt it.

 Once I started thinking of the cosmic background radiation as being all around us, which it is, it then became impossible to accept BBT. Here's why:

If we go in any direction as far as we can go, we are supposed to arrive at the big bang event. If BBT were correct, it seems logical that we would find one location in the cosmos that would satisfy this, not all locations equidistant around us. I mean, we don't observe extreme curvature of space all leading to a single location which would be the big bang event, do we? 

Can anyone explain why this should be, if BBT is correct?

M.C.Malkemus:

If we go in any direction as far as we can go, we are supposed to arrive at the big bang event. If BBT were correct, it seems logical that we would find one location in the cosmos that would satisfy this, not all locations equidistant around us. ...

The BBT predicted the CMB. That is, if the universe were at its creation extremely hot and then immediately expanded exponentially, and kept expanded, then the residual energy of the creation event would be redshifted by an amount you could calculate.

Furthermore, it would be more or less consistent (in temperature/wavelength) no matter where you looked from a given point in the universe.

As well, you wouldn't be able to point to one spot (from anywhere) and say "That's where it all started" because that spot would be all around you -- and all around every other spot -- simultaneously.

The BBT states that the creation event was not an explosion in space and time, but an explosion of spacetime.

From another thread: 

chipdatajeffB:

If the Universe "sprang" from a singularity and has since been continuously expanding, then the bits that came first would now be everywhere around us. In that sense, we are truly now "inside" the point -- that is everything is what was that point.

In order to show it to someone, you'd then literally have to show them everything.

It is not as simple (!) as rewinding the universal clock back to some epoch very near the beginning and pointing at something and saying "There!"

As you wind the clock back, everything moves back with it. No matter how often you stop and try to point to the origin, the origin is still everywhere. If you could get to the first fraction of a second after the instant of the original event, you'd still have to point everywhere. And at that early epoch you wouldn't have a place to stand and point ...

By this reasoning (which matches the Big Bang fairly well) there is no place where it all started. Such a place would be mathematically undefined, but such a time can be calculated. At that instant was everywhere created simultaneously--and afterward it continuously grew (expanded).

That the CMB has been discovered, and is so uniform (to an astonishing precision), is one of the greatest supports of the BBT.

M.C.Malkemus : To me Time supports existance in three dimensions that propagate equally in magnitude in three dimensions of time I refer to this as a NOW, in order for other things to exist relative to, they must exist in one of these relative dimensions in either one of these states( i.e. a constant rate of change in the rate of change in time, or as in an accelerated change in time change in which case they will always be in my relativistic past time relative to me). By being in my past due the velocity in time required for an interaction to catch me and there by allowing me to percieve their existance, I percieve this concept of this interaction as SPACE. I think of it as relativistic time past in three time dimensions. If relativity really does derive black holes why does the relativistic time of a black hole reach its boundry at the event horizon and yet it retains a spacial volume, if space and time components have identical transformation rates of relativistic change in relativity. Just think about it. In my concept only a singularity of both space and time exist in the form of time-time not space-time.

G'day from the land of ozzzz

It looks like people accept that there is an event horizon.

No one has ever seen one.

This paper is quite interesting

Primo, interesting concept...

G'day from the land of ozzz

This is quite interesting

Harry,

What I find especially intreguing in this article is the following:

"Yet both Einstein - who derived the entire theory of
general relativity - and Karl Schwarzchild - who originally solved the field equations
exactly - both explicitly denied the existence of singularities in physical reality... 

...All of these facts, however, seem to be of little importance to those who have made it their life’s work to
pursue an avenue of research that is based entirely upon a mathematical expression that
has no physical basis."

M.C.Malkemus : You are right, they both had reservations about the singularity. I have come to a point where I see both using uncertainty, it's similar to schrodinger's cat, as you approach the event horizon it is non existant however after you enter the event horizon it becomes real and you find yourself having entered the singularity instantaneously ( a non existant sphere ) and the outer universe would be non existant, because the Schwarzschild radius is only relative to the external observer, in other words the event horizon and the singularity are the same point in  (NOW time) that is similar to proper time that has little relationship( possibly in one time dimension) to the observer's time external to the event horizon.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

It seems that some of you like to read.

This is quite interesting.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Understanding the parts within the universe will lead us to a better understanding of the universe.

Black holes or so called black holes in the past had been labelled with ad hoc ideas.

This link is quite interesting. It is not the only link that questions the reality of the so called black hole

Harry, the math of this one

(http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0402) is about one light year ahead of my understanding...

M.C.Malkemus : The math is complecated but the idea is basic to my idea of relative magnitude here referenced (proportioality)  the relative appearance / effect of either infinity or zero as absolutes is dependent on relative seperation from which the observation is taken. The proportionality aspect is more like the ratio of characteristic of dimensions relative to the observer. Entropy is the mechanisum of correction yielding a more perfect absolute to an exponentially geometric progressive change relative to an observer's position, to me. Just think about it. The true reality of this becomes more clear to a person when the math is used.